Land and Resource Management Plan for the Inyo NF

 EIS

 Part A

 Part B

 Part C

 EIS Appendix

 Part A

 Part B

 Part C

 Part D

 Part E

 FEIS and Plan Maps

 Preferred Alternative

 Facilities and Recreation-North Half

 Facilities and Recreation-South Half

 Visual Resource-North Half

 Visual Resource South Half

 Rare II Study-North Half

file:////Nas1/public/USDA Forest Plans/Inyo/Inyo.htm (1 of 2) [1/14/2002 4:29:56 PM]
 Rare II Study-South Half

 Forest Plan

 Part A

 Part B

 Record Of Decision

file:////Nas1/public/USDA Forest Plans/Inyo/Inyo.htm (2 of 2) [1/14/2002 4:29:56 PM]
I 

i 

I 

I 

I 

i I

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

i 

I 

I 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

i I

I 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

4 

# 

t 
lnyo National Forest 

Pacific Southwest Region USDA Forest Service 

Environmental 

Impact Statement 

for the 

Land and Resource Management Plan 

1988 

DENNIS W. MARTIN 

Forest SUD~~YISOI 

PAUL F. BARKER 

Regional forester 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Chapter Page 

SUMMARY 

purpose of and Need for ?+&ion ............................... Alternatives. including the Action .................. 3 1 

Afff?ct€!d FJwk" t ......................................... 16 

hvircamwtal Consequences ................................... 31 

I . PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 

BackgYuund and Direction ..................................... 40 

Planning process ............................................. 41 

Relaticaship with Past and Future Planning ................... 42 

Additim sources of "tion ............................ 45 

Lccation of the Plm Area ................................ 45 

Issues and Concarns .......................................... 46 

I1 . ALTERNATIVES 

..................................................... 

Alternative Developnent process .............................. Alternative Developnent Steps ................................ Rarge of Alt-ti- ........................................ ..................................................... 

Ccolclusions I)rawn fran the Ek"rk Analysis ................ Alternatives Eliminated frcm Detailed Study .................. Alternatives Considered in Detail ............................ Management Prescriptions and Management Areas ................ Alternative Descriptions ..................................... PRF - Preferred Alt-tiw ............................. 

RPA - 1980 RPA aOgram. ................................. CVR - (3urrent (1982) proSram - No Adion ................ 

AMN - Maximize Amenityvalu es ........................... 

clnparisan Of Altemativf23 ................................... 

(3EE - Maximize cost Efficiency .......................... 

AMB - mize Wildlife and Recreation ................. 

I11 . AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Introduction ................................................. General Description of the Forest ............................ The Eoonanic E"men t ..................................... The Social hvironment ....................................... The Resource Ehvi"?nt 

Air Quality ............................................. Culbxal Resources ...................................... Diversity ............................................... hergy .................................................. Facilities .............................................. 

58 

59 

60 

61 

63 

70 

80 

86 

99 

107 

108 

118 

128 

138 

148 

158 

168 

216 

216 

218 

224 

229 

231 

234 

237 

239 

i 
. 

Fish .................................................... Further PlaN-iq Areas .................................. Geology ................................................. Lands ................................................... .als ................................................ Mzm Basin National Forest Scenic Area .................. Pest Management ......................................... Protectian (Fire Manag-t) ............................ R~e ................................................... Recsreation .............................................. Research Nahral A?xas .................................. Riparian Areas .......................................... Sensitive Plants ........................................ Special Interest Areas and Naticmal Natural Lamharks ... Timber .................................................. Visual Resources ........................................ Watershed (Soils and Water) ............................. Wild and Scenic Rivers .................................. Wilderness .............................................. Wildlife ................................................ 

IV . ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

..cti. ................................................. Ecananic - t ......................................... t ........................................... 

t 

sxial nnrironmen 

Resource Environmen 

Air Quality ............................................. 

Di~i ty ............................................... ................................................... 

Faciliti. .............................................. Fish .................................................... Further Planning Areas .................................. Geology ................................................. Lands ................................................... ..s ................................................ Mzm Bash National Forest Scenic Area .................. 

Protection (Fire Managemnt) ............................ .e ................................................... R.ti. .............................................. Research Natural Areas .................................. Riparian Areas .......................................... Sensitive Plants ........................................ Special Interest Areas and Naticmal Natural Landmarks ... Timber .................................................. Visual Resources ........................................ Watershed (Soils and Water) ............................. Wild and Scenic Rivers .................................. Wilderness .............................................. Wildlife ................................................ Mitigation of Actverse Jnpacts ................................ 

Cultural RewurceS ...................................... 

Pest Management ......................................... 

Adverse Impacts That Cannot& Avoided ....................... 

244 

248 

251 

253 

258 

263 

264 

266 

267 

271 

287 

290 

292 

295 

297 ... 

305 

309 

324 

326 

328 

339 

340 

344 

352 

355 

360 

364 

365 

370 

376 

384 

390 

392 

398 

399 

402 

407 

413 

430 

432 

437 

440 

441 

447 

455 

468 

468 

474 

486 

487 

ii 
Relationship Between Short-term Uses and 

Long-term Frductivi ty .................................. Ir”rsible m Imetrievable Cnrmitrnent of Resources ........ -Requiremen ts and Consexvation Potential ............... 

V . LIST OF PREPARERS .................................... 

VI . CONSULTATION ...................................... 

VI1 . RECIPIENT LIST .......................................... 

VI11 . GLOSSARY ................................................ 

IX . INDEX ..................................................... 

488 

489 

491 

494 

502 

504 

512 

547 

iii 
ms ChaDter 

SU.WARY OF 'RIE EIS 

I. PURF€)SE OF AND NEED EQR ACl'Ia 

:mikes whv the Plan is beirm ~roduced an the issues and 

concemsAthat form the b&is for this Enviro&&tal Impact Statement. The 

Inyu National Forest proposes the implementation of a cauprehensive Land and 

Reso- Management Plan (Plan). The Plan provides directim for the 

management of all lands and resoms ahinistered by the Inyo Nahonal 

Forest for the next ten to fifteen years. This Win3"tal Intpact 

Statement (EIS) donrments the envhnmental analysis conducted as part of the 

p1- process. 

The planrung process is conducted under the auspices of the Multiple 

Use-Sustamed Yield Act of 1960, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

P1annj.q Act of 1974 (RPA) and the National Forest Managemnt Act of 1976 

(NFMA). The planning prooess itself is outlined in the implementmg 

regulations for those acts (36 CFR 219). Planning on each National Forest is 

ooordinated with "parable planning at the regional and M~LOM~ levels for 

all National Forest System lands. 

The Plan will supersede all past plans for individual resources or land mts 

on the Forest. See pppendix A in the Plan for listing of the documents. 

These past plans fit into one of three categories: (1) inmrprated into the 

Plan withut revision; (2) incorporated with direction to be revised or 

uflated; or (3) replaced by the Plan. All future environmental &aments for 

plans and projects on the Forest will be tiered to the Plan. 

The Plan can be irmended at any time, and all National Forest Plans will be 

revised every ten to fifteen years. i"t and revlsion will lnclude 

environmental analysis, documentation, and public involvement to the degree 

appropriate for the change proposed. The Regional Forester's decision to 

apprave the Plan and its EIS is subject to the public's rights of 

administrative appeal. Preliminary precess decisions are not subject to 

appeal [See 36 CFR 211.18(b)(ll)]. 

The area CQverd by the Plan includes National Forest System lands witlun the 

Inyo National Forest boundary (1,931,115 acres) and 25,201 acres of the 

Sierra NatiOMl Forest admirustered by the Inyo. 

Inyo Naticrnal Farest Lands 

Couniq Natid Forest acres % of total 

Mom (Califomia) 811,049 42.0 

InyO 794,352 41.1 

Tulare " 186,165 9.7 

Madera I' 50,406 2.6 

Fresno " 25,256 1.3 

Emeralda (Nevada) 49,884 2.6 

Mineral 14,003 0.7 

Total 1,931,115 100.0 

1 
In September, 1984, cixgress designated the i" Basin National Forest Scenic 

Area, which encapasses 116,000 acres of land witkin the Forest barndary. 

Detailed xesowxe and developnent planning for the Scenic Area is being 

conducted separately fm thls planning pmcess. 

Public issues and management concerns are aspeds of natural resource 

management that receive special enrphasis in planning. The issues and 

concerns collectively indicate the scope and nature of the analysis needed 

for the hvirro7mental Inpact Statement; serve as blueprmts for the 

structurw of alternatives, direct the evaluation of envmmtal 

consequences, and outline the resource use and developnent opportunities on 

the Forest. The follcwing are the issues and concerns identified for the 

Inyo National Forest. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

How can the Forest proauCe goxk and services to maximize econcmuc 

efficiency? 

How does the management of the Inp National Forest influence the local 

social environment and lifestyle? 

What can the Forest do to influence air quality? 

How should the Forest manage cultural resources and provide for the use 

of Forest lands by American Indians for traditid practices? 

What is a desirable level of vegetative divsity for the Inyo, and what 

should the Forest do to maintain or achieve that level? 

Hm does energy developnent fit XI with the overall resource management 

program on the Forest? 

What level of facility consbctim and maintenance is needed to support 

Forest management objectives? 

How should fish habitat on the Inp National Forest be managed? 

How should Further Planning Areas on the Forest be managed? 

10. What is the role of geokgic T~SOUK'RS and sdces in the overall Forest 

managexent program? 

11. What land use and lanchnershp adjustment policies and procedures axe 

needed to respond both to local Carmunity needs and to the demands of 

regional and national publics? 

12. How can the Forest best encourage mineral (including geothermal) 

exploration and developnent while protecting surface resource values and 

other land uses? 

13. What is the apprupriate pest management strategy for the Inyo? 

14. What is the appropriate fire management strategy for the Inyo? 

2 
15. How should the Inyo balance the needs of the range program (daestic 

livestock and mld horses and burros) with the need to protect and/or 

proCtuce other resources? 

16. What is the best recreation opportunitY program for the Inyo (considerug 

supply, demand, other resource management and developent opprtumlxes, 

and ernrironmental protection needs)? 

17. What contribution should the Inyo make to the national and regional 

systems of Research Natural Areas? 

18. What is the sipficance of riparian areas on the Forest, and how should 

riparian area-de-t resources be maintained, enhanced, and/or 

restored? 

19. How shauld the Forest manage habitat for sensitive plant species? 

20. Should the Forest consider establishing any additional Special Interest 

Areas? 

21. What is the best balance between timber (including fuelwood) prcduction, 

other resource management and developnent opprhnuties, and 

envirmmntal protechon needs? 

22. What role does visual quality play III the werall resource managanent 

program, and how can that quality be prot&d and enhanced? 

23. Hvd should the Forest respond to the needs for water quality, increased 

water yields, water rights for Forest resou~ce managemsnt, and healthy 

watershed condition? 

24. What rmammdations should the Forest make for the managemsnt of 

candidate wild and scenic rivers? 

25. Is there any need for change in the managemsnt of designated wilderness 

on the Forest? 

26. Haw, whexe, and to what degree should wildlife habitat be "tamed and 

enhanced, and how should wildlife needs be ccordinated mth other 

reso- management and develope& opprtunities on the Forest? 

This chapter describes the alt-ti- analyzed zn the planning prccess. 

Each alternative describes management direction that is designed to gude the 

management of Forest lands and resources fm their current state to a 

desired future condition. Many &mations of resource uses and management 

acixvilxes are possible in formulatug a reasonable range of alternatives. 

The alternative formulation process began with the analysis of Benchmarks. 

Benchmarks are analytical models that serve three functmns: to detemune 

reso- costs and outputs at the level of managmt: to deternune 

3 
the maximum physical and biological capacity of the Forest to produce certain 

key resources; and to calculate the most econanically efficient mur of 

mamganent activities under different sets of objectives. By establishmg 

rrrrm", maxinnnn, and cost-efficient output levels, the Bencharks describe a 

"decision space" within which reasonable alternatives can be developed and 

set standards mth which the alternatives can be canpared. 

All alternatives were designed to meet a set of managanent requirements and 

standards and guidelmes that would be acceptable to the public and could be 

implemented on the ground. Those requirements address such issues as 

long-term sustained yield and rmn-declining even flaw of wood pnxlucts, 

wildlife and fish population viability, vegetative diversity, soil 

productivity and water quality, riparian area protection, and scenic quality. 

Eleven altematives were initially develop&. Of those eleven, five were 

eliminated fran further study and six were studied in detail. Alternatives 

were eliminated fm further study for various reasons. "KI of the 

alt-eves had extremely high projected outputs, but faled to meet 

the timber policy rquinmat of "-declining even flm. "KI additional 

alternatives, with large wilderness recarmendatians, did not respond to the 

management concern that wilderness on the Forest be suitable for and 

manageable as wilderness. The fifth alternative, which had a severe budget 

limitation, responded very poorly to the primary public issue on the Inyo 

National Forest, which is the quality and quantity of recreation 

opprtunities . 

The following six alternatives were studied in detal. 

.. 

PRF: -F&TERNATIVE 

This is the modified Preferred Alternative resulting fran public aments 

received on the Draft Preferred Alternative and intensive review by the Inyo 

National Forest managexst and mterdiscipljnary teams. It is designed to 

reflect the charges needed to incorporate identified concerns. A mixture of 

both "cdJ.ty and &ty outputs will be produced, with prwnsion for the 

historic uses of the Forest. 

Developd slrmner recreation will be managed with the objective of increasing 

oppr-hnuties in response to demand with the a"t of developrent limited to 

the nmker of inventoried, undeveloped sites. Alpine skiing will increase 

consistent with approved developnent plans and at a rate that responds to 

demand consistent with envin~mtal and infrastructure mixaints. The 

amunt of developrent will be closely coordinated with cmnnxnty plannuq, so 

that ski area capacity and the cu"ty's ability to provide support 

services will be developd together. Addilxonal dispersed recreation 

oprtunities will be pravided for both winter aral surrmer use. 

Timber will be managed to provlde a continuing supply of wood pnxlucts to 

met demand. Timber managanent objectives will be cmpatible with 

recreation, wildlife, visual and other resource values. 

Dcmestic livestock grazing will be managed to meet local demand and to be 

cQnpatible with timber and wildlife objectives. 

4 
The wilderness land base will be increased by the addition of mer 

Planning Areas with high wilderness recreatim value, in cc&ination with a 

low level of ccolflict with otber resources: ecological systems not yet 

represented in unl- m the Inyo; OT logical additions to exiwilderness, in ccmbination with a law level of conflict with other x-esnmxs. 

Wildlife habitat will be managed with the objectives of maintainirag or 

enhancing deer habikat capacity: achieviq recovery for threatened and 

-ered species: maintaining or "cirg habitat for sensitive and 

special interest species: and maintahxin~ ppulation viability for all other 

native veebrate species. Fish habitat will be managed with the objectives 

of respnding tn projected increases in disparsed recreation and achievirg 

recarery for threatened trout species. 

CUR: 

This alternative displays the current program of management activities on the 

Irryo National Forest and projects it over the fifty-year p1anni.q horizon. 

The 1982 Forest budget is a a"&aint in the FOReLAN model. The buc?get 

"s essentially ccolstant over the planning horizon and continues to be 

&stxibut& amcolg the resources in roughly the same proportions as in 1982. 

Developed sumner recreation will be managed with the objective of maintaming 

use at cufient levels through the fifth decade. Alpine skiing will increase 

at a rate that responds to demand. actual a"t of developnent will be 

closely coordinated with c"ity p1annh-g 60 that ski area capacity and the 

ability of the COmrmnity to pcovide Support services are developd together. 

The management of dispersed sumner and winter recreation will allow for an 

increase in use, but the quality of the experience will deteriorate because 

of re&& standards due to a limited haget. 

Tmber will be managed with the objective of maintaining currently projected 

outputs over the p1anni.q horizon. 

The grazing -am will be managed with the objective of maintaining the 

current level of managmt intensity through the fifth decade. 

The wilderness land base will be increased by the addition of Further 

Planning Areas with ecological Systems not yet represent& in wlldemess on 

the Inyo. 

Wildlife habitat will be managed with the objectives of minimizing 

Forest-wide redudion of deer habitat capacity: achieviq recovery for 

threatened and endangered species: maintw or enhancing habitat for 

sensitive and special intexest species: and maintaining populatlon viability 

for all other native vertebrate species. Fish habitat will be managed with 

the ObJeCtiveS Of ' to projected increases in dispersed recreation 

and achieving recovery for threatened trout. 

UlRRENC (1982) PIUXTWM - NO AC2ICN 

5 
RPA: 

This altemative is designed to meet tb targets and goals of the 1980 RPA 

hrogram, representirg m3derate to high outputs of cxmnxh 'ties and selected 

amenities. Scme of the assigned RPA targets and goals for the Forest are not 

mutually cmptible. h;lhere there is a conflict, market outputs (Emker, 

range, and developed nxxeation) are given priority over m-market outputs 

and amenities. In cases for which RPA goals cauld rat be mt in this 

alternative, they are mt in orie or mre of the other alternatives studied in 

detail. 

Tlmber will be managed with the objective of achieving a progranmf?d annual 

harvest of 19.2 million board feet (IvMeF). 

Danestic livestock grazing will be managed with the objective of mcing at 

least 55,600 average mual Anjmal Unit I%" (Am) by the fifth decade, 

representirag the president's target of a 46 percent increase over the 

specified base level. 

mvelopd recreation will be managed with the objective of inmasing 

opprtunities in respcase to demand. The actual a"t of developnent wlll 

be lmited by potential supply. Alpine skiing will increase in response to 

demand to the extent cmpatible with timber objectives. The management of 

dispersed sumner and winter nxxeation will provide for an increase in use 

rvughly pmprtional to develOpea site use. 

Wildlife habitat will be managed mth the objedives of nunimizirg 

Forest-wide reductions in deer habitat capaciw, given range and alpine 

skiing priorities: achieving recovery for threatened and endangered species; 

and mamtahirg ppulation viability for all other native vertebrate 

species. Fish habitat will be manag& with the objectives of achieving 

recovery for threatened trout species; ' to projected increases in 

dispersed recreation: and increasing sheam .trout habitat by 20 percent in 

response to the RPA goal. 

MEET TAIEGETS AND CXAIS OF WE 1980 REsouRcEs PLANNING ACl' PROGRWl 

There is 110 budget limitaticsl in the FDRPLAN m3del. 

CEE: ~zEcosT--EFFIcIENcy 

This alternative seeks the most cost-effective mix of land allccaticms and 

management practices mlable on the Inyo National Forest, given the 

application of Mini" Management Reqkremmb (IYMRS), Timber Policy 

Requl-tS, Mini" Implementation Requirements, and Forest-wide Standards 

and Guidelines. 

If the Forest is managed with the single objective of maximizing costefficiency, the follawing ccolditions will exist: 

Developed recreation (including alpine skim) and dispersed recreation 

will be provided in resp=o7se to projectea demand to the extent possible, 

limited by supply. All potential sites will be developed and aperated at 

standanl levels of service. 

Those Further Plannirg Areas with moderate to high potential for 

wildemess nxxeatim use will be recamnended for wilderness. 

6 
Timber outputs will be managed at cost-effective levels outside developed 

recreation sites and ski areas, representing an Allowable Sale Quantity 

of 10.1 lvMBF by the fifth decade. 

!rhe grazing program will be managed at cost-effective levels, 

representjng 46,500 AUMS, or a 12 percent increase over the base year of 

1982 by the fifth decade. 

Wildlife and fish habitat imp"ent for haraest species will be 

maxlrmzed in response to dmand for hunthg and fishing (the supply could 

not, hawever, meet that demand). Habitat for threatened and endangd 

species mll be managed for remvery. Habitat for all other species will 

be managed for population viability. 

AMN: "IzEAMlmIlYunder this alternative, amenities are maxinuzed with little regard for the 

effects on corrm3dl 'ty outputs. Wilderness, wildlife, and prinutive and 

semi-primitive disprsed recreation are emphasized. There is m buc?get 

limitation in the FORPLAN -1. 

The wilderness land base will be increased by the addition of all Further 

Plamjng Areas that are at least minimal ly suitable for wilderness, 

considering wilderness characteristics and manageability. 

Wildlife habitat will be managed mth the objectives of lncreasmg mule deer 

habitat capacity by at least 20 percent in response to the FPA goal of 

"izq habitat for threatened and endangered species; meeting the RPA 

goal of at least maintaining current habitat capacity for cavity-nesting 

birds; "izing habitat capacity for sensitive and Wial interest 

species; and maintaining or enhancing habitat for all other native vertebrate 

species. Fish habitat will be managed with the objectives of respm3u-g to 

projected levels of dispersed recreation and maxinuzing habitat for 

threatened trout species. 

Dispetsed recreation will be managed mth an mqhasis on the quality of the 

experience, rather than the quantity of use. Prmitive and semi-prinutive 

-&unities and a high level of scenic quality will be mghasized. 

Develop3 s"xx recreation will be managed with the objective of maintaining 

current levels of use through the fifth decade. Alpine ski area developnent 

mll increase at a rate that respcolds to demand to the level projected ln the 

r4a"th-m Unit Plan. 

Timber will be managed for carmercial proaudion to the extent canpatible 

with &-efficiency and dty objectives. 

Danestic livestock grazing will be managed to the extent ccmpatible with 

wildlife objectives. 

7 
AMB - EMPHASIZE WILDLIFE AND RECRERTICN 

This alternative places a primary mphasis on the quality and quanti* of 

wildlife habitat with a secondary eqhasis on moderate expansion of the 

developed recreation prclgram. Other ixnnrdz 'ty outputs are proauCea to the 

degree canpatible with wildlife and recreation objectives. Amenity values 

other than. wildlife receive a &ate degree of emphasis. There is IW 

buaget limitation in the FORPLAN -1. 

Wildlife habitat will be managed with the objectives of increasing mule deer 

habitat capacity; maximizing habitat for threatened and endangered species; 

"izing habitat for sensitive and special interest species; and mzderately 

j"iq ecological diversity to enhance habitat for other nakve vertebrate 

species. Fish habitat will be managed with the objectives of respndirg to 

projected increases in dispersed recreation and "izhg habitat for 

threatened trout species. 

Developd recreatian will be managed with the objective of increasing use 30 

to 35 percent by the year 2030. Alpine ski area developnent will increase in 

respmse to demand where cmpatible with wildlife objectives. The management 

of dispersed sumner and winter recreation will provide for an increase in use 

roughly proportional to develop3 site use. 

The wilderness land base will be increased by the addition of Further 

Planning Areas with mte to high wilderness -tion values and/or 

ecolqical types not yet represented in wilderness on the Inyo. 

Danestic livestcck grazing will be managed to the extent mtible with 

wildlife objectives. 

Timber will be managed for maximum p"h 'cm to the extent cmpatible with 

&-efficiency and wildlife, recreation, and rarge objedives. 

The follcwirg discussion canpares the six alternatives studied in detail in 

terms of the Forest's resources. 

M"Es 

It is asslrmed that the quantity of geothermal, snall hydroelectric, wind, and 

solar energy T~SOUTCB developnent that could OCCUT is generated by private 

idustzy. There are no plans to lease additional land for geotlxmnal 

developnent under arry altenlative. 

Tk greatest acreage of land with high and medium mjneral potential withdrawn 

fran mineral entry is in the AMN alternative, followed by C5, AMB, PRF, aJR 

and RPA. lvLsst of the difference in acreage results fran the differences in 

withdrawals for wilderness. 

8 
RamE 

The “petition between &Wsb ‘c livestock and mule deer is addressed 

differently in each alternative. Cattle have priority over mule deer (in 

terms of jlEEas& forage resulting fmn raqe impnxrement) on key deer 

winter range in RPA. Me deer have priority in PRF, Oil, and CEE; cattle 

are remwed entirely fran key winter range in AMN and AMB. Cattle graziq in 

key deer fawning areas is defe until after July 15 in AMN and AMB; 

fawning areas are also eqhasized in PRF and CUR, but specific details are 

left to resolution in allotment management plans. 

The “petition between livestock grazing and timber management is also 

handled differently in each alternative. Cattle grazing is allowed to 

decline fran current levels in suitable timber under all alternatives except 

AMB, in which current levels area maintained. 

Range outputs are “eased in most alternatives. RPA mpresents a 34 

percent increase in grazing over current levels. CEE repsents a 12 percent 

increase; PRF maintains current levels. (XIR, AMN, and AMB involve 6, 15, 

and 5 percent reductiom in range outputs respedively by the fifth decade. 

Fm23mTJ.W 

The quantity of use, quality of recreational expziences, and type of 

recreatimal mrhmities differ considerably by alternative; however, most 

of that difference occurs on a limited rmbr of acres. 

Most differences in the quantity Of developea recreation, other than alpine 

skiing, axmr primarily in concentrated recreation areas as a result of 

increased developed site capaci~. Differences in quality of developed 

recreation result fran maintenance and service standards. 

The greatest differences in quantity of disparsed recreation use occur in 

ccolcentrated recreation areas in association with the quantity of developxl 

site use. 

We differences tend to be collcentrated on lands in the area fran Wth 

to Lee Vinirag with timber, geothermal, alpine skiing, and developed site 

potential; the major Sierra Nevada drainages fran Chvict Lake to Horseshoe 

MseacaOW wrth developed site potential; and the Wnache area of the Kern 

Plateau with timber potenkal. 

!J%e assmption is that, other than a moderate trend tmard mre dispersed 

use, recreation on rmst Forest lands wrll not change substantially from the 

current situation under any alternative. 

The quantity of developd sumner recreation represents a wLde range of 

outputs under the alternatives. CUR and AMN represent the lawest level of 

use with the maintenance at current levels. AMB represents a msderate 

increase in use. PRF, FGA, and CXE represent the high end of the scale wi+h 

9 
an increase of 57 percent over base year use by the fifth decade. 

will 

The quality of developed -tion m€%Ces will also vary. A standard 

level of facility maintemanca and service contributes to recreational 

quality; low standard levels detract fmn such quality. The quality of 

developed recreation experiences will be impawa ' by low standard operation 

only in OUR. 

Increases 

M~CUT primarily in the public sector. 

Alpine ski area capacity estimates differ wnsiderably by altemahve. 

projected ski area capacity raqes fmn 31,000 SADT (1,678,600 RVDs) at the 

low end to 61,000 SAOT (3,372,600 FWDs) at the high end. AMN pruvides for 

the least grcrivth with the other alternatives increasing in order: OUR, AMB, 

RPA, to CEE. PRF calls for capacity at apFawed developnent plans. 

Additional developnent will require a CumULative impact study. The Sherwin 

Bay1 Koposed ski area is currently being analyzed Outside this plprocess in a separate Bwim" tal Impact statmt. 

Dispersed Recreation 

The quantity of dispersed recreation is assumed to increase in general 

to public developed site capacity and use. A large part of 

dispersed sunner use on the Forest is generated by campground use. lb a 

lesser degree, dispersed winter use is generated by people wlm c~ne to the 

Forest primarily because of alpine skiing opprhu 'ties. 

The quality of dispersed recreation in cmcentxated recreation areas is 

related to the overall munt of use and the availability of facilities such 

as trails, resbrocms, and interpretive signs that distribute use and proteot 

resource values. Increased use will be highest in PRF, PA, and CEE because 

of the full developnent of facilities and standard levels of service. CUR 

m11 --bate the current low level of nxreaticmal quality, despite the 

rrrrmmdl increase in use, due to a lack of support facilities and low levels 

of smce. ?!MB will represent higher overall quality with a moderate 

increase berth in use and in facilities. AMN projects ?..gh quality with 

slightly increased use and substantially increased facilities. 

Dispersed recreation opprhmities vary fran primitive (m facilities, m 

vehicles, few people), through semi-primitive to intensively developed (many 

facilities, many vehicles, many people). These will be clustered at the 

prmitive and semi-primitive end of the scale m AMN and AMB. Wre 

owrhuties related to road ccastructian and facility developnent are 

available in PRF, OUR, RPA and CEE, in that order. 

Recreation quality is affected by the potential for conflict with other 

resources. Timber management on the Inyo does not generally anflict 

directly with dispersed recreation use. Conflicts with sumner use are 

minimized because msst lcggjng occurs in the winter, and conflicts with 

winter dispersed use can be "ized by locating nordic ski and s"bile 

kails as needed to amid those areas being harvested. 

.. 

10 
The two areas most susceptible to new or increased motorized use resultfran timber road access are the unroaded forested lands east of San Joaquin 

Fiiwe and the Mmache area of the Kem Plateau. Neither area is hanrested in 

AMN and PRF; only the San Joaquln area is harvested in AMB. Both areas are 

harvestedLTndertheotheralternatives. 

Fis4rh-g opportunities outside of hatchery-stccked fisheries are relata to 

the mctinty of resident trout fisheries, which is affected in tum by 

the a"t of stream habitat and watershed iqmc"t under an alternative. 

There is little difference between the alternatives for fish.mg 

opprtunities. 

Big game hunt- -*ties are related to the nmhr of deer on the 

Forest. Deer ppulations may decline under the impacts of facility 

developnent, imlpaed access, and increased livestock on wmter range. They 

may increase with habitat improvemen t and reduced canptition with livestock 

on key deer range. The rarkirg of alternatives according to hunting 

oppzrhmities lists AMN, AMB and PRF at the high end, CUR m the middle, and 

RPA and CEE at the low end. 

-*ties to increase habitat capacity are limited. 

Tm 

The alternatives differ in the amount of acreage detemnined suitable for 

timber management, as mopared with the acres considered tentatively suitable 

for plarming purposes. The final calculation of suitable acres (those that 

will actually be managed for timber prcduct~on under an alternative) was 

derived from the tentatively suitable land base. Subtracted from ths were 

tmterlands m recQrmended wilderness, concentrated recreation areas, alpine 

ski areas, and areas managed mth an a"ty emphasis under an alternative. 

The largest suitable timber acreage is found m PA. Acreage figures decline 

from RPA to CEE, to CUR, to PRF, to AMB, to AMN at the low end of the scale. 

The slutable timber in RPA represents 90 percent of tentatively suitable 

tunber; AMN represents 56 percent. 

The alt-kves also differ III tlmber outputs, but the afference 1s not 

directly proprtional to suitable timber acreage under each alternative. The 

reason for this lack of propria 'onality is the fact that suitable acreage may 

be managed under one of several sets of managmsmt strategies. Wgh level 

tlmber managemnt will prcduce me bard feet per acre than moderate level 

management. Timber Outputs in the fifth decade range from 19.8 iWBF for RPA 

to 6.5 iW3F for AMN, mpresentirg a range from 2,000 to 1,OOO board-feet 

prcduced (on the average) per acre of suitable timber. 

meld result- frun logging debris is roughly proportional to overall 

timber Outputs. Additional fuelwood may be made available as part of the 

pxgramed harvest if needed to respmd to demand. 

WILDERNESS 

Alternatives &ffer m the total acreage recnrmended for wilderness. RPA 

represents the low end of the scale, with 110 wilderness recarmendations; AMN 

represents the tugh end of the scale, with 510,800 acres m twelve areas 

11 
recarmended for wilderness. "he other alternatives in increasing order of 

acres reccmnended, are: PRF, CUR, AMB, and CEE. 

Recreation use is not pmprtimal to quantity of acres recannended. The 

PlaUning Areas on the Forest, as a group, have fewer wildemess 

atixibutes than designated wildwmes. Although natural integrity and 

opportunities for solitude tend to be high, natural appearance and 

opprhmities for primitive. recreation tend to be low. The latter is tme 

Primarily because many Further Planning Areas have primitive mads, 

accessible by four-wheel drive vehicles, and lack the available water sources 

that will facilitate m-mtorized recreation. 

The munt of wilderness recreation use project& for an alternative reflects 

the availability of primitive recreation apportunities in the areas 

for wildemess under that alternative. AMN, for example, which 

has the largest recmmnded wilderness acreage, includes considerable acreage 

in Further Plannbg Areas with milerate to low wildemess quality and law 

projected levels of wilderness recreation use. (XIR reMmEnds only that part 

of the white and Inyo Mountains with ou- ' ecological features such as 

desert sprbgs am3 alpine tundta. PRF, CEE, W and AMB mlude additional 

acreage withut such features. 

WILDLIFEANDFISH 

The majority of dxech 'on for wildlife and fish habitat is foutfi in the 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines cnm~n to all altematives; such 

direction is intended to mt Mininarm Managemnt Rqutremmts (m) for 

native Verterbrate species. In only the following cases does direction 

exceed the "3 and, therefore, vary by alternative. 

Mule deer. PRF, (XIR, and CEE give. priority to mule deer over cattle for any 

increases in forage proauction on key deer winter range; AMN and AMB remwe 

cattle fram key winter range; RPA gives priority to cattle on winter range. 

AMN and AMB call for delayed livestock grazing in key deer fawnkg areas; PFtF 

and alR also aphasize fawning areas, but leave the details to allotment 

managmt plans; RPA and CEE place I%I special aphasis on fawnkg areas. 

AMN, AMB, and PRF enphasize the integrity of mule deer migration mutes; the 

other do not address migratim routes. 

mine falcxm. PRF, OUR, RPA, and CDI provide for the reintxcduction of 

tw0nestingpairs;AMNandAMElprovideforfour. 

Goshad. PRF, CUR, AMN, and AMB maintain fifteen (all existing) goshawk 

territories in suitable timber; RPA and CEE will allow a reduction in the 

runnber of such territories, maintaining only nine (the nmbr needed to meet 

minimum managmt requirements). PRF, AMN, and AM3 prwide one hundred 

acres per goshawk territory; the ra"q provide ordy the "I 

managmt level, fiftv acres per territory. 

Sierra Nevada muntain steep . RPA and CEE provide for no additional 

reintnduced herds; PRF and (XIR prwide for at least one additional herd; AMN 

.. 

and AMBprovide fm seven additional herds. 

12 
Riparian aTea dql" tspeci es. All altematives call for negotiating with 

utility canpanies to rewater selected reaches of stream and reestablishmnt 

of streamside riparian vegetation. Wet meadows represent nure than 

two-thirds of the riparian vegetation on the Forest. Of the 26,000 acres of 

wet meadow on the Forest, 23,500 a- have been identified for watershed 

restoration. CEE, AMN, and AMB call for full watershed restoration in wet 

meadows over fifty years: PRF calls for 17,100 acres of waw work; RPA 

for 9,900 acres; and CUR for 2,000 acres. 

Older seral stage dql" tspeci es. The alternatives vary in the a"t of 

suitable timber maintained in older seral stages. CUR, RPA, and CEE maintain 

only the amunt needed for gashawk nestiq territories (see above). PRF 

maintains 5.4 percent of suitable tiinter in older seral stages, AMN 30 

percent, and AMB 20 percent. 

slag k. . tspec ies. PRF, ClR, EA, and CEE will apply only the Mi" 

Management requirenents for slags (maintain at least 40 percent of natural 

potential). AMN and AMB call for maintaining 100 percent of natural 

potential mag-dependent wildlife density. 

Fish. There is limited potential to increase fish habitat capability on the 

Forest. W~re than 90 percent of resident trout are found in lakes, where 

habitat condition is generally gmd and there are m identified opprtunities 

to enhance or increase habitat. The majority of both lake and stream habitat 

is m wilderness, where habitat is also generally gccd and any potential for 

enhancement will be limited by wilderness managemnt. 

Of the stream acreage identified as suitable and available for habitat 

hp"t, (JEE hplementS the full -am; PRF, RPA, AMN, and AMB 

represent high levels of imlpwement; CUR represents a mderately high 

level. Additional fish habitat w"mt is induced fm watershed 

hprovment, discussed above rolder riparian area-depmdent species. 

Threatened trout habitat is managed only for species recovery under PRF, CUR, 

RPA, and (JEE: AMN and AMB call for increasing threatened trout habitat above 

recove~y levels. 

EuJNcMccs AND TRADEOFF ANAGYSIS 

The major e"ic txadeoffs between the alt-tives are projected ecormuc 

effects: costs and values of priced and "-priced rexmxes and benefits; 

and the level of ~ti~~l and regional issue resolution. "Uc indicators 

are of cnncem to the federal taxpayer, as they measuce alternatives in terms 

of their responsiveness to econanic efficiency in government . 

Total public benefits €ran the Inyu National Forest increase over the next 

fifty years prjmarily in response to the amnmt of dispersed and developed 

recreatian, and (to a much lesser degree) in response to wildlife, watershed, 

timbar, and range outputs. Increases in total benefits for the studied in 

detail range fnm 20 percent to 107 percent above the 1982 base level. 

The lowest BcoIIcmic benefit levels are found in those alternatives in which 

developed recreation or ski area expansion is limited by buclget or other 

13 
~iderations. ”-cash benefits, derived primarily frcm 

-tion use, cxnrprise 94 percent to 97 percent of total Forest benefits in 

the first decade. 

pmprtion to the size of the devalqed “eation, timber, and range 

Ipograms. 

mtal costs increase fran 7 percent to 35 pxent abare the 1982 base year 

level in the first decade. These Cost increases primarily reflect increases 

in capital irnresbnen ts, which range fran a 28 percent reduction to a greater 

than 600 percent increase over the 1982 base year level. Recreation 

facility, trail, and tmhx mad cxnstrudon vary with the size of the 

recreation prcgram, the amount of wilderness ~aposed, and the quantity of 

-harvested. 

mployment and incans opprhuu ‘ties are drawn primarily fran developed 

recreatim, alp- skiing, timber harvest, and livestock grazing. Related 

support businesses prwide CmSL~ly Emaller ‘cms of the available 

jobs. changes in local emplayment ‘ty range fran zero to an increase 

of mre than 36 mt. 

A canparison of Present Net Value (PNV) between key b”arks and 

alternatives illustrates the ecolloRic and resource opprhmity costs of the 

tQ.m” Managmat RequFrements, Timber policy Requirements, and i-4” 

Inplementatian RequiE” ts. The basis of the Present Net Value ccniparison 

is the rmst econanically efficient, unoonstrayled ‘ ke”rk (FLW). 

The Minimum Managaent Recphsmmts and Timber Policy Req”mts represent 

the first set of objectives added to FLW, resulting in the Mm Benchark. 

These requirements include goshawk nestirg territories, riparian area 

protection, maintenance of soil and water pnductivity, and “m diversity 

of vegetative seral stages. On the Inyo National Forest, only goshawk 

territories and riparian area protection were applied as ccdlstraints on the 

resxrce allccaticol model. Each of these requirements slightly restricted 

timber harvest. 

TheMinimum Implaentation Rqubments represent the seccold set of 

objectives analyzed. They were added to the Mm benchmark, resulting in the 

CEE Alternative. On the Inyo Natimal Forest, maintenance of visual quality 

along state-designated scenic highways was the only Minimum Inplementation 

ReqUinmnt applied to the analysis. The only effect was a slight addibonal 

restriction on timber harvest. 

The Minimum mgaent Rwts, Timber Policy Rqukemnts and Mmi“ 

Implementation Rq~irements collectively represent a reduction in present Net 

Value (PNV) of $0.3 million, less than 0.01 percent of the PNV for the FLW 

benchmark. This reduction in PNV results primarily fran increased costs for 

timber proaucticol and a loss of 0.275 MWF of timber harvest over the first 

five decades. The goshawk and riparian area -ts had the greatest 

effectontimberoosts. Theserequiremen ts axmre the maintenance of nine 

goshawk territories of fifty acres each in suitable timber and the protection 

of riparian area-dependat rem- in suitable timkr. The two 

requirements shared -ally in reducing PNV. 

cash re- increase over the Planrling horizon in dired 

alRprmridestheleast~ ‘ve gains in cash benefits. 

.. 

14 
The Timber Policy Rquir" ts of harvest dispersion and m-declining yield 

had negligible effects on PNV due to the law relative value of timber on the 

Inyo National Forest and the mt€ractian of Stand gcwth, diSc0unti.q of 

costs and benefits, and price .trends. These factors canbhed to redue the 

hamest in earlier decades with the trend steadily climbiq and stabilizing 

in later decades. All- for harvest to decline in the later decades had 

no appreciable effect on PNV, due mably to the discounting factor. 

The Management Implementation Rqrbment for visual quality protection 

resulted in a very slight azOp of $0.1 million in PNV due to restrictions on 

timber harvest techniques and limitations on the size of openings. 

The tctal cost of cmstraints added to benchmarks to develop the CEE 

Alternative are insignificant m terms of reduced PNV or reduced resource 

prduction capability. The impact of the M" Managenvat Requirements, 

Timber Policy Requraents, and Management Implewntation ReQurenE!nts was 

felt exclusively on timber benefits, which at most p-de less than 3 

percent of the total discounted benefits on the Fo&. The distribution of 

benefits =thin the rsreation prcgram varied on the basis of facility 

maintenance levels, wilderness rea"%tions, and the extent of alpine ski 

area developnent. Timber, range, and other resource benefits and costs were 

far less significant than recreation in dete"q ' the relative PNV of the 

alternatives. 

The OUR Alternative ranks lowest in PNV, primarily hecause bucQet constramts 

in the FORPLAN -1 limited opp3rtunities to wnkibute to PNV. 

An examination of net cash flow for the alternatives indcates that 

expCi~tures are greater than returns to the Treasury in all alternatives for 

both the first and fifth decades. 

Cash receipts will be derived mainly fran develop3 recreation and .1-;Lmber 

prduction, with livestock grazing and geothemal energy resources 

representing 3 to 8 parcent of the total. Grass receipts for all 

alternatives will be higher than the 1982 base level of $2.2 nullion. 

Receipts will be expected to nearly double between the first and fifth 

decades in all alterm~ves except CUR, which increases the least because of 

buc?get limitatxns. Even with substantial jncrsases in returns to the 

treasury, negative net cash flow haeases in all alternatives except OUR, 

M, and AMB, which have the lowest total fe5ieral costs. This relationship 

is due primarily to the need for substantial irnrestrnent in order to realize 

major benefits in the recreation and timber programs. 

A large part of the total benefits derived fran Inyo National Forest lands 

represents the estimated amxlnt that cam." will be willing to pay for 

Forest outputs such as recreation. These values do not reflect the mmt 

that they aaally pay for those outputs and are termed "willmgness-to-pay 

assigned values." Consequently, the actual cash received by the u.S. 

G"IEnt is not proprticmal to total benefits generated by Forest 

management Frrograrrrs. 

The ranking of alternatives by net cash flaw is inversely proprtianal to 

oosts in the first decade. Generally, those alternatives that mwe up in the 

ranking between the first and the fifth decade are thase that recormend large 

.. 

15 
acreages for wilderness and that have reduced i-,imber and develop3 recreation 

production. This relatiomhip results fran the high initial cwsts of 

wilderness designation (trail and .trailhead Ccastructran) mxsus the moderate 

costs and high-level benefits of wilderness management over the long term. 

The most ecoMnically efficient alternative, CEE, falls near the middle of 

the first-decade rankirg amrdirg to net cash flow. The OUR and RPA 

Altematives rank atove CEE, as they eqhasize resoulces producing incane to 

the treasury, primarily develope3 recreation and timber p1~3~ction. AMN and 

AMB mcur large first decade capital-investmen t costs to accanwdate large 

acreages of proposed wilderness. By the fifth decade, thew costs are 

reduced substantially because neither al-hmative supprts a large timber or 

developed recreation nog gram. CEE ranks lowest XI the fifth decade, 

primarily because it provides only the & ecommically efficient timber 

harvest levels (lower than CUR or RPA) in canbination with a substantial 

recreatim prcgram which provides little in t- of actual incane to the 

.treasuryIn general, Alternatives CUR, AMN, and AMB (with burnet limitations, major 

initial investments for wilderness, and/or with long-term law-pmfile timber 

and recreation prcgrams) provide fewer m-cash benefits than other 

alternatives. Alternatives RPA, CEE, and PRF (which strive to meet projected 

public needs through increased developd mzreatim prqrm) incur high 

costs, provide the highest returns to the treasury, and offer the highest 

non-cash benefits. 

That portion of the eco17oRic benefits that will not be collected as cash 

receipts varies considerably a-s the alternatives. These benefits are 

based primarily on recxeatim, wildlife, and rarqe outputs, which prwide 

upnrds of 90 percent of the total PNV. For this reason, there is not a 

large range of net cash flow a"g the alternatives (except OUR, which is 

considerably lower because of budgetazy restrictions). 

It is important to note that all pmjedicols beyond ten years are hghly 

speculative, as both ~tural resource and -io-econanic data 1s extremely 

variable. 

The Inyr~ National Forest mists of four Ranger Districts mth offices in 

Lee Viniq, Mammth Lakes, Bishop, and Lcne Pine. The Forest Supxvisor's 

office is in Bisbp. 

The Forest wntains 1,931,115 aces, -ing large parts of the Sierra 

Nevada, Glass, White, and Inyo Mwntains. Wst Forest lands drain into the 

Plnm Basin or CXens River. smaller porticms drain westward into the San 

Joa@n or Kem Rivers, or eastward into the Great Basin. The Forest is long 

and-, =t=dlKl ' 165 miles fran north to south, and varying in width 

fnm four to sixty miles. It ststststststststststes the imrdaq between the southem 

16 
Sierra Nevada and southem Basin and Range Physicgraphic and Geologic 

The naturdl -t of ths Inyo is noteworthy for its ccoltrasts. 

Elevatiuns range fran 3,680 feet near O!" Dry Lake to the peak of Mt. 

Whitney at 14,495 feet. Plant and animal habitats include such ccoltrasting 

elements as desert and wet meadow, forest and alpme tundra. Rugged, barren 

escarpnents stand abwe forested hills, sagebrush flats, and grassy plateaus. 

The climate on the Forest is as drverse as its tapography. The higher 

elevatiuns in the Sierra Nevada receive high levels of precipitation. 

Mamnoth Pass, for example, receives an average of 45 inches a year, mst of 

which falls as srm betmen "mbx and March. The eastern poaions and 

1- elevatiuns of the Forest are quite arid. The ca"ity of Bishop, 

located at 4,000 feet and about midway betmen the eastern and Western Forest 

boundaries, records an average of six inches of annual rainfall, nwst of 

which occurs durirg the winter mths. 

' natural features are included within the Forest boundary: 

- Mt. Whitney is the highest peak in the 48 ccoltiguous states. 

- The Ancient Bristle" Pine Forest includes both the Methuselah tree 

(the world's oldest kr" living tree) and the Patriarch (the laryest 

lamwn bristlecone pine). 

-i%m Lake is a large inland sea that SupKVrts a unique biological 

Comrmnity including brine shriq, brine flies, nesting California gulls, 

and several million migratory birds. 

- The Mcolo maters are "textbook examples" of volcanic geology visited 

annually by students and scientists fnm across the nation. 

- The Mcolo maters and Mcolo Lake are tw of many unique features in the 

MXKI Basin National Forest Scenic Area designated by Ctngxess in 1984. 

- The Devils Postpile National "ent, acfhiniistrered by the National Park 

Service, lies within the Forest boundary. The Devils Postpile itself is 

an outstanding volcanic! feature. 

- The (xyens Valley is cme of the deepest valleys in the world. The floor 

of the valley is at 4,000 feet. The nrnmtains on either side are 14,000 

feet high. 

- The Palisades Glacier is the southerrrmost glacier m the northem 

hemisphere. 

- The Inyo has the laryest continguous pure Jeffrey pine forest m the 

world. 

- white Mountain Peak (14,246 feet) is the highest peak in the Great ~asm. 

- The native range of golden trout (the California State Fish) lies partly 

on the Inyo. 

17 
- The White Pkuntajn ReseKch Station is the highest site in the U.S. that 

is “pied year-round. 

scenic appeal and recreaticmal a+&ractims pravided by the natural 

envircolment and the Proximity of the Forest to utban southern California 

result in high levels of recreation use. The Inyo National Forest ranks 

fifth in recreation visitation am2i-g Natimal Forests in the nation and 

second in California. Mamoth Pkuntah Ski Area receives mzre ski--days of 

use per year than aq other ski area in the united States. The John Muir 

Wilderness is the mcSt heavily used in the nation. 

The Inyo ranks first in coldwat- fislsirg and second in mall angling 

recreation among the National Forests in California. neVelaped-site 

campground use leads the nation. Sumner dispersed camping, mle deer 

hunting, and four-wheel drive maeation are also popular. 

SRIERE OF EUWMtC 

The Inyo National Forest ccmtaim 2,046,346 acres. 1,931,115 are in National 

Forest System ownershi p. These lands are located in seven -ties. Five 

counties are in California, two in Nevada. 

The primary zone of eccnzmic influence for the Inyo National Forest is in 

California‘s Inyo and McolD Cbunties. Nearly 85 percent of the Forest lies 

within %?e Counties, and mxe than 95 percent of the Forest lies within the 

State of California. Ninety percent of Inyo County, the sd largest 

wunty in the state, and nwre than 75 percent of Mcom County are adminxtered 

by the federal govemmnt. Currently, all timber harvesting conducted by the 

Inyo National Forest and nwre than 90 percent of recreational activity take 

place in these twD wunties. Reneational activities on the Forest are 

closely linked to the tourist eca~my of these comties. 

In wnbx&, the Forest has a relatively limited econanic jnpact on the 

California -ties of Ware, Madera, and Fresm and on the Nevada counties 

of Mineral and Esneralda. This ‘c situation is not expected to change 

in the foreseeable future. 

Residents of Southexn California, pr-ily those fm San Diego, Los 

Angeles, orange, Vw-itura, Riverside, and San ’ counties, make heavy 

use of the Forest’s “erous recreational facilities and resources, such as 

alpine ski areas, aqqmumk, and wildarness. The demand for recreabonal 

opprtunities by Southern Californians has an eccomnic impact on the Forest 

and on many of the “runities near the Forest. The impact of the Inyo 

National Forest on Southem California is, however, negligible. 

18 
POPULATION 

Population grawth in Inyo and Counties during the past two decades has 

been substantial. Mono County grew by mre than 113 percent between 1970 and 

1980. This ranked the county second among the fastest grcwiq counties m 

the state. This rapid growth rate can be attributed to the recreational 

importance of the Wth Lakes area. 

Euriq the same decade, the Inyo County population grew 15 percent, laver 

than the state average of 18 percent. Most of this growth took place in and 

around the COmrmnity of Bishop, which serves as a service center for the 

two-county area. Major employers in the area are local, state, and federal 

govexnments . 

EMpLx)yMENT 

The eco~cmy of the area reflects the importance of recreation, tourism, and 

the public sector. The three employment categories of services, retail 

sales, and gOv.ernment together amunted for nearly three quarters of the 

total wages and salary for workers in 1980. The employment base has grown by 

nearly 75 percent in the past decade. The services and retail sales 

categories have enjoyed healthy employment gains, while gwernment employment 

levels have tapred off and recently recorded ECXW declmes. 

The high unemployment rates ccrrmonly found in tourist-oriented ecOnanies are 

found in the Iny0-Ph-m area. Rapid population growth, a broadening of the 

work force, the lack of diversification in the rural ecortmy, and the 

seasonal nature of the tourist industry have resulted m unemployment rates 

generally higher than the state average. 

ROLE OF THE INYO NATIONAL FORESP 

The Forest makes a direct contribution to the area ec"y through 

expenditures in the private sector, the generation of jobs, recreational 

opprtunities, and payments into County revenues. Forest cqxnditures for 

payroll and procurementS in Fiscal Year 1982 were $8.55 million. 

Payments inb county revenues are €ran two sons: Payment in Lieu of Taxes 

and Receipts Act payments. Payment in Lxeu of Taxes payments canpensate 

counties for the loss of property tax revenues represented by nontaxable 

federal land within the county. In 1980, the total Payment in Lieu of Taxes 

payment to munixes by the Inyo National Forest was $165,180. 

Receipts Act payments are based on fees collected for use of Forest lands and 

resources. Twenty-five percent of dollars received by the federal treasury 

fran such activibes as t" sales, special use permits, and catqxg~und 

fees are distributed through the Forest Service to the counties to offset 

schm1 and mad costs. Total Inyo National Forest Receipts Act payments for 

Fiscal Year 1980 munted to $385,003. 

The Forest also pmvides indirect ecQllcmic benefits to the public by 

supplyirg certain goods and saxices at prices belav established or estimated 

19 
market values. Examples include outdoor recreation vrtunities and Forest 

lands for the use of camwcial enterprises such as livestock pnxluction, 

apiaries, mineral and energy exploration and developnent, and water 

prcdu&ion. 

FvRIRE"Ds 

Ecananic growth in the area is expected to continue much as it did in the 

1970s, increasing overall. As econcm~c growth cnntinues, the resident 

population and the pressure for mre services will increase. An increased 

local population could stabilize the fluctuating tourism eco~3llly of the 

1970s. However, unless the different cumunities actively seek eccolcmic 

diversity by attxactiq manufacturing industries to the area, little change 

is foreseen. 

The ec"ic foundation of the area will remain closely tied to increased 

recreation use and tourism. An increased demand for all Forest resources and 

services, especially those related to recreation, can be expected. The 

greatest lmpacts on Forest management are Likely to b% found in the areas of 

1m-p adjushmts and land uses, scenic quality, and the Forest's 

role in providng a variety of recreational opportunities. The demand for 

energy pxduction and water yield are also likely to increase with increases 

m population, both locally and elsewhere in California. 

E7x"cs IN FOREST PLANNING 

National Forest land is public land, and its value accmes to the public. 

The value of Forest land and resources is of two lunds; prducts with 

econanic value and those that do rat lend themselves to ecoIlcmic 

quantification, such as the cnnsmation and enjoyment of our natural 

heritage. The need to manage Forest lands and resources in a way that will 

provide the greatest net public benefit, taking both kinds of values into 

cansideration, is both a public issue and management concern. 

Econcrnic efficiency analysis detennines the effects of diFferent managmt 

strategies on the econCmic values of Forest resources, us- t%e measure of 

values of recreation (including wildlife and fish-related recreation), water, 

energy, timber, fuelwood, and grazing. The cost canponents of PM7 include 

such factors as Forest managwent expenditures, resource losses, and the 

opportunity costs of pxducing m-priced benefits. PNV plus all non-priced 

benefits represent net public benefit. 

Present Net Value (PNV). The benefit ocmponents of PNV are the ccnmodl 'ty 

SPHERE OF SOCIAZ, TliFW" 

Inyo and Mnm Counties -rise the primary zone of social influence for the 

Forest. The lifestyles, quality of life, and social values of the 

individuals in this area are to varying degrees dependent upon Forest 

resources and facilities. 

20 
The median age for the +county area is about 34.5 years, well above the 

30.8-year median age for the state. This fact is due, in part, to the area's 

recreationdl opportunities which attract retiring senior citizens. Paxonal 

incane averages about $14,300. The area is wer 90 mt White (of which 

5.6 percent is of Hispanic background), and 7.3 percent American Indian, with 

Black, Asian, and other races together making up less than 2 p?"t of the 

total ppulatim of the area. 

Parannmt to the quality of life is the sense of open space, rugged terrain, 

scenic qualities, clean air and water, and the abundant recreaticolal 

opprhmities which the Forest provides. The natural resource attributes of 

the area are coupled with the social attributes of low ppulation density, 

slow growth, simple lifestyles, snall Carmrmnities, limited services, and a 

prevailing feeling of self-sufficiency and individualisn. 

As the primary zone of Forest influence, the Inyo-Pbm area is expected to 

receive direct, identifiable, and measurable benefits and impacts €ran the 

Forest's management and plicies. The two counties have important ties to 

the Forest through 1- 'p patterns, land uses, energy prcduction, 

grazing, fuel@ supplies, fire protection, timber production, and 

recreational 0ppxtU-u 'ties. 

Southexn California is a secondary mne of social influence for the Forest. 

Southern California's demand for recreation affects the Forest and many of 

the The social impact of the 

Forest on Southern California may be important but is lost in that area's 

large size, huge metcoplitan Wpulation, and broadly diverse social 

Strudure. 

camunities in the primary zone of influence. 

Management direction and resource outputs of the Inyu National Forest affect 

several local social groups, each of which places different demands and 

values on Forest resources. Slx major social pups have keen identified 

within the primary me of influence. Those groups are: long-time residents, 

regional recreationists, seasonal employees, spcial use permittees, American 

Indians, andretirees. 

Long-the Residents. Long-time residents are a diverse group of people 

identified primarily as having lived in the area for ten years or longer. 

This large pup is found mrkirg m every sector of the local econany 

including mirung, retal sales, ranching, logging, recreation, and services. 

Rqimal Reneatidsts. Regicmal recreationists are attracted to the area 

to enjoy a recreation- oriented lifestyle. This group includes semnd-kme 

owners and those who enjoy the area for mer vacations and weekend winter 

skiing. The latter group is particularly important to the ecorrmry of the 

area. 

Seasonal Ehployees. Seasonal employees who reside in the area are typically 

young individuals with a primary goal of pursuing an outdoor lifestyle. 

Earning a living is often a secondary goal. If they are not able to obtain 

21 
full-time employment, they are depenaent upon the large seasaal employment 

market in the area. 

Special Use Permittees. There are currently 972 Special use permits an the 

Inyo National Forest, gowrniq lands uses on 34,960 acres of Forest land. 

Special use permits are issued for a variety of purposes, including 

agricultural, industrial, recreatimal, research, transportation, and water 

uses. Special use permittees are especially important to CcmrmnitieS such as 

Mamnth and June Lake, both of which have alpine ski areas on Forest land 

under special use pennit. In 1980, the 546 recreation special use panits 

contributed mre than $1.29 million to the federal treasury, 25 percent of 

which was returned to lccal county governments. The Forest ranks first in 

the ~tim in revenues received fran recreation special use permits. 

Indians. Nearly 2,000 Paiute-Shoshone Indians live on reswxations 

in the Big Pine, Lone Pine, and Bishop areas of Inyo county. The Indian way 

the mxlntains of the area. Many Indian religious sites, spiritual areas, and 

traditional food-gather- areas are located on National Forest land. 

Retirees. Senior citizens, a segment of the ppulaticm wkse nmkers are 

increasmg, are attracted to the area because of its recreational 

opportunities, relaxed pace of life, and rural env.i"ent. Many retirees 

cone to the area fran Southem California. 

of life, beliefs, and values are intennven with nature, the ernrironmen t, and 

AIR QUALITY 

Air quality on Inyo National Forest lands meets or exceeds state air basin 

objectives mre than 99 percent of the time. 

"FAL REsouR(3Es 

Current research indicates that eastem California and westem Nevada have 

been occupied for at least the past 10,ooO years. The density of cultural 

sites on the Inyo National Forest averages 1 per 59 acres (contrasted with 1 

per 105 acres on the Angeles National Forest and 1 per 245 acres on the 

Take). It is estimated that the Forest contains 35,000 or mre sites. 

DrVERSITY 

Vegetative diversity on the Inyo National Forest has been changed frcrn 

~turalevels primarily through water diversion, affecting the extent of 

riparian areas: past overgcaziq, affecting the condition of riparian areas 

and wet meadows; fire suppression, reducing the seral stage diversity of 

brush and allowing woocty vegetation to encroach on meadows by preventing 

natural fire-caused rejuvenation; and mercial tinhr manag-t, reducing 

the extent of older seral stages of coniferous forests. 

22 
ENERGY 

IIydroelectric. The Inyo National Forest has a significant ptential mall 

hydroelectric resource, including the two major cxmpnents of perennial water 

flaw and rapid chaqe in elevation. Six small hydroelectric projects are 

currently opera- and fifteen additional applications have been suhnitted 

for fifteen streams on the Forest. Major hydroelectric projects affect four 

streams on the Forest. 

Wind power. The suitability of Inyo National Forest land for wmd per is 

mt well knmn. Preliminary studies indicate, however, that wind patterns on 

the Inyo may rot be suitable for mer generation. 

FACILITIES 

The Forest has eighty-six buildings at seven afmmistrative locations. Of 

these, all but one are federally cwned (the Forest Supervisor‘s office 111 

Bi&q is leased fran a private party). There are eighteen dams on Forest 

land: three are owned by the Forest Service: fifteen by utility canpanies. 

Altbugh one of the proposed mall hydroelectric projects could include a 

mall dam, mst will divert water rather than impounding it. No new sites 

for major dams have been identified on the Forest. 

There is one major mass transit system on the Forest: several smaller ones; 

and thirteen roads that have been designated as Forest Wghways. The Forest 

has 32 miles of arterial roads, 201 mles of collector mads, 741 miles of 

local roads, and an estimated 300 miles of uninventoried roads. These roads 

are used primarily for public recreation access, a&inistration, fire 

prwtection, and ccmnercial timber transprt. 

FISH 

Inyo National Forest fish habitat includes abut 1,100 mles of stream and 

several hundred lakes. Habitat canditicm in mst streams is rat& medium to 

high. Mre than 90 percent of 

resident fish on the Forest are found in lakes. 

Waters on National Forest land wntain rainbow trout, brook trout, brown 

trout, Colorado cutthroat trout, Lahontan cutthroat hut, Paiute cutthroat 

trout, golden trout, westem sucker, and Owens sucker. The golden trout, 

westem and Owens suckers and ramlxw trout in the Kern River are the only 

native species k” to reside on the Forest. Repmducixg brown, bm, and 

rainbow trout are oz”n. 

Lake fish habitat quality is generally high. 

~PLANNINGARFAS 

The Inyo National Forest has 1,008,282 acres of land that were invrsntorid as 

madless by the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE 11) study. Of 

those acres, 46,146 acres were designated wilderness by the California 

Wilderness Act; 338,319 awes made available by that Act for mn-wilderness 

23 
managemat; and 576,517 acres remained in the Further Planning category. 

addition we have 47,300 acres of inventoried ruadless areas in Nevada. 

Wst Further P1arn-u-g Areas on the Forest are substantially lmer m user 

capacity and recreational attracticns than exist* wilderness. A few Further 

Planning Areas contain unique or outstanding geological or ecological 

features. 

In 

Gl" 

Slope instability processes (including those triggered by e-akes) are 

the mast important geologic events on the Forest m term of risk, primarily 

Wause of their relative frequency. Volcanic events are the least important 

due to their low frequency, despite the size of their potential inqacts. 

The extent and quality of groundwater on the Forest are rot k". 

Small-scale wells have been developed to serve campgrounds, admjnistrative 

sites, fire suppression units, and livestock and wildlife needs. Those uses 

currently total 43 acre-feet. Additional groundwater, amounting to 300 

acre-feet, is used to supply mth Mountain Slu Area. There is m Current 

Ccmrmnity use of groundwater frcm --Forest sauces. 

LANDS 

There are app"ate1y 1,181 miles of properkg lines on the Forest, of which 

thirty-one have been surveyed and posted to standard. The Forest currently 

resolves an average of five CCCLI- hspass cases per year. Approximately 

1,911 miles of utility, transportation, and water t"ission lines lines 

cross the Forest under special use permit. However, m utility corridors 

have been designated to date. 

Withdrawals on the Inyo National Forest total 757,516 acres, representing 

actions initiated by the Forest Sen%ice, by Congress, or by other federal 

agencies. The Forest Service is 

currently reviewing the withdrawals it has initiated. If the needed 

objectives can be met by a less restrictive managemnt option than 

withdrawal, sane withdrawals my be modified or rmked. 

The Inyo National Forest toundary includes 2,046,346 acres, of which 116,591 

are in mn-federal ownershl 'p. In Inyo and i%m Counties, which contain mst 

of the Forest land, only seven percent of land within the Forest boundary is 

in0therCMXXdU 'p (mre than half of that belorgs to the state of California 

or the City of Los Angeles and lies within the recently legislated i%m Basin 

National Forest Scenic Area). 

There are Currently 977 non-recreational special use permits mering 34,960 

acres and 1,911 miles. 

565,142 of these acres are in wilderness. 
MINERALS 

Leasable (Gsm- ). mthennal energy is a resou~c~ found on the 

Inyo National Forest. Appmxma ' tely 260,000 acres of the 460,000 acre 

mm-Lorg Valley Krvlwn Geothermal Resource Area are on National Forest land. 

Approximately 38,900 acres are currently under lease by six separate 

entitles. 

Locatable. The Inyo National Forest has a long, active history of mining. 

The Bureau of Mines lists twenty Ccmmodl 'ties in 513 mineral prospects on the 

Forest. Wre than 3,000 mining, mill site, and tunnel site claims are 

recorded for Forest lands, but only eleven are currently in prcduction on the 

Forest. The mast significant of these are the umetoo Pine Cr& Mine in Pine 

CY& and the U.S. Funice mine in the btm Craters. The latter proaUces me 

than 10,000 tons of block punice each year. 

A mineral potential rating of "high" has been applied to 133,860 

mn-wilderness acres on the Forest, and a rating of "medium" has been applied 

to 209,021 acres. The 

largest acreage in the high and medium categories is located in the Inyo 

Mxntains and the lower elevations of the white kbuntains. 

Materials. Of the fifty material sources inventoried in the area, 

twenty-eight are on National Forest lands. 

The ranahiq 1,021,732 acres have been rated "low". 

H3NO BASIN "AL FOREST SCENIC ARER 

The Wrm Basin National Forest Scenic Area enccmpasses 116,000 acres, of 

wbich 45,832 are National Forest land. The remaining acres include the lake 

surface itself and relicted lands (lakeshore created by the lmering of the 

lake level during forty years'of water &version) owned by the state, and 

additional City of Los Argeles and privately-owned lands. 

PEST MAMlGEMENT 

Pest proliferation on the Forest is not a serious concern. 

typically lccalized and fall within acceptable levels. 

Pest problems are 

-ION (FIRE MANA-) 

From 1972 to 1982, the Inyo National Forest had 491 man-caused fires, 

(tnuning a total of 5,616 acres) and 715 lightning-caused fires (burning 

2,496 acres). The Inyo is typical of many Forests in California, having many 

mall fires and an occasional large, damaging fire. 

The risk of wildland fire igmtion on the Inyo is rising due to increasing 

develmt of intermingled and neighboring private lands. This grayth is 

especially significant around June Lake, P&"th Lakes, and Crwley Lake. 

Prescribed fire has been used on the Inyo National Forest for the past 

several years, primarily for timber slte preparation. There are addLtiona1 

25 
opprhmities for prescribed inxning to benefit wildlife habitat and ckniesb 'C 

livestock range. prescribed fire has mt been used to reduce fuels for fire 

managemnt purpsses because fuels accumlation is mt a serious prublm on 

the Inyo. 

RANGE 

The current grazing program supplies 41,400 Animal Unit Hmths per year of 

forage for danestic livestc& and wild horses and burros, and an unlau3wn 

amunt for wildlife. 

The White Wuntain Wild Horse Territory (70 horses) and the Saline Valley and 

Lee Flat Burro Territory (112 burros) ppulatims are within established 

managecent levels. The Mmtgawry Pass Wild Horse Territory has mre animals 

than the range can support in the lorg tenn. 

RECREZlTION 

Developed. The Inyo National Forest supplied 1,848,500 Recreation Visitor 

Days (RVDs) of developea recreation use in 1982. The current capacity of 

m-alpine developd sites is 25,479 Persans At One Time (PAOT). Abut 98 

percent of recreational developmats lie in concentrated recreation areas. 

These areas mer 47,529 acres (two percent of the Forest land base). 

Alpine Skiing. The Inyu National Forest has tw alpine ski areas--Mamroth 

I%untain and June Mountain--with a combined capacity of 22,000 Skiers At One 

Time (SAOT). They provided 1.6 million skier visits durirg the 1981-82 

season. The approved developnent plan for Manmth Wuntain and the June 

Mxntain developrent plan, if implemented, would increase their capacity to 

approximately 29,000 to 31,000 SAOT. 

Dispersed . Dispetsed recreation in 1982 a"ted to a total of 1,909,200 

Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs). Of this total, 540,000 RVDs represented 

wilderness use; 340,000 represented fishing, 25,200 represented deer hunting; 

and 25,800 represented other wildlife-related recreation. The reiminiq 

1,004,000 RVDs represented such activities as drivirg for pleasure, hiking, 

riding, dispersedcamping, andboating. 

Recreation Oppo rhrnity spec" . The Recreation Gpprtunity Spectrum 

classifies the Forest in terms of the types of recreational opportunities 

that would be appropriate in each class. The acreage classifications on the 

Forest are: Primitive (870,600 acres); S&-F"itive Non-I%tonzed 

(392,600); Semi-Primitive Motorized (189,200); Roaded Natural (383,600); 

Roaded Modified (35,100); Rural (11,600); and Urban (2,000). 

REsEARMmmJRFlLAREAs 

The Inyo National Forest has five established and tw candidate Research 

Natural Areas. Existing Research Natural Areas meet established targets for 

Jeffrey pine (Indiana Smmit), loa9epole pine (Sentinel Meah), foxtail pine 

(Last Chance Meah), bristlecone pine (White Mnmtain), and unique 

26 
eGosystems (Harvey Monroe Hall). Candidate Research Natural Areas meet the 

target for pinyon pine (Whipp"l1 Flat) and alpine fellfields (PkAfee 

Meadow). The target for limber pine is met by stands in the Sentinel and 

Whippoorwill areas. 

RIPARIAN ARFAS 

There are approximately 37,000 acres of riparian vegetation (including wet 

meadows) on the Forest. That figure represents less than two perat of the 

total land base. 

SENSITIVE PI" 

There are twenty-two sensitive plant species on the Forest. Eight of these 

species are endemic to Inyo National Forest lands. Although none of the 

twenty-two species is federally listed as threatened or endangered, two 

species are proposed for federal listing and eight others are categorized by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as needing further study. Altbough the 

condition of sensitive plant habitat varies by species and population, it is 

generally fair to excellent Forest-wide. 

The Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest enwasses 28,887 acres in the White 

r4zn"aj.m. The primary attraction of the area is a stand of exceptionally 

old bristlecone pine txees, includmg the world's oldest l" living tree. 

The Botanical Area is internationally l" and has been the site of 

significant de"m1ogical (tree-ring dating) research. 

The following candidate geological interest areas were selected fm a list 

of sixty interesting geologic features on or near the Forest: the Pave 

Flat granitic intrusion; granitic dartes in the Buttermilk area and Egypt 

Creek; Hot eeek; Starkweather Lake glacial polish; Tioga Tarns; the Inyo 

traters area (including Inyo eat-, Dea- glass flow, Obsidian Dame, and 

Devils punchbowl); Earthquake Fault; and Convict Lake/lower cornrict Creek, 

including the mraines. 

TIMBER 

The current timber harvest on the Forest IS approximately 10.5 WF per 

year. The demand for sawtimber for the Forest cannot be predicted fran 

historical sales trends. Since all the timber offered for sale on the Forest 

durirg the past decade has been sold, it can be ash that supply has not 

exceeded demand. In addition, there is relatively little uncut volume under 

contract (less than two years sell volume), and no sales have been tun-~ed 

back. Recently, bid prices for timber have been three to four times greater 

than advertised rates. Samills in both Nevada and California depnd up 

logs from the Inyo National Forest. There are, however, m local samills or 

"unities that rely on Forest timber Outputs for ecoMmic stability. 

27 
Local conarmnities are almst entirely deprdent on the Forest as a so- of 

ccnnnexcial and --use fuelwood. The Inyo currently sells approximately 

4,000 cords of fuelwood per year to cccrmercial operators and 6,000 cords per 

year to the public. 

VISUAL FEsaKas 

The Inyo National Forest has an extraordinary visual resource. Forty-four 

percent of the Forest falls in the "distinctive" variety class and 76 percent 

falls in the highest sensitivity level (how many people see it, what is seen 

and how close it is). 

Visual Quality Objectives (V-) describe the degree to which the natural 

landscape can acceptably be mdified, based on a canbination of variety class 

and sensitivity level. The VQO of Preservation (no modification) applies to 

all Wildernesses and Research Natural Areas, or 31 percent of the Forest. 

The Retention VQO (mdifications must not be visually evident) applies to 17 

percent. Partial Retention (rrodifications must be visually subordinate to 

the natural landscape) applies to 34 percent. 

Seventy-six percent of the natural landscape of the forest is rated as 

"untouched". Sixteen percent of the Forest has a high capacity to screen 

disturbances from view and 39 percent has a -ate capacity. This does rnt 

include wilderness. The current visual condition of the Forest is extremely 

high. 

mSoils. The mast c~my3n parent 

material is granitic: the second-tmst cxmmn is pumiceous. Most are in 

optimal or near-optimal condition. These soils typically suffer little or rn 

accelerated erosion, are stable, and each soil type is pmcirg vegetation 

at its optimal level. However, wet meadows grazed by livestsck and alpine 

ski areas are especially susceptible to soil erosion, due to both soil 

characteristics and to the management activities that =cur there. 

e. Established water basin 

objectives are met by mre than 97 percent of the water caning off the 

Forest. As bacterial, nutrient, and chenucal problems are mall and 

localized, the main threat to clean water is sedimentation. The major 

existing sou~ces of sediment are eroded wet meadows (damaged by poor range 

management in the past) and alpine ski areas. 

The Forest holds adequate water rights to meet its current and foreseeable 

consumptive needs. Water flowkg off the Forest mmts to an average of 

1,093,000 acre-feet per year. 

Most soils on the Forest are coarse-texhrred. 

Water quality on the Inyo is gccd overall. 

28 
kIILDAMISCENIClUVERS 

The Inyo has one candidate wild and scenic river: the Middle Fork of the San 

Joaquin. The south Fork of the Kern and the North Fork of the Kern have 

recently been designated as Wild and Scenic Rivers by Congress. 

WILDERNESS 

The Inyo National Forest has 565,142 acres of designate3 wilderness; 

appraxlma ‘ tely 30 percent of the Forest land base. The Plan recarmends that 

172,600 additional acres be added to the wilderness System. Wilderness 

recreation on the Forest amDunted to 540,000 RMs in 1982. There are 584.6 

miles of wilderness trail currently maintained to Class I standards and 29 

tralheads with a capacity of 2,212 PACTS. 

WILDLIFE 

Management Indicator Species on the Forest, by categoq, are: 

Harvest 

hdangered 

Sensitive 

Special interest 

Dependent on riparian area 

Dependent on snags 

Depndent on early-middle 

seral stages of brush 

Deprdent on older seral stage 

of coniferous forest 

Mule deer, Blue grouse, Sage grousf?. 

Bald eagle, Peregrine falcon. 

Goshawk, Sierra Nevada red fox, Goshawk, 

Pine men, Spotted awl, Great gray 

awl, Sierra Nevada muntain sheep, 

Wolverine. 

Golden eagle, Tule elk, Prairie falcon, 

Nelson mnmtain sheep. 

Yellow warbler. 

Hairy wcdpcker, Williamson sapsucker. 

Sage grouse. 

Goshawk. 

Mule deer: The current population of mule deer that relies on the Forest for 

mer range, winter range, and/or migratoq access is estimated at 20,200 

animals. ll-ase deer that sumner and/or wmter on Forest lands are estimated 

at 12,000 with a maxi” potential population estimated at 16,000. Altbough 

the deer population has reinained fairly constant over the past ten years, 

declines are perceptible over the past twenty to thirty years. 

Deer rely mst heavily on Forest lands for winter range. Most spend the sumner 

at higher elevations and many of the northem herds sumner west of the Forest 

~OLJIY%ZY. The Inyo has 112,119 acres of key deer winter range, most of it 

between 4,500 and 6,000 feet elevation on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada. 

Bald eagle: The Inyo has a small munt of bald eagle wintering habitat. 

Approximately 20 to 30 birds winter on or near National Forest land. Current 

information does not imkcate whether the nmkr is increasing or decreasing. 

Peregrine falcon: Although peregrine falcons existed on the Forest in earlier 

times, the nearest active nesting pairs are now found in Yosmite Valley and 

29 
Hetch Hetchy Canyun. 

and 1984. There is potential nestkg habitat for four nesting pairs. 

Cbsha&: Goshawk SUNeys have located apFaoxuna ' tely twenty-five active nest 

sites on the Forest, fifteen of these in suitable timber. Wst surveys have 

been conducted in areas managed for timber. It is estimated that an additimal 

twenty-five pairs have nest sites in wildemess or m-cormeTcial timber 

areas. There is insufficient data to determine whei3er the goshawk population 

on the Forest is charging-. 

Blue grouse : Blue grouse is a harvest species found at highex elevations on 

the Forest, in steep and inaccessible terrain. Them is m estimate of the 

blue grouse ppulation, trend, or potential on the Forest. There are m 

apparent conflicts between the needs of this species and the managment of 

other resoutces. 

sage grouse : The ppulation of sage grouse on the Forest is declining. The 

reason for this decline is not k". The current papulation of birds is 

estimated at 500 individuals, located primarily in the Lake Crowley basin and 

the mrthem White "&airs. The maxi" habitat capacity of the Forest for 

sage grouse is estimated at 1,500 birds. 

Eight fledglings were reintnxiuced on the Forest in 1983 

Pbst blue gnxlse habitat is in wildemess. 

spottea owl and Great gray owl: Thm is little data on the occurrence of 

these species on the Forest. 

Although two spotted awl sightings have been documented on the Forest, there 

have been no donrmentations of nest territories. 

Great gray owl sightings on the Forest have not been verified. There are few 

potential conflicts between the habitat needs of that species and other 

resource management because mt of the suitable habitat is in wilderness. 

NelscEl (desea) "tain sheep : Nelson muntain sheep are found in both the 

White and Inyo Mmntains. It is estimated that there are app"te1y one 

hundred sheep in the White Mountains, and the papulation appears to be 

increasing. Little is knmn about the Inyo herd, but the population has been 

estimated at thirty. 

Sierra Nevada mountain sheep : Virtually all of the Sierra Nevada mtain 

sheep in California are found on the Inyo National Forest. There are five 

populations on the Forest. 'I" populations represent natural distributions: 

the reminirg three have been reintrcdud into historic range. There is 

additional potential for reintrduction, as the Baxter herd is healthy and 

growing, and there is still suitable unoccupied habitat on the Forest. The 

total existing population includes approximately three hundred animals. If all 

identified suitable habitat on the Forest were occupied, it could supprt as 

many as one thousand animals. 

Ffiparian area-dep" tspec ies: Riparian vegetation covers approximately two 

percent of the Inyo National Forest; the remaining lands are, for the mt 

part, arid and sparsely vegetated. The population and trend of riparian-area 

dement wildlife species has not been studied. !I% a"t and COnditioIl of 

riparian habitat is vulnerable to the impacts of ground disturbance, vegetation 

manipulation, and/or streamflow reduction. 

30 
snag-- tspec ies: Snag densities on the Inyo are low, due both to the 

slow rate of natural slag recruitment and * amount of illegal public slag 

cutting for fuelwood. Snag-dq"t species are de-t on both standing 

dead trees (snags) and down and dead logs. Dead and dkrrwn wood is legally 

available to woodcutters and declines rapidly wherever it is accessible by 

vehicle. 

Approximately 20 percent of tustoric s.tream habitat in the Wx-o and (xuens 

Basins has been eliminated by water remmal, irrigation, and recreational 

activities. Eighty-eight percent of all existing streams have been diverted to 

scme extent. 

Species depen&n t on early-middle seral stages of brush: See sage grouse. 

Species depmden t an older seral stages of rwniferous forest: see goshawk. 

This chapter describes the envimmental consequences of implemnting the 

various altenatives. None of these consequences is severe because the only 

alternatives considered were tbse that will maintain the long-term 

Fapchctivity of the land and be acceptable to the public. Marlagenat 

Req~irenents and Forest-wide Standards and Gtudelines cc" to all 

alternatives ensure that the minimum acceptable and implementable levels of 

management for the various Forest resources are inherent in all altematives. 

Fnrviranmental consequences are described m tens of changes fran the Base Year 

1982 situation unless otherwise indicated. Although this planning pericd 

covers only ten to fifteen years, the analysis of envirormmtal consequences is 

projected over fifty years to assess the long-term iqlications of the various 

alternatives. This information is for canparison purpses only, as natural 

resou~ce and social wnditians are extremely difficult to predict over time. 

Key "ental consequences are displayed cmparatively in the following 

tables. Only those resources for which consequences differed substantially 

between altematives are sunmrized here. The consequences for all resouTces 

are displayed in chapter IV. 

Mrnu" .. 

31 
Alternatives 

RESOURCE 

PRP CUR RPA CEE Am AMB 

The ec~nomic environment vanes by alternative in terms of the Forest budget, area emphyment, and ReceLpts Act 

Payments Average annual figures for budget and Receipts Act payments for the fifth decade are displayed below, 

employment figures are projected for the first decade, 

ECONOMIC 

ENVIRONMENT 

Forest budget 

17 1 million 

Forest Budget Forest budget 

13 i mliilon 

Forest budget 

12 5 m1111on 15 1 million 

Recexpts Act 

pmts $1 7 MM 

Receipts Act 

pmts $1 8 MM 

Receipts Act Receipts Act 

pts $3 3 Mhl pmts $2 1 MM 

Employment 

1 c 100 personyears 

Employment 

I14DO personyears 

SOCIAL 

ENVIRONMENT 

Benefits all 

recreationists 

Bsnef1ts most sf 

the affected 

groups in the 

short term, negatively affects 

groups linked with 

economic outputs 

in the long run 

CULTURAL 

RESOURCES 

A rating system has been designed to indicate the relative potential threat to cultural resources posed by different 

combinations of land-disturban; management actnutles and land allocatmn decisions Cumulative relative threat 

factors, representing the net effect of B~rect disturbance, indirect disturbance, and beneficial impacts are 

drsplayed below 

Relative threat 

factor high 

Relalive threat 

factor maderate 

Relative threat 

factor low 

Relative threat 

factor low 

Relatme threat 

factor low 

Relative threat 

factor ramie rate 
Table I (continued) 

Comparison of Key Environmental Consequences 

- h - . Alternatives 

RESOURCE 

PRf CUR RPA CEE AMN AHB 

Fish habitat capability changes by alternative in response tv the relative amounts of stream habitat improvemeat and 

watershed improvement The total acres of stream fish habitat improved (both by direct habitat improvement 

induced by wafershed improvement 1 and percent change in Fore6t-adde stream habitat capability, relative to 1982 

the end of the fifth decade are shown below Lake habitat capability 1s common to all alternatfves 

bY 

FISH 

Stream acres 

Improved 205 

Stream acres 

Improved 417 

Stream acres $tream acres Stream acres 

Improved 470 

Stream acres 

Improved 621 Improved 561 Impraved 583 

Hab capability 

change fron 

Hab capability Hab capability 

change from 

Hab capability 

change from 

Hab capability Hab capability 

change from change change: from from 

1932. +32;: 1982 +is 1982 +31g 1982 +44x 1982 +36% 1982 +39% 

The canseguences of alternatives on further planning areas differ in terms of the management prescr+ptlnns (Rx) 

applied to those areas Management preseripthns have been grouped for this analysis II~ wilderness Rx, 

amenity-emphasis Rx, commodity-emphasis Rx, and concentrated recreation use Rx No further planning acreage on the 

Forest was allocated to concentrated mcreation use Rxs under any alternative 

FURTHER 

PLANNING 

AREAS 

Percent of total 

further planning 

acres by Rx type 

28% wilderness 

52g amenity 

203: commodity 

Percent of total 

further planning 

acres by Rx type 

l71i: wilderness 

37x amenity 

463: commodity 

Percent of total 

further planning 

acres by Rx type 

0 wilderness 

15% amenity 

85% commodity 

Percent of total 

further planning 

acres by Rx type 

54% wilderness 

5% amenity 

41% commodity 

Percent of total 

further planning 

acres by Rx type 

82% wilderness 

8% amenity 

0 commodity 

Percent of total 

further planning 

acres by Rx type 

36% wilderness 

61% amenity 

3% cw"dity 

MINERALS The consequences of alternatives on opportunities for mineral exploration and development are determmed by 

acres of Forest land with high OF moderate m~~ral potential available for mineral activities The majority Of 

lands withdrawn from mineral. entry under the alternatives are in recommended wilderness 
Table 1 (continued) 

Coaparison of Key Environmental Consequences 

Alternatives 

RESOURCE 

PRP CUR RPA GEE 

Acres of hi/mod 

mineral potentla1 

available for 

"era aetiv1ty 

282 $00 

Acres of hilmod 

mineral potential 

available for 

mineral activity 

284,200 

Acres of hi/mod 

mineral potential 

available for 

mineral activity+ 

314 400 

Acres of hi/mod 

mineral potential 

available for 

mineral activity 

214 600 

Acres of hilmod, 

mine Fa1 potential 

available for 

mineral activity, 

Acres of hilmod 

mineral potential 

available for 

mineral activity# 

237* 4QQ 

Mineral opportunity high 

Mineral opportuni ty moderat e 

Mineral opportunity moderate 

Mineral opportun1ty low 

I 

PROTECTION 

Total wildfire Total wildfire 

acres 52$870 

Total wildfire Total wildfire 

acres, 48 150 

Total wildfire 

RANGE 

41 4 M AUMs 

total outputs 

55 6 M AUMs 46 5 M AUMs 39 4 M AUMs 

total outputs 

39 1 M AUMs 35 1 M AUMs 

total outputs total outputs total outputs total outputs 

6% reduction 12% reduction 

from 1982 

15% reduction 

from 1982 

5% reduction 

from 1982 from 1982 from 1982 

Range condition 

improved on 

69 1 M acres 

stable to dedining elsewhere 

Range condition 

in gradual 

decline 

Range condition 

improved on 

95 6 M acres 

stable declining elsewhers 

Range condition 

Improved on 

98 5 M acresp 

stable to declining elsewhere 
Table I (continued) 

Comparison of Key Environmental Consequences 

- - - 

Alternatives 

RESOURCE - - -. 

PRP CUR RPA CEE AMN AMI3 

RECREATION The consequences of alte~natives on recreation are measured in terms of the amount of use, the quality of the 

recreational experience, and the relahve emphasis on different types of recreation The following is an overview 

of recreational quality and relative emphasis 

TIMBER 

Developed site Developed site Developed site 

quality high guahty low quality high 

Dispersed rewe- Dispersed recre- Dispersed 

at1on quality ation quality low action quahty 

moderate moderate 

Emphasis on 

developed sites 

high, on alpine 

skiing moderate, 

on wilderness 

moderate, on 

dispersed recreation moderate 

Emphasis on 

developed sites 

low, On alpine 

skiing moderate, 

on wilderness 

moderate, on 

dispersed recreation high 

Emphasis on 

developad sites 

high, on alpine 

skiing moderate, 

on wilderness 

lowm on 

dlsperaed recr+eation high 

Developed site 

quality high 

Dispersed recreatxon quality 

moderate 

Emphasis on 

developed sites 

highs OII alpine 

skiing high* 

on wilderness 

high moderate, 

dispersed recreation moderate 

Developed site 

quality high 

Developed site 

quality hkgh 

Dispersed reere- Dispersed re~reation quality at1on quality 

high high moderate 

Emphasis on 

developed sites 

low, on alpme 

skiing low, 

on wilderness 

high, on 

dispersed recT:eatron low 

Emphasis on 

developed sites 

mod t On alpine 

skiing moderate, 

on wilderness 

high moderate, OII 

dispersed remeation moderate 

The consequences of alternatives on the timber management program vary in terms of total acres managed for timber 

prctduction and acres actually harvested within a given time period (including both regeneratIan harvest and 

intermediate harvest) The following harvest figures are totals for, the fifth decade 

Total timber 

production 

751233 acres 

Total timber 

pMdUCtLOn 

89,100 acres 

Regeneration 

harvest 

8,570 acres 

Total timber 

productran 

99,200 acres 

Regeneration 

harvest 

14,100 acres 

Regene rat don 

harvest 

5,580 acres 

Total timber 

production 

61,800 acres 

Total timber 

production 

6g,goo 

Regeneration 

ha rve s t 

4,210 acres 
Alternatives 

RESOURCE 

PRP CUR RPA CBE Am AMB 

VISUAL 

RESOURCES 

WATERStit ti 

Intermediate 

harvest 

20,052 acres 

mgmt harvest 

Intermediate 

harvest 

29,100 acres 

Intermediate 

harvest 

18,600 

In t e rmediat e 

harvest 

19c500 acres 

Intermediate 

harvest 

1716~0 acres 

Intermediate 

harvest 

21,600 acre6 

Reduced visual 

condition Q 9% 

Net change in 

condition +2 2% 

Improved vi&u81 

condition 2 4X 

Reduced visual 

condition 1 2% 

Net change in 

mnditmn +I 2X 

Improved visual 

condition 0 3% 

Reduced visual 

condition 2 1% 

Improved visual 

condition 2 OX 

Reduced visual 

condition I 8% 

Net change in 

condition +O 2j! 

Improved visual 

condition 6 9% 

Reduced visual 

Improved visual 

Reduced visual 

condition 0 8% 

Net change in 

condition +3 9% 

10W moderate high moderate low low 
Table 1 (continued) 

Comparison of Key Environmental Consequences 

Alternatives 

RESOURCE 

PRP CUR HPR CEE 

WILDERNESS The consequences of alternative8 an wilderness are measured primarily in terms of acres of new wilderness, 

172,600 

new wilderness 

510,800 acres 

new wilderness 

222,700 

new wilderness new wilderness 

38 percent of 

Forest In 

wJ+ldernesa 

35 percent of 

Porest in 

wilderness 

30 percent of 

Forest in 

wilderness 

47 percent of 

Forest an 

wilderness 

41 percent of 

Forest in 

wildepnesg 

WILDLIFE The consequences of alternatives on wildlife are assessed in terms of habitat capability Changes In the followhg 

habitat capability factors are displayed below mule deer habitatm older seral stages of coniferous forest (species 

such as go$hawk), early and midbsuccessional brush (~pechs such a8 sage grouse), snags and other habitat far 

cavity-nesting birds (species such as hairy woodpeckers), &ad habitat for riparlan area-dependent species in wet 

meadows (such as yellow warbler$) Changes am expressed h terms of persent increase or decrease relative to 1982 

Mule deer 

habitat -2% 

Mule deer 

habitat -14% 

Mule deer 

habitat 920% 

Mule deer 

habitat t.18.56 

Existing old 

growth in 

suitable timber 

base -27% 

tentatively 

Existing old Existing old 

growth in 

tentatively 

suitable timber 

Existing old 

growth xn 

tentatively 

base -86% 

suitable timber 

Existing old 

growth HI 

tentatively 

su 1 t ab1 e timber 

base -38~ 

Existing old 

growth In 

tentatively 

base -59x 

suitable timaber 

growth in 

tentatively 

suitable timber 

base -91% base -92% 

I 
Table 1 (continued) 

Corpar~son of Key Environmental Consequences 

Alternatrves 

RESOURCE 

Early-mid succ Early-mld succ Early-mrd succ 

brush -69% brush -42% brush -31% 

Snags 0 

Wet meadows 0 

Snags 0 

Early-mid GUCC 

brush -24% 

Snags 0 

Wet meadows 0 

Early-mid succ Early-mid ewe 

brush -36% brush -36~ 

Snags +30% 

Wet meadows 0 Wet meadow6 0 
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 
fl 

m 

4 

3 

k 

ucw 
CHAFTEX I. RIRPOGE OF AND NEED MIR THE ACl'ION 

The Inyo National Forest is proposing the implementation of a cmpxhensive 

Land and Resource Management Plan (Plan). The Plan will set general direction 

for the management of all lands and resouTces administered by the Inyo National 

Forest for the next ten to fifteen years. This planning process is conducted 

under the auspices of the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the Forest 

Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 and the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA) of 1976. 

Tins Rwi?"ental Impact Statement (EIS) documents the environmental analysis 

conducted as part of the p1amui-g process, including the range of management 

alternatives that were considered, with their associated outputs and 

environmental Impacts. 

The analysis focuses on the public issues, managaent concerns, and resource 

and developnent opportunities of the Forest. The need to emme the multiple 

use of the Forest, to provide for a sustajned yield of g& and services, and 

to "ize net public benefit in an environmentally sound "er an? addressed 

in this document. Those laws and regulations that pmide direction for this 

planning process an? discussed in the fo1lcwi.q section. 

The wncept of net public benefit is central to this planning effort. Net 

public benefit represents the value of all Forest resources and benefits, minus 

all management costs. It is the intent of this analysis to generate a 

Preferred Alternative thatmaxirmzes net public benefit. 

Chapter I of the EIS describes the planning process and identifies the public 

issues and management "s that initiate and provide the basis for the 

analysis. Chapter I1 describes the range of alternative management strategies 

considered, including the Preferred Alternative (the proposed Plan). Chapter 

I11 describes the Forest environment in terms of social, econanic, and natural 

resource factors. Chapter IV discloses the major environmental consequences 

projected for the planning alternatives. The preferred Alternative is 

develop3 and described in the Plan, the document that acccmpanies this 

m-tal Impact statement. 

In the mid-1970s Congress acted upon the need for improved p1amj.q for the 

National Forests. Ttm pieces of legislation were passed: (1) the Forest and 

Rargeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA), and (2) the National 

Forest Manag-t Act of 1976 (NFMA), which ded RPA. This legislation 

requires that cunprehensive, long-range plans replace the separate, and often 

uncoordinated, resouTce management plans that had traditicmally been used on 

the National Forests. The United States Deparbwnt of Pgriculture developd 

implenmtkg regulations for RPA and NFMA (36 CFR 219, Subpart A). RPA, NFMA, 

40 
and the pl- regulations direct the Forest Service to plan for lands and 

resources at three levels: National, Regional, and Forest. 

Planriiq at the ~ti~~l level prduces two major documents: the RPA Assesmnt 

and the RPA program. The Assessnent addresses the a"t and location of the 

Nation's renewable natural rsoumes. The -am sets broad direclx 'on for the 

management of those "xs for a ten-year psi&. The pnqram is reviewed 

and updated as needed evezy five years. 

Pl- at tbs Regia level prcduces a Regional Guide. This Guide oosnreys 

national diX€Ckl 'on to the National Forests, establishes Region-wide management 

standards and guidelines, and responds to Regimal issues and ca"s. 

Planning on each National Forest @ces a Plan. The Plan assesses the 

capability of the Forest to proauCe gaxls and services, establishes managemmt 

-on specific to the Forest, and responds to local issues and "s. 

Plans are reviewed at least every five years and are u@td (amended) as 

needed. 

The National hvim"tal Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) established the need to 

Plans are revised every ten to fifteen years. 

analyze any major federal action that could significantly affect envinmwn tal 

quality. The Council on Esnrircormen tal Quality (Cog), -ted by =A, 

develop3 implementing regulations for that Act (40 CFR 1500). As the Forest 

plannirg is a major federal action, NEPA and the Cog regulations 

apply. The Plan's hvh" tal Wct Statement (this document) follows the 

format specified by 40 CFR 1502.10. 

In addition to RPA, NFWi, NEPA, and their implementing regulations, Plfor the Inyo National Forest is directed by the Forest Service Manual (F;M) 

chapter 1920 and Region 5 Land Managemnt Planning Direction. 

Land and resource p1arnb-g at all three levels within the National Forest 

Systa is a systematic, intfxdisciplinary task. The task is perfonred by an 

interdisciplinary (ID) team canposed of Forest perso~el who represent diverse 

areas of professional and technical -ledge about natural resources and their 

managemmt. Chapter V lists the ID team members who conducted this 

envimmtal analysis and their qualifications and respnsibilities. 

The ID team addresses the interrelationships of physical, biological, social, 

and ecollaRic aspects of the environment; considers the effects of managing any 

&ination of resources on all other resources; and weighs resource and dollar 

costs relative to benefits, goods, services, and uses provided. The Forest 

plannirg prccess is defined by 36 CFR 219.12. Those actions are: 

1. 

2. Developnent of plannirg criteria. 

3. 

4. 

5. Formlation of alternatives. 

6. 

Identification of purpose and need. 

Inventoxy data and information collection. 

Analysis of the managwent situation. 

Estimation of the effects of alternatives. 

41 
7. Evaluation of the alternatives. 

8. 

9. Plan approval. 

10. mnitorirg and evaluation. 

Recarmendation of a pfemed alternative. 

This EIS and Plan display both the analysis process and the preferred 

alternative, mether with a recard of decisim frun the Regional Forester 

aocUmentirg recarmendation and approval of the preferred altemative over other 

alternatives. Monitoring and evaluation are oqoxg precesses that follm 

publication of the reoord of decision, and continue over the ten- to 

fifteen-year perid before the Plan is revised. 

The Plan will be hplemented after approval by the Regional Forester. It can 

be amended at any time. If an a"nt is pm, an erwi"ta1 analysis 

will be ccolctucted to determine whether the a"nt represents a significant 

change fran the Plan. If the change is significant, an Ehvi"ental Impact 

Statement and fomW public involvment is required. If rot, the type and 

amount of public involvement and documentation needed will be determhd by the 

type and degee of charge that is praposed. 

The Plan will be revlsed every ten to fifteen years or as needed because of 

changing conditions. mnibring and evaluation will be an ongoing process 

during Plan iqlementation. 

The Regional Forester's decision to apprwe the Plan and its EIS is subject to 

the public's rights of ahinistrative appeal. Preliminary process decisions 

are rot subject to appeal. [See 36 CFR 211.18(b)(ll)] 

RELATIONSHIP WITH PAST AND FvRmE PLANNING 

The Plan supersedes all existing plans for individual resources or land units. 

These existing plans wiill be treated in one of three ways: (1) inoorporated 

into the Plan without revision, (2) incorporated inb the Plan with direction 

to be revised or updated, or (3) replaced by the Plan. 

EXISTING PLANS "RAW INTO THE PLAN REVISION: 

- Ancient Wistlecone Pine Forest Management Plan (1958) 

- Buttermilk Deer Herd Managemnt Plan (California Deparhwnt of Fish and 

Game) (1984) 

the Lmg Valley Caldera (Lease Block I) (1980) 

project (1985) 

- Fnvirormntal AssesSment and Operating Plan for Gathenna1 Exploration in 

- hvirormntal Assessment and operating Plan for Union Geothermal Inyo Danes 

- hvirormntal Assessment for Geothermal Leasing in the Pbnache Meadows Area 

(1985) 

42 
- Erosian Prwention Plan for MarmrJth Mn” Ski Area (1983 update) 

- Erosion Prwention Plan for June Wuntain Ski Area (1982) 

- Fishery Managmt Plan for ~ahootan Cutthroat Rout sabm clarkii hen&mvi 

in California and Westem Nevada Waters (1986) 

-Geothermal Leasing prosram for the Moro-Lcolg Valley Known Geothermal 

Resource Area (programnatic Final Fmimmen tal Inipact Statement) (1973) 

- Golden Trout Habitat and Watershed Restoratim Plan for the Kern Plateau 

(1983) 

- Goodale Deer Herd Management Plan (California Department of Fish and Game) 

(1983) 

- Hot Ckeek Wild Trout Managemnt Plan (California Deparbczit of Fish and 

- Inyo-White lvbuntains Deer Herd Management Plan (California Deparhnent of 

Game and Inyu National Forest) (1986) 

Fish and Game) (1985) 

- J~ne Lake Loop - A Review Of ChITent Water USeS and Future Needs (1982) 

- Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Draft Recwery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service) (1985) 

- Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Habitat Management Plan (1983) 

- Law Enforcement Plan (1985) 

- ~ong Valley Caldera - Wnn crater contingency Plan (1983) 

- Lca7g Valley Caldera - “0 crater Fire and Air operation Plan, (Inyo and 

l’biyake National Forests) (1983) 

Fssessnent (1977) 

Fish and Game) (1985) 

Fish and Game) 

and Game) (1985) 

-Ma”th County Water District Water Managemnt Plan Fsnri;conmen tal 

- Management Plan for the Casa Diablo Deer Herd (Califoda Department of 

- Management Plan for the East Walk= Deer Herd (Califoda Department of 

- Managemnt Plan for the She~~in Deer Herd (California Deparbmt of Fish 

- Monache Deer Herd Plan (California Eeparhnent of Fish and Game) (1981) 

- Wnn Lake Deer Herd Managemat Plan (California Deparhnent of Fish and 

-1 

- Pacific (sest National Scenic Trail Management Plan (1981) 

43 
- Pacific Qast Reoovery Plan for the American Peregrine Falcon (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service) (1982) 

- Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 

( 1986 ) 

- Paiute Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 

(1985) 

- pronghorn Antelope Habitat Management Plan (Bureau of Land. Management, 

Califomia Department of Fish and Game, Forest Service) (1982) 

- Research Natural Area (RWL) Management Plans for established 

Research Natural Areas: 

Indiana sumnit Established 1932 

Harvey Monroe Hall Established 1933 

White "ntain Established 1953 

Last Chance Meadow Established 1982 

Sentinel Meadow Established 1983 

- Rock CYeek Recreation Area -site Management Plan (1964) 

- Saline Valley and Lee Flat Burro Herd Management Plan (1985) 

- Sierra Nevada Bigl" Sheep Recovery and Conservation Plan (California 

Deparhnent of Fish and Game, Forest Service, Sequoia/Kings Carryan National 

Park, Ydte National Park) (1984) 

-Supplemental mviromsntal Assessment for Geothermal easing in the 

P4ma-La-g Valley KGRA (Lease Block 11) (1984) 

- Watershed Improvement Needs Plan (1982) 

-Wild Horse Managewnt Plan for White Mnmta.in and Inyo Mnmtain Herds 

(1976) 

EXISTING PLANS INcoRpoRATED WITH DIRECTION To REVISE OR UPDATE: 

- Golden Trout Wilderness Managenent Plan (1982) 

- Hcxxrer Wilderness Management. Plan (1977) 

- Individual grazing allotment management plans (various dates) 

- Interagency Motor Vehicle Use Plan (ORV Plan) (1977) 

- John Kuir Wilderness Managmsnt Plan (1979) 

- Minarets Wildemess Management Plan (1979) (revise to include 1984 

wilderness additions) 

44 
The Plan and its -tal Inpact Statanent will serve as mbrella 

documents for all future planning cm the my0. The annual ~a~gram and buCaget 

for the Forest will ccmfm to priorities am3 guidelines set forth in the 

Plan. All permits, ccsltracts, cooperative -ts, and other inshvmen ts 

for ccapncy and use will ccslfarm to the Plan. Bwin" tal analyses for 

individual projects will be tid to the Plan EIS and will add My that 

detail needed for site-specific decisicsrs. 

The planning doclrments are public dDcuments. They are intended to explain 

the planning and environmental analysis processes in terms that are 

underskdable. It is difficult, hcwevet, to describe natural resollrce 

managemen.t: without us- a considerable a"t of specialized terminology. 

See Chapter VIII, Glossary, for definitiom of the terms discussed in this 

document. 

The data and analysis, decisirms and activities upn which the EIS and Plan 

have been built are dxunisnte3 in the planning records and imorprated by 

reference into the Plan. The planning recards are available for review by 

the public brig regular bushess hDurs at the Forest Supervisor's Office, 

Inyo National Forest, 873 North Main Skeet, Bishop, CA 93514, pkole (619) 

873-5841. 

The area covered by the Plan includes all National Forest System lands within 

the Inyo Naticmal Forest kamdary, (1,931,115 acres) and 25,201 acres of the 

Sierra National Forest acbninistered by the Inyo. 7Q"ately 114,941 

additimal acres of land in other ownershl 'p lie within the Forest bmdary. 

wherever Forest acreage is displayed in the EIS and Plan, Sierra National 

Forest land is included. Land in other cwnershl 'p is excluded. Exceptions 

are othezwise indicated. 

In September, 1984, Cbqress designated the t4n-n Basin National Forest Scenic 

Area, which enoanpasses 116,000 acres of land within the Forest boundary. 

Detailed resource and developnent planning for the Scenic Area is being 

ccolducted separately fmn this p1ami.q process. 

45 
The Planning area lies in east-central California along the Nevada border 

(see the vicinity map). The Sierra Nevada Crest and its Fastem Escarpnent 

are included, as are mt of the myo, White, and Glass Mountain ranges. 

The camrunities of Mammth Lakes, Lee Vining, and June Lake lie within the 

Forest boundary. The City of BiWp and the CCrmRlnities of Big Pine, 

Independence, and Lane Pine lie between the eastern and westem sepsnt-s of 

the Forest. The planning area area lies in California's Inyo, Mxm, F'rezno, 

Madera, and Tulare Counties and Nevada's Mineral and Esneralda Counties. 

The Inyo National Forest is a six- to eight-hour drive north fran the 

Southf?rn California p3pulatim centers of Los Aqeles and San Diego, and is 

easily accessible all year frun ttnse areas. The drive fran the Sacramento 

and San FYancisco Bay areas also takes fran six to eight hours, but the 

mutes muss high muntain passes which are usually closed during the winter 

mmths because of SMLNJ accumulations. The Forest is a three- to five-hour 

drive south fran Rem, Nevada and is the same distance north fran Las Vegas, 

Nevada. 

The Forest has Ranger District Offices in Lee Vining, Mammth Lakes, Bishop, 

and Lone Pine. The Forest Supervisor's Office is in Bishop. 

Table 1 

Lands Achinistered by the Inyo Naticmal Forest 

county NFS"" Acres % of Total 

Mmo (California) 811,049 42.0 

Inyo 794,352 41.1 

Tulare " 186,165 9.7 

Madera " 50,406 2.6 

Freslo " 25,256 1.3 

Esneralda (Nevada) 49,884 2.6 

Mineral 14,003 0.7 

nrraL 1,931,115 100.0 

* All acreage figures displayed in the planning documents are derived fran 

the Forest data base. They may differ frcm acreage figures displayed in 

other dzcments. These acreage figures are used for planning only. They 

could not be used as a basis for legal action without site-specific survey 

information. 

This section discusses the issues and concerns that were identified in the 

original public involvement process for this Plan. Public issues and 

managmat c~cems are aspects of natural resource managment that receive 

special emphasis in Forest planning. The issues and ooncerns collectively 

46 
indicate the scope and nature of the analysis needed for the IWvhxmntal 

mct Statanent. 

The Inyo National Forest identified public issues by interacting with 

individuals and organizations that expressed interest in this planning 

process. Management concerns of the Forest Service include those fm 

national, regional, and Forest levels. The Final Plan was develom in 

resp3nse to comnents received on the Draft Plan, suhnitted to the public for 

review in October 1986. Forest Service resp3nses to these Comnents are 

displayed in the Public Reqmnse Appendix. 

Not all public issues and managemsnt cancerns related to Inyo National Forest 

managanent are appropriate for inclusion in this planning process. Those 

that have been selected for consideration address cc"s that can be 

resolved by the Forest Service at the Inyo National Forest level, require 

land allocation decisions or broad managanent directics, have lang-term 

irrp?ortance, and have not been resolved in other recent decisions that were 

made with significant public involvement. 

Each selected issue or cancern is representative of public carment, 

legislation or litigation decisicms, managment evaluation of resource 

conflicts, or supply and demand analyses. In nnst cases, both the public and 

management have expressed intd in each general resource subject. Issues 

and concerns have, therefore, been consolidated and identified as 

"issue/wncerm". 

This swtion only displays those issues and concerns that were identified 

prior to distribution of the Draft Forest Plan. Those Garments that were 

received in response to the Draft Plan are incorporated in the Public 

Reqmnse Appenduc . and are answered in mre detail by the Forest Sexvice in 

that document. 

The following list displays the general ccolcerns that relate to specific 

rfsources of the Forest. Each of these contains' several specific issues or 

concerns that were identified in the initial swping effort of this planning 

prccess. Public issue/cancerns are indicated by (p); managanent by (m). 

Eccolanic and social issue/cancems are addressed first, followed by ~Wal 

resource issue/concans. 

EaxicwIc AssIssue/Ck": How can the Forest pnduce gccds and services to maximize 

ecoMmic efficiency? 

- Thoroughly discuss discount rates and value of non-market gooas and 

services showing the possibilities of different results under different 

as=-lwti- (P) 

- Hm can lang-term and short-term ecoxmic benefits be balanced? (p) 

- Do Forest Service programs help maintain exx"ic stability and employment 

in local camnlnities? (p) 

47 
SOCIAL AssIssue/Cnncem: 

the local social envirrmmnt and lifestyle? 

- which segments of the population and which camunities might be -acted 

by Forest managaEnt policy? (m) 

Where does the Forest have an influence on the public and ccnmunity? (m) 

Haw does the managanent of the Inyo National Forest influence 

- 

AIR WITY 

Issue/Cc”: 

- Dust, snoke, and regional haze are the msst serious air quality problems 

What can the Forest do to influence air quality‘? 

on and near the Forest. (m) 

mlURAL RES” 

Issue/-: How should the Forest manage cultural resources and provide 

for the use of Forest lands by American Indians for traditional practices? 

- Archaeo1cgica.l sites should be inventoried and protectd, including 

restrictions on motorized access. (p) 

- Native American religious and ceremmial sites should remain inviolate. 

(P) 

attended. (P) 

- Cutural reso- interpretive activities on the Forest are very well 

- Local American Indians wish to use Forest land for traditional cultural 

and religious practices. (p) 

- There is a need to effectively integrate the managment of cultural 

resources with the managemnt of other resources. (m) 

DIVERSITY 

~ssue/Ca”: What is a desirable level of vegetative diversity for the 

Inyo National Forest, and what should the Forest do to maintain or achieve 

that level? 

- Manage natural forces (such as insects, disease, and fire) to maintain 

diversity in the long term while minimizing the disruptive effects of 

thDse forces in the short term. (m) 

- RespOna tn the demand for land uses (such as hydroelectric and gmthennal 

developuents, road and utility corridors, campgrounds, timber managmt, 

and mineral extraction) that threaten to reduce diversity. (m) 
- Riparian areas and conifemus forests suitable for timber management have 

the greatest potential diversity and are the nost threatened by management 

activities. (m) 

- ~ull control of wildfires reduces diversity. (m) 

ENERGY 

~ssue/Ccmcenx How does energy developuent fit in with the -all resource 

manageinent program on the Forest? Geothermal energy is addressed under 

Minerals. 

- Resolve canflicts between hydroelectric projects and water-depsmdent 

resources. (P .s m) 

- Resolve potential canflicts between wind farms and visual resources, soil 

stability, and other land uses. (m) 

- Keep energy developnent mistent with other resources, allming m 

irreparable damage. (p) 

hcourage hydrcelectric use Outside wilderness and Further Planning areas. 

(P) 

- 

- Consider energy such as wind, solar, bnxl fuel. (p) 

EACILITIES 

Issue/O”: 

to support Forest managanent objectives? 

- 

what level of facility construction and maintenance is needed 

Eliminate the backlog of building and utility maintenance to meet health 

and safety des. (m) 

prwide for the expansion of adninistrative facilities where needed. (m) 

There is a need for a materials mgmt and developrent plan. (m) 

- 

- 

- There is a need to cc”te with local fire districts when p1ami.q 

structural developnents on the Forest. (m) 

- Determine the feasible mass transit options on the Forest. (m) 

- There is a need for mre roads for recreational access. (p) 

- There is a need to reduce roads to prevent envirunmental damage. (p) 

- cons.truct roads only where environmental damage can be minimzed. (p) 

- There is a need to regularly examine agreements between the Forest Service 

and Inyo and M~J Counties regarding the maintenance of roads that m 

under both jurisdictions. (m) 

49 
- mere is a need for mre trails and better maintenance of existiq trails. 

(P & m) 

- The need for trails specifically includes mrdic skiing, hiking, OW, and 

handicapped-access trails. (p & m) 

- There is a need to locate, design, and construct trails to pmide the 

desired experience while minimizing resource damage. (p & m) 

The need for new trails is greatest in concentrated recreation use areas 

and mrdic ski areas. (m) 

- 

FISH 

Issue/Canzern: How should fish habitat on the Inyo National Forest be 

managed? 

- Protect stream habitat fran graziq, recreation developat, and water 

diversions. (p) 

- Inpmve stream habitat quality for resident hut. (m) 

- Meet the increasing demand for fishing. (m) 

- Assure population viability of all resident fish species. (p) 

- protect lands sxl“&q ’ streams and lakes with the potential for 

classification as wild trout waters. (p) 

- Address the impact of anall hydro developat on fisheries. (m) 

- Manage habitat for the recovery of threatened Paiute and Labntan 

cutthroat trout. (p & m) 

FuRTHERPLANNINGAIiFAs 

Issue/ck”: 

- There is a need for me wilderness. (p) 

- There is a need for m mre or mt much more wilderness. (p) 

- Consider watershed values when ?xcamn- wilderness. (p) 

- Resist the pressure fm industry to inmediately “road“ those areas made 

available for mn-wilderness uses by the California Wilderness Act (thus 

prec1udu-g possible future wildemess reccmnendations) . (p) 

How should Further Planning Areas on the Forest be managed? 

- Resist the pressure fm wilderness advocacy groups to manage 

non-wilderness areas as ”de facto” wilderness. (p) 

50 
- Make well-cansidered rexmwdations for the wilderness or rnn-wilderness 

management of Further P1annh-g Areas. Cimsider the suitability and 

manageability of each area for wilderness and the trade-offs between 

wilderness designaticm and other resources and activities. (m) 

- There is a need to coordinate Inyo National Forest wilderness 

rem“%tions with BW recamadations for adjoining lards. (m & p) 

GEFXDGY 

Issue/&”: What is the role of geologic resources and services in the 

overall Forest managemmt ~ogram? 

- There is a potential demand for groundwater as a bnestic water source for 

MammthLakes. (m) 

- There is a need to assess groundwatfx resources on a Forest-wide basis. 

(m) 

- There is a need to recognize and make allowance for the risk to planned 

Forest projects posed by geologic p?xcesses such as landslides, 

earthquakes, and volcanic events. (m) 

- There is a need to protect outstanding geologic feam that are 

vulnerable to damage or deskuch ‘on. (p & m) 

LANDS 

Issue/&”: What land use and landownership adjustment plicies and 

demands of regional and national publics? 

- 

procedures are needed to respcold both to local lxmnunity needs and to the 

Should National Forest lands adjacent to qing lxmnunities be available 

(through exchange) for pxivate developnent programs? (m) 

- As the Mammth and June Lake “mities expand, there is an increasing 

demand to locate “unity service facilities on public land under special 

use permit. (m) 

Electric energy conveyors have expressed their need for a future utility 

corridor paralleling the major north-south intestate Pacific DC Intertie 

transnissionline. (m) 

- 

Issue/-: Haw can the Forest best encourage mineral (including 

geothermal) exploration and developnent while protecting surface resource 

values and other land uses? 

- To what extent should National Forest land be available for gmthemal 

exploration and power plant develapnent? (p) 

51 
- What effects wld geothermal developnent have on the environment and on 

the recreational attractions that supprt the local econmy? (p & m) 

What are the long-term effects on surface resources and on groundwater of 

"viq geothermal fluids? (p & m) 

withdrawals on mineral activities. (p) 

- 

- Consider the impact of additional wildemess and/or additional mineral 

- There is a need to address the impacts of nuneral exploration and 

developnent on surface resaun%s such as visual quality, soil stability, 

vegetation, and wildemess values. (m) 

PEsTr"mr 

~ssue/c": what is the appropriate pest management strategy for the 

Inyo? 

- It is desirable to use cultural, biological, or nkxharu 'cal can.trols 

instead of chemical pesticides. (p) 

PRIXIECION 

Issue/c": What is the appropriate fire management strategy for the 

Inyo? 

- Allow natural fires to bum in appropriate areas. (p) 

- There is a need to detennjne the mst cost-effective fire organization for 

the Inyo National Forest, depending largely on the canbination of fire 

suppression strategies implemented. (m) 

RANGE 

Issue/Concern: How should the Inyo balance the needs of the range program 

(- 'c livesix& and wild horses and burros) with the need to protect 

and/or prcduce other resources? 

- N1 fire control contributes to declining range forage outputs. (p) 

- Cattle overgraze riparian areas and key wildlife wintericg and fawning 

areas, resulting in increased erosion and loss of vegetation for forage 

and -- (P) 

- The grazing program should not be reduced or prevented fran increasiq as 

a result of the issues listed above. (p) 

- How many animals are appropriate for a wild horse or burro Chapter I 

management territory? How is the range resource quitably apprtioned to 

wild horses and burros, natim wildlife, and -tic liveskck? (p) 

52 
- There are many factors limiting the ability of the Forest to meet the 

President's target for red meat proaudion (46 percent over 

specified base level). (m) 

xuxREnTIm 

Issue/Cc": what is ths best fecreaticolal opportunity prqram for the 

Inyo (consider- supply, demand, other resource managenat and developnent 

opprtunities, and -tal protection needs)? 

- Recreation developnent is of cc~lce~n to many people, and of vital concern 

to -, especially to local area residents. (p) 

- The public is collectively interested in the entire range of developrwt 

optians. (P) 

- The resource values that attract recreationists to this area are extremely 

important and should rarely be rnq"ised. (p & m) 

The public is dissatisfied with the reduced use seasons and deteriorating 

facilities they have encountered in recent years. (p & m) 

- The supply of overnight facilities is falling behind demand. (m) 

- Day use facilities, such as trails and inteqretive sites. are 

- 

insufficient to meet needs. (m) 

There are major potential canflicts between recreational developnents and 

snall hydrcelectric developrwt, geothermal developoent, and timber 

harvest in the red fir forest east of San Joaquh Ridge. (m) 

- Should "e land be made available Sately for added alpine ski area 

- 

capacity? (PI 

- Alpine ski area potential shDuld not be ccmpranised by oti-ier mgemnt 

activities an identified ptmtial ski areas until the demand for skiing 

begins to level off. (m) 

- Alpine ski areas have impads on visual quality, soil stability, water 

quality and quantity, transportation patterns, safety, the local 

cxl"ity, andlandownersku 'P pa*-. (m) 

Cnnnunity growth in resp3nse to increased alpine skilng could negatively 

affect sumner recreation sites on Forest lands near grming carmunities. 

(m) 

- 

- There is a need for mre opportunities for OW use. (p) 

- "here is a need for mre restriction on OW use. (p) 

- Remove OW mutes frun sensitive areas. (p) 

53 
R?smR"mARFAs 

Issue/coplcern: What ccsltributian should the Inyo make to the national and 

regia Systenrs of Research Natural Areas (RNAs)? 

- 

- 

Research Natural Areas sbrruld be identified and established. (m & p) 

The Inyu sbould "firm the fact that all botanical RNA taxgets assigned 

to the Forest have been met. (m) 

RIpARIANARFAs 

Issue/Cl": What is the significance of riparian areas on the Forest, and 

hay should riparian area-depn3=nt resources be maintained, enhanced, and/or 

restored? 

- Maintainandincrease riparian vegetation. (p) 

- Livestock grazirg, recxeatim, and water diversicm have impacts on 

riparian areas. (p) 

- hergy developxmts, "ral activities, and timber harvest represent 

actual or ptential ccslflicts with riparian area-dependent resources. (m) 

- Accelerated erosion in wet meadows (including active streambanks and 

channal degradation) is of special cx". These problems are most 

severe in the white muntains and on the Kern Plateau. (m) 

- The cuzrent policy of full wildfir8 coprhpl prevents the use of ur~~imed 

ignitions to elinunate tmdy vegetatim encroaching on wet mea-. (m) 

Ea"pLANps 

Issue/Cc": How should the Forest manage habitat for sensitive plant 

species? 

- protect threat& and endaqered species. (p) 

- Consider the effects of Forest management on all native plant species. (p) 

- What is the best overall approach to managing the sensitive plant program? 

(m) 

- How sbould potential oonflicts between the needs of sensitive plants and 

other rwurces and activities be mitigated? (m) 

54 
Issue/&”: Should the Forest mnsider establishing any additional 

Special Interest Areas? 

- Establish special areas to protect axhaeological sites, threatened and 

endangered species, botanical, geological, and visual quality areas. (p) 

- The Forest is direded to identify candidates for geologic Special 

Intd Areas. The Inyo has marry OUtxkaMmg ’ geologic featums. (m) 

- The Forest reeds to evaluate Nati- Natural Le Kminees props& 

by the De-t of Interior and to mnsider rnninatirg other outstandirg 

features an the Forest for Natimal Natural Lan&ark listing. (m) 

TlMBER 

Issue/Caxerx~ what is the best balm between timber (includiq fuelwood) 

pra3~1ctia-1, other resource n?anagenx?nt and developnent opportunities, and 

en-tal pn3teztianneeds? 

- Establish a regulated forest to meet lag-term sustained yield on all 

available, suitable timber land. (m) 

Integrate silvicultural practices with other resaurce values. (p & m) 

timber and other lesources. (m) 

- 

- Determine the size of the timber base, resolving ccslflicts between 

- provide public-use fuelwrad to meet demand. (p) 

- MaintaintheoppcatuIu ’ty for active maMgemMt of pinyor-juniper. (p & m) 

- mider the &lid between plblic fuelwood gathering and other values 

such as wildlife habitat and unique or outstandirg vegetatian types. (m) 

Issue/C”: 

managanat ~orogram, and how can that quality be protected and enhanced? 

- Maintain and manage for visual quality. (p) 

- Resolve conflicts between visual quality and other resources. (m) 

- Maintain or enharu;e current visual resources and scenic attcacticm. (m) 

What role does visual quality play in the overall resource 

55 
PJm” 

Issue/Cc”: Haw should the Forest respond to the needs for water quality, 

increased water yields, water rights for Forest resou~ce management, and 

healthy watershed aondition? 

- Soil proaUctivity is declining. (m) 

- There is a need to rehabilitate damaged or deteriorated watersheds. (m) 

- Aaapt policies in timber managemnt, grazing, and recreation that enhance 

watersheds. (m) 

- There is a lack of legal “u ‘ms for obtainfrg water rights for 

wve water uses (those de-t on water in place). (m) 

- There is a public demand for mxe water yield and availability. (p & m) 

- is -tition between cammptive and “smptive water uses. 

(m) 

WILDANDSCEXCCIssue/cXmcenx What recarmendatians should the Forest make for the 

managemnt of candidate wild and scenic rivers? 

- Potential additions to the wild and scenic rivers system should not be 

threatened. (p) 

Preserve free-fl- rivers unspoiled in their natural state and consider 

for mld and scenic rivers system. (p) 

- 

- Assess candidate rivers for inclusion in the wild and scenic rivers 

system. (m) 

~ssue/Cc”: 

wilderness on the Forest? 

Is there any need for charge in the management of desigMted 

- existing wilderness management plans for consistency and 

respnsiveness to mt conditions. provide for the needed changes in 

the Plan. (p & m) 

There is a need to establish direch ’on for wildmess designated by the 

California Wilderness Ad of 1984. (p & m) 

- 

wluzIFE 

Issue/C”: Haw, where, and to what degree should wildlife habitat be 

maintained and enhanced, and how should wildlife needs be coordinated with 

other ?xsouce managemnt and developnent opprtunities on the Forest? 

56 
What is a desirable level of diversity, anmmt, and distribution of 

wildlife habitat? (p & m) 

What relativa aiphasis should be given to habitat for the Mllous wildlife 

species? (p & m) 

Em should wildlife needs be balanced with the nee&! of cmpting 

lesources? (p & m) 

Nl cmtml of wildfires leduces habitat far wildlife aependent on early 

seral stages. (m) 

What cadributicm can management make to the growing demand for 

wildlife-related recreation (hunting and ~tute study)? 

Deer numbers have declined over the past twenty to thirty years. (p & m) 

The Forest must analyze the opprhm~ 'ties for meeting the 1980 RPA prosram 

goal of increas iq mule deer nm 20 percent. (m) 

Sage grouse populations are deC1irh-g. (p & m) 

Blue grouse habitat should be protected. (m) 

There is a need to manage endaqered Species on the Fore 

peregrine falcm) for species recovery. (m) 

(bald eagle and 

Haw many gcshawk nest sites are needed to maintain population viability? 

HCW many of these sites sbould be maintain& in stands of suitable timber? 

Sierra Nevada nnunCntain sheep should be reintroduced into historic rarqe.(p 

& m) 

The management of Nelm mtain sheep should be aphasized. (p) 

€?cote& habitat for sensitive and special interest qx-ies not addressed 

in specific issues or con". (m) 

Maintain enough mags, down logs, and overall habitat diversity to ensure 

population viability for mag-depenaent species. (m) 

The Forest would have difficulty neetjrg the 1980 RPA Prcgram goal for 

cavity-nesfina birds while nieetjrg the RPA timber target. (m) 

Manage riparian habitat to ensure the viability of dependent wildlife. (p 

& m) 

Manage Great Basin shrub habitat types so that the viability of wildlife 

dependent on early seral stages is ensured. (m) 

57 
ALTERNATIVES 
This chapter describes the alternatives analyzed in the planrcrng precess. In 

this phnniq process, each alternative describes management direction 

design& to guide the management of Forest lands and re~~ucce~ fm their 

current state to a desired future condition. Many oanbinations of resource 

uses and managaent activities are possible in formulating a reasonable range 

of alternatives. 

The resource^ Pl- Act of 1974 (RPA), the National Forest Management Act 

of 1976 (NFMA), and the associated f&al regulations 136 CFR 219.12(f)] 

guide alternative formulatim in this planning mss. The National 

-tal Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and 36 CFR 1500-1508 describe how 

alternatives must be develOpea in envimmwntal analyses and presented xn 

Fsrvircomnental Impact Statements. Additimal requirements for alternative 

fonmilatim are found in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 1920) and Land 

Management Plarvling Duecticm for the Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5). 

The Forest plannirg Interdisciplinary (ID) Team followed the guidelines taken 

fm the am sources in developing the alternatives. Each of these 

alternatives is potentially a Forest Plan. As such, each alternative 

includes gcals and objectives for resource management and resource prcgram 

direction, inclw &andads, guidelines, and presrriptions applied to 

specific areas of land to achieve the stated goals and objectives. 

The full range of plannirg alternatives is defined at the lower level by the 

r" Management ~equirmts (M) specified in 36 CFR 219.27 and at the 

upper level by the physical and biological capability of the land to provide 

resounces and services (the supply potential of the Forest). The nlrmber of 

alternatives to be cansidered within this range is guided by national and 

regional requirements and the need to respond to all significant Forest 

issues and co"s in at least me alternative. 

An impoaant czqxmmt of the alternative formulation process is the 

consideraticm of &-efficiency in resource managemnt. The concept of 

%sent Net Value (PNV) is used in Forest plannjrg as a measure of 

&-efficiency. The PNV of a given alternative is the "etaxy value of 

resource outputs minus the cost of managing the Forest under that 

alternative. 

Altbugh mst-efficiency is an important factor in the fornulation of 

alternatives, it is mt the only important factor. The Forest Sdce is 

mandated to manage all resources wisely, not just those with mtaxy value. 

The mpt of net public benefit is used to describe total benefits, 

including those with "etary value (priced benefits or COmDdl 'ties) and 

those witbut (m-priced benefits or amenities). A given altemative will 

emphasize objectives for dties, 'ties, or a mix of the ism. The 

ecoBlcmic efficiency of the alternative is then calculated by met2.q the 

stated objectives of the alternative in the manner that maximizes PNv. 

.. 

58 
In respnse to these many mnsideraticns, the u) team develop3 alternatives 

with diffsrent thenes, different mixes of resource management din?&l 'an, and 

different output levels of gcds and services. 

Altematives were fonmiLated after the u) team accanplisbed the preliminary 

p1aImil-g step sumnarized below. Additicalal informatiapl about the processes 

and pm3ucts of each step is filed in the planning recards. 

1. Fublic issues and manag-t cc"s were identified. This process 

hvolved an initial formal public involvement picd am3 "itorirg 

of issues and - as they changed, were resolved, or evolved 

durjlq the p1- process. 

2. procesS criteria ware derived fm issues, amcerns, and legal 

requirements to guide the subsequent planning steps. 

3. A 've multiple-resouroe data base for the Forest was 

develcpd and stored in a amputerized retrieval system. 

4. An Imalysis of the Management Sihticm (M) was conducted for each 

resmrce an the Forest. (3urrent and projected future managmt; 

supply and demand; issues, -, opporhnu 'ties: and the need to 

establish or change 'anwereaddhessed. Althzqhaninitial 

AMS was developed and documented, the M is an open-ended process 

that ccmtinues to evolve as additional information is gained. 

5. The social and eccBlcmic charactc&stics of the Forest's zone of 

influence were descriw in a social assesgnent of the management 

situaticm. 

6. Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines to all alte1~1&5ves were 

developed. 

7. The Planning calplter model (FORPLAN) was fx"Aed, us- the 

follcdng steps: 

- Forest mOaelN requirenents that wovld apply to all planning 

alternatives were identified. 

- FORPLAN- 'pticms (C5nbimti- of management activities) 

were developed. 

- The types of land suitable for the applicaticm of each 

pxescriptian were identified. This suitability determination was 

based an such factms as the land classification (e.g., 

wilderness or general Naticmal Forest), vegetatian type, and 

slope. The determlnatian of suitability of lands for given 

59 
presmipticms was a process that evolved as mxe information 

bscam available cbriq the FORPLAN analysis. 

managenent casts and rescurce outputs (with associated dollar 

values) for each presxipticm were calculated. Output and cost 

prescription and tbe prvsical and biolcgical characteristics of 

each type of land to wlsich the prescription could be applied. 

The FORPIAN applicaticm of prescriptims to the Forest land base 

the lands &men for thzse prescripticns -, indeed, 

appropriate. 

8. M" and "rm potential supply levels for specific resmnes 

were prujectea in the benchnark analysis. These mini" and maxi" 

levels defined the bcmdaries, or "decision space," for the raqe of 

altanatives 

- 

figures wefe based cm the management activities of the 

- 

was verified by mapping key prescriptims and de- WhetiXK 

.. 

The actual prucess of deVe1cpi.q alternatives follmd the step described 

below. 

1. Eleven prelimbary albsmatives, representing a variety of themes, 

were generated. Sane of the altematives were based cm national and 

Regional planning themes: the athers were developed in response to 

issues, a", and e 'ties specific to the Inyo National 

Forest. 

2. Each preliminary altmmatiive was analyzed thzpugh the FORPLAN 

canputer model. FORPW was mamned with the prescripticns, land 

suitability criteria, and cost and benefit values described abwe. 

The key objectives of the alternative were then inserted in the 

model, and it was programned to "ize econcmic efficiency (present 

Net Value or PNV) while meeting those objectives. 

The results of the FORPLAN analysis for each alternative were a 

schedule of management activities applied to the Forest land base, 

the resulting resou~ue outputs, and the nrmetary value of those 

outputs and the cost Of pr0duCil-g than. 

when the FORPLAN analysis was canplete, the results were examined to 

determine whether the alternatives represented a "able range of 

management optim, costs and benefits, canm& 'ty and amenity 

outputs, and responded to public issues and mgmt co11cems. 

4. Of the eleven preliminary altematives, six were eventually selected 

for mre detailed study. Selection was based on a smxmirg 

procedure that assessed resource mnpatibilities, respmsiveness to 

issues, and practicality. 

3. 

60 
5. The altexnatives studied in detail were expar&d to include the 

alternative were jniplenentea. The enviropmen tal amsequecces in 

chapter Iv ad4ess cmly thxe alternatives that were studied in 

--- on that wculd be applied mder the 

altemativa ad to describe the Farest in the year 2030 if the 

detail. 

The Preferred Alternative in the maft EIS was revised to reflect the 

expresd demands of the public in the plblic comwts received as a 

of tb Final preferred Alternative which is displayed in this 

6. 

result of the Draft EIS and Plan. mess ComTWts were reviewed by 

the Forest management and interdisciplinary team in the a”cb ‘m 

doclmwt and lIKlre clearly defined in the Plan. 

The Ir’lyo Natia Farest has certacn physical and Gxgcessional or 

abirdstsative designaticms that canfine managenent opticms. These limit the 

raqe of alternatives that can be inplanented. The followirg are two of the 

primary limitirg factors. 

1. Designated wilderness accounts for 565,142 am, or 30 percent of 

theForest. otherlandsLmderachun&z ative or ccmgmssional 

designation for special “gemmt rq”t 92,250 acres, or 5 

percent of the total land base. The range of “g-t options m 

such lands is limited by these Mgnaticms. 

Of Farest land outside wildernass, 27 percent lies m slopes steeper 

than 60 percent, 34 parcent OB). slopes between 30 and 60 percent, 21 

percent cm slopes between 15 and 30 percent, and only 18 percent on 

land flatter than a 15 percent slope. Slope is a lhitjng factor for 

Given these ljmitations, the Forest has developed a set of altmtives 

representing a range of resaurce outputs and cost and benefit values. The 

following table illustrak the range of alternatives for key factors. 

Quantities are expressed as a percent of the difference between the mini” 

and ”um levels projected in the &”arb. The numerical difference 

between minimum and maximum levels is indicated in parentheses. Outputs 

represmt average annual figures for the fifth decade. Alternatives studied 

in detail are underlined: alternatives eliminated fm detailed stu& are 

not; benclmnarlcs are indicated by lower-case letters. 

.. 

2. 

many types of - managenent. 

61 
TOTAT, REXXElTIm USE 

(0.4 b~ 9.6 bM3VLls = a range of 9.2 IN) 

0 / / / / 50% / / / / ~00% 

nilV WlIl 

AMB RPA PRO 

m PRF WLI 

MKT 

- 

AMC 

- CEE 

!"L GRAZING USE 

(2.4 to 75.9 MAINS = a range of 73.5 M AUMS) 

0 / / / / 50% / / / / 100% 

mlV 

LBU 

TIMBEiZ-SZ-U3~l?@ 

(0 to 24.4 ~BF = a range of 24.4 MF) 

0 / / / / 50% / / / / 100% 

nilV tbr 

RPA 

*PRO and MKT alternatives project4 timber harvest above "tbr" by dropping 

the m-declining yield policy. Therefore they did not fall within the 

decision space for timber as defined by the -. 

DEI-TED WILDERNESS 

(565.1 to 1188.9 M acres = a range of 623.8 M acres) 

Mn wln 

FPA PRF m cE3 WLI AMN AMC 

0 / / / / 50% / / / / 100% 

- - - 

PRO - CUR 

LBU 

MKT 

T0raLcrx-P 

0 / / / / 508 / / / / 100% 

($2.2 M4 to $26.1 M4 = a range of $23.8 ml) 

mlV tbr 

62 
-NETVALUE 

($1,605.1 la4 to $3,484.5 la4 = a range of $1,879.4 M) 

0 / / / / 50% / / / / mx 

niLV flw 

- lm"xxIm are analytical nEdelS that serve th?zea flmcticxls: (1) to &tennine 

resource oosts and outputs at the minimum level of (2) to 

determine 

wthe "rm physical and biological capability of the Farest to ' key resources: and (3) to calculate the llpst eaxxdcally 

efficient mix of "gemat activities by "iz- present Net Value (W) 

under different sets of objectives. 

The purpose of anal- te"h for "I and maxi" single-rasource 

Ovtputs is to develcp a decisicm space within which to *lop feasible 

alternatives with a multiple-resource aphasis. Tbe output levels for each 

resource under each alternative will be abwe the "nn benchnark and belaw 

themaxi" bexhmrk. The bnclnwb also pruvi.de a basis for omgaralternatives in terms of resource m**. 

The objective of te"&3 that "ize PNV for diffenmt caobinations of 

activities is to objectively evaluate the ecoBTcmic costs and trade-offs of 

various planning alternatives. 

Ben&muk are mt limited by Forest service plicy or wet, optional 

requirements, spatial feasibility, or pqrm and staff- requirements. For 

this reasun, while b"rh may be technically possible, they can mt 

necessarily be realistically inplenentea. 

The benchnark analysis was a valuable tool in the formulation of 

alternatives. By examining the "nn allowable manag-t level and the 

maxi" supply potential for each key resource, the ID team was able to 

visualize the range of cgkicms available. The alternatives were &evelo@ 

with the intenticn of establishing realistic points alq the scale between 

mininarm and "m levels for mjor resources. 

us- the p1annh-g linear c!aqxlter prcgrm (FORPLAN), the Forest analyzed 

discussed below in terms of each benchnark theme and larrrWlW gained fm 

the analysis. Key resaurce outputs, costs, and PNV for the b€s&w&s are 

nine - during the Forest plannirg process. The be"rW are 

displayed in Table 2. 

purpose and -1- specificatiopls, is umMned in Apperdix B. 

A mre detailed descripticm of the brclmub, their 

63 
1. code: MLV 

M: r4ini" level "ag-t. The plrpose of this benchnark is to 

show the unavoidable costs and benefits of public ownershl 'p Of the Forest 

and to establish the basis for azmpr~g the cutputs, costs, benefits, 

and other impacts of the pl- alternatives. 

Only tbse benefits that are incidental to pmtedaq ' life, health, and 

safety would be prwided. Managmznt would be oriented toward Prwenting 

e"mta.l damage to lands in other ownershl 'ps. Unavoidable land 

uses, such as utility OafiidDlS and private land access a- Naticmal 

Forest lands would be allowed. Managenent activities would include fire 

EXqQmsicm and law enfcorcement. No timber, CklmStl 'c livestock grazing, 

develOpea TBcreatiop1, or wildlife habitat wt outputs would be 

prduced. No Further Plannirg Areas would be recarmended for 

wilderness. There would be some incidental outputs, including dispersed 

recreaticBl use, water yield, and wild horse and burro grazjrg. 

This bexhark is the basis for the marginal analysis of eccarmic 

efficiency for all lx"a% and alternatives. 

KlICWledge gained: This has a positive PNV ($1,605.1 millim), 

reflecting primarily the large a"t and high value of residual water 

cnnhg off the Forest. ouler snaller benefits cone frun backgnxlnd 

levels of dispersed recreatiosl, huntiq, and fishing. Damage fran 

wildfire ad be expcted to increase to level8 well abwe the current 

annual average because of meed staff* and lager txavel to fires. 

Outputs related to timber harvest, aeVelOpea recreation, wildlife habitat 

i"ent, and- 'c livestock grazing would not be prcducai. For 

this -, and because of high fire losses, the PNV of this k"ark 

is ally abut 45 percent of the PNV of other -. 

This b"ar% was not camied forward into the alternative analysis 

because it did not allaw the Forest to meet current ccmmi-fnients (e.g., to 

develcped recreation and grazing permittees) or to manage the land for 

multiple-use outputs such as timber, range, and aeVelopea recreation. 

2. code: FW 

Theme: Maxuru ' 'ze present Net Value (PNV). This lxxhark denrslstrates 

the most econanically efficient level of prducticn for resources with 

assigned cbllar values. Management activities are cxndxained only by 

the pIoductim limitations of the land and by the requirements of 

technical feasibility. This tx"ck is used as the basis for 

evaluatiq the axt of Mini" MamgemntRRequirements. Thisbenchmark 

reqxmds to the issue/co" of evaluating the cost-efficiency of 

resource management. 

64 
: Asws~~resxncecutptswi~ 

, it has the highest 

mowledge gdned 

uKrY3tEny value ami applies the fewest requirements 

FW of any bendmdc ($3,484,500). The folludrg amditicns would be 

fcundunderthis-. 

- Developed ami dispersed ntim would be mdd to met 

projected demand (where the stqply was available), includirg tb 

developnent of all facilities and the maintenance of 

facilities at star&ud levels of -tian over the 50-year p1arni.q 

harim. 

- Wilderness wnuld hzrease by 339,800 acxes over the existing level 

for a total of 904,900 acres on the Forest. The Further Planning 

 rea as recomnended for wil&rness would be cayote Southeast, 

Laurel-McGee, Tioga Lake, Hall Natural, Log Cabin-Sadcuebag, and 

white ”tains. 

Fish and wildlife habitat impIwenent projects would increase to met 

the projected &man3 for fi- and huntiq. All potential fish 

habitat imprarenent warld cccur within the pl- brim. 

Livestock grazing would increase an average of 12 percent over base 

year levels by the end of the pl- brim as a result of 

- 

- 

rejuvenaticn of decadent vegetation and imreasd water developnents. 

ba&g”d level represented in MLV, 

- Wildfire acre^ burned would be r&.lcd 40 helm the *. 

- Timber harvest, uncanstrained by the Of --declining 

yield, wmld average about 1.3 MCF (8.7 WF) per year over the 

first 50 years. 

programnedharvest. 

This level represents ahcplt 83 percent of base year 

This t”a& proauces the hicJhest PNV because it includes m a3nstraints on 

the Fbrest‘s ability to optimize resnmx outputs. The b”ark illustrates 

that over 85 percent of the potential benefits that could OCCUT an the Forest 

would arise fran developed and disparsed ‘muse. mareaswhere 

timber harvest cxnpf3tes with develciJed rwxeatian and ptential alpine ski 

areas, timber harvest is displaced on the basis of eaxanics and present Net 

Value. 

This - does not mest Mjnj” Management R-ts for gcshawk 

nestiq territories or riparian area protection, or the Minimum 

m1- ‘on Re@.” t for visual quali*; for these reasans, it was not 

carried forward into the analysis of alternatives. 

m: Maximize Present Net Value (W) under Mini” Management 

Requirements. This bendma& denmstrates the opprtunity costs of the 

btun” Management Rec@x”ts consider& collectively. It forms the 

basis for evaluating additimal requirements beyona the Mini” 

m-t -wi=n=n ts. This hencbmark responds to the issue/cx” of 

evaluathg the &-efficiency of resoutce management. 

.. 

65 
Knowled$e gained : The F"V of this benchark is $3,484,200, representing 

a $0.3 million drop (less than me percent) relative to FLW, am. The 

anall size of that change damstcates that the imposition of Mimi" 

ccmsequemxs. The application of WRs would result primarily in changirag 

the spatial arrangement and timing of vegetation -treatments, and would 

provide for non-declining yield and even flow. The slight reduction in 

total timber yield can be attributed equally to goshawk habitat 

protection and ljmitaticns on harvest in riparian areas. This lx"rk 

prcchces a mix of managemnt practices and outputs nearly identical to 

Management Requkemsts (MulRs) would have virtual ly m eccncmic 

those in FLW, with the fOllCwiq differences: 

- Riparian areas and goshawk habitat would be main- at levels 

neededtomeetMini" Management Requirements. 

Timber harvest would meet the requirement of r~~~-decliniq yield and 

would represent only slightly reduced volumes. 

- 

- The ~ame Further Plm would be recaRnended for wilas in FLW: they are: Coyote southeast, Laurel-McGee, Tiqa Lake, 

Hall Natural, Lcg Cabin-Saddlebag, and White kknmtajns. 

As this benchmark does mt meet the Mjnj" Implemntatiorl Req&a" t for 

visual quality, it was not carried forward intact into the analysis of 

alternatives: the addition of the visual Mini" Inpl-tation RWts 

to this benchmEclk resulted in Alternative CEE, which was studied in detail. 

4. code: MKV 

lkm=: Maximize PMI for only those resources with market value, applying 

Mu" Management Requirements. The purp3se of this benchmark is to 

estimate the rrost cost-effective mix of resource manag-t practices for 

pmdLlcing outputs with established market prices (i.e., timber, fuel&, 

geothermal energy, livestock forage, and develope3 recreation). This 

bendma& reqmnds to the issue/c" of evaluating &-efficiency in 

resource management. 

.. 

Knowledge gaimd: The outputs of market resources under this bencln\ark 

would mt differ significantly fm those in the I@lR B"mrk described 

above, in which both market and non-market outputs were valud. This 

fact denmzstrates the low level of mnflict between market and "-market 

outputs on the Forest. Because they were not valued eco1y3rm 'cally in this 

benchmark, outputs of non-market ~~SOU~C~S declined significantly, 

resulting in a PNV of $3159.8 millim. The large drop in PNV fran the 

lvMR benchmark indicates the relative hpor4zm of "-market values on 

the Inyo National Forest. 

The rmst significant differences between MKV and lvMR are: 

- DispersedekLon- 'ties would be provided at below-current 

levels. 

- Timber outputs would azpP because the non-marht Outputs induced fm 

timber harvest were not given ecc~y3rm 'c value. 

66 
- wiidemes would be maintained at current levels with 1y3 additional 

aoreage “-&tiom in respcplse to demand. 

levels, with a resulting drop in hunting and fishing use. 

Range outputs would increase as a result of reduced “petiticn with 

wildlife and wilderness resource values. 

- Wildlife habitat improvements wDuld be pmvided at =-”

- 

!rhe significant drop in timber, dispersed “aticn, and wildlife 

outputs disqualified this b”rk fran analysis as an alternative. 

llxms: Maximize timber prcductim for me decade. This bencbmark 

&fines the n“m possible timber cut@ for the first decade, applying 

Mu” Managawnt Requimwnts and m-declining yield. This bencha& 

to the issue/c” of establishing a regulated forest on 

virtually all available, suitable timber land. 

Knowledge gained : Thetimbercuthaeased to nearly three times that of 

m, but the cost of ha“g . was 48 percent greater than the total 

value of the timber, and five times the timber cost reported in M. The 

average annual harvest ohl the Forest under this knchna& would be 3.4 

canditions would also result: 

- Develop3 nscmaticm, primarily alpine skim, would be 1.5 million 

.. 

WCF (22.1 WF) OBI 107,662 Of suitable timber land. The follcd.ng 

IivDs lower in TBR than M by the fifth decade. 

- Dispersed recreaticBl and wilderness use wDuld be lower than in M 

because - of timber harvest in c”trated recreation areas and 

Planning Areas mqx?=tively. 

- ”he following Further Planning Areas would be recQrmended for 

wi1danes.s: Coyote southeast, Ticga Lake, Hal7 Vatural, and White 

MzxJntains. 

Water yield would ircnsse slightly over m in the SecCBzd through 

the fifth decades. 

This b“rk results in a PNV of $3279.9 millh, a rec3.1ctica-1 of $204.2 

millim fran Mm. The reduction is caused chiefly by the high cost of 

aerial 1%- of timber ohl 30-60 percent slopss, and reduced remeation 

outputs. 

This i3xzhwA was not analyzed as an alternative, primarily because it 

did not meet the Mini” Implementation Rqui” ts for visual quality and because the cost of timber harvest was substantially higher than the 

value of the timbx harvested. 

- 

67 
6. - code: wr.N 

w: Mdnrize PNV with all Further Plannirg Areas lecarmended as 

wilderness. TWS respcsld~ to the issue/cx" of lecarmending 

mxe wilderness 081 the Forest. 

Knowledge gained : All Furthex Planning Areas, encanpassirg 623,800 

-, would be added to the &Sting 565,100-a(~~ Fe wilderness base 

for a total of 1,188,900 acres of wil-. Wilderness recxeatim 

would hcrease to 870,230 averqe annual RVDS by the fifth decade. This 

use figure is still well below the projected demand of 1,564,700 RVDS, as 

public demand is greater than the Forest's ability to mde wilderness 

 use^ 'ties. As pointed out in MKV ahove, there are low levels of 

&lict between market and m-market values an the Forest; 

cmsequently, outputs with market value differ little frun W. The 

fOllCwing dticns resulted fran the kl%&"&: 

- There was a loss of PNV resulting fran the cost of developiq trails 

and trailheads to manage maryinally suitable lands uder wilderness 

designation. 

There was a slight reductx '081 in both timber and range outputs due to 

a reduction in the land base available for intensive vegetatim 

- 

management. 

Despite these differences, a less than 5 percent drop in PNV relative to 

WlR indicates a very slight econanic effect over the 1- term. This 

fact indicates, in turn, that my a mall pxpxti081 of total resource 

benefits with nrmetaq value would be fo- if wilderness were 

"ized on the Forest. 

This w, with a slight =-order- of objectives, was carried into 

the analysis of alt-tives as Alternative AMC. 

7. e: " 

'Ihane: Maxlml ' 'ze PNV while re"w&q ' no Further Planning Areas for 

wilderness. This benchmark respclnds to the issue/co" of establishirg 

no mre wilderness on the Forest. 

Knowledge @ned : This b"ark is similar to WlR, except that it has 

only 565,100 total acres of wilderness (vs. 904,900 acres in W), and 

acres. A wnparison of NON with WLN indicates that, althDugh wilderness 

designation does not significantly affect PNV on the Forest, the greatest 

PNV would be attained by ' 339,800 acres (54 percent of 

Further Planning Areas) for wilderness. 

Because this l"a& does not meet the visual quali.ty ram, it was not 

considered in the analysis of alternatives. Alternative RPA, which was 

wilderness on the Forest. 

that range outputs inaease slightly with the 'on of wilderness 

studied in detail, to the issue of . nonew 

68 
8. B: RCW 

w: Maximize domestic livestock graz.iq for five decades. The 

prrp3se of this is to e.Stimat.3 the ” capability of the 

subject only to Mini” Management Requb” ts. Thisbenchnarkto the issue/cascerns of hxe&lq ran30 graziq and meeting the 

Forest to povi& mal livestock grazing war the plannjng horizon, 

president’s target for increased red meat prducticm cm the Naticmal 

Forests. 

KlXXVldgl? gained: Livestock forage prcdmtion would reach 75.9 average 

annual ?mls in the fifth decade. The folloWirg cxmditicns would also 

result: 

- Appmxhately 69,000 am of IYHI-~”~ ‘al (P-) and 

unprcductive ccrrmercial timber lands would be CDBNerted to 

bitterbrush and grass over the planning horizon. 

- Maximum range mcticm would preclude wilderness designation an 

321,400 acres of Further Planniq Areas selected for wilderness in 

m. 

- ’he Planning Areas that would be recomnended for wilderness 

are: Tioga Lake, Hal1 Natural, and Log Cabin-Saddlebag. 

- Key deer winter range would be lcst to intensive &mesh ‘c livestock 

use. 

This benchmark results in a PNV of $3460.7 million, a reduction of $23.4 

million fran the lyMR. This reducticm results primarily fnrn reduced 

dispersed recreation RVDs due to snaller wilderness acreage and frun the 

reduced density of dispersed recreation use where grazing occurs in 

concenkated recreation areas (e.g., the Lower Rock C&& and McGee C&& 

drainagfs). 

This benchmark was not considered in the analysis of alternatives We to 

the &lid with wildlife and the fact that it does mt meet the visual 

suality management. 

9. B: H20 

‘Ihene: Mawru * ‘ze water yield for five decades. This texhark estimates 

the “um capability of the Forest to provide water over the planning 

horizon, subject cmly to Minir”\ l4anag-t RW ts. Thisbnchm?xk 

respclnds to ib issue/cancem of reqcdmg * to the public demand for me 

water. 

Knowledge Q-dined : It was found that the patential for increasing water 

yield on the Forest is slight; the average mual water yield in this 

benchmarkinneases less than one percent when ounpared to FLW. The 

Further planning Areas recannended for wilderness would be the sirme as in 

M: Ooyote Southeast, Laurel-McGee, Tioga Lake, Hall Natural, Log 

Cabin-Saddlebag, and white PZnmta5n.s. 

69 
Vegetatim remval for timber harvest or ski area developnent was the 

primary mew used to increase water yield. (As timber harvest was mre 

effective than ski area developnent in prcducing water, it displaced 

skiing wherever both mens were available.) The only area m the 

Forest that is both available (outside wilderness) and that has the 

vegetatim, soil, and climate needed to achieve increased water yield is 

the San Jcaquh Rise area bebeen Marmoth and June Lake. The reductim 

in PNV relative to W sksw primarily fran the high costs of timber 

harvest m steep Slopes and the reductl 'm in develop4 recreatim RVDs, 

(primarily fxan loss of downhill ski areas to timber harvest). 

This benchmark was not analyzed as an alternative because the cost of 

timberharvestexceeds*timbervalLle, andtheMini" Implementaticn 

ReqkmEnt for visual quality is not met. 

The follming are sone of the cawclusions that can be drawn about Forest 

resources m the 1ny0, and about the relaticrehips and interactions amng 

--, based on the the baxhmrk analysis. 

- muse of the high benefit values associated with recreation, 

develapea and dispersed remeation opportunities would always be 

provided at levels Ileeded to meet pmjectea demand (or to canpletely 

utilize the Forest recreaticBl supply, whichever was the limiting 

fador) urd+r the objective of "izing PNV. Tlae pcductim of 

recreation outputs is vary cost-effective, and mra than 90 percent 

of the potential benefits (beyond residual output benefits) in the 

WE3 bendmark result frun recreation use. Limitatims on the 

prc&l&on of recreaticol outputs, when canpared with limitations on 

outputs for arry other resource, can potentially cause the greatest 

loss in PNV. For example, timber harvest in potential ski areas 

reduced PNV in both TBR and H20. 

Designaticn of ackliticmal wilderness on the Forest shows an ecca7anic 

effect my in benclvnarks that "ize single resources: IEGN 

recomnends the least acreage to wilderness, follruved by TBR. In 

mtrast, the that maxlIlll * 'ze PNV ckmmtxate that m 

significant loss of 

all Further Planniq Areas for wilderness (as seen by canparing WLN 

with W). This relationship indicates that wilderness 

recannendations will eventually be based mpe on the benefits, costs, 

and managemat considerations associated directly with wildesignation, rather than on trade-offs with other reamrcs and 

opportunities. 

- 

'ty cutputs would result fxan 

- The lxahnarh derrrslstrate that livestock grazing, even when provided 

at maxi" levels in the RGN bsn&mrk, makes up a relatively minor 

part of the total PNV on the Forest. Where the objective is to 

maximize PNV, the benchmarks dmmslxate that the Forest would be 

managed for an increase in grazing of slightly mre than 22 percent, 

averaged over the five-decade him. On the other hand, maxi" 

range pnductim requires vegetation rejwenaticsl, type cawersicn, 

70 
fetEirg, and water developnents, which ate costly, -1Ude 

wilderness, and displace deer fran key winter range. 

Despite other diffemnces in the b"a&s, timber outpts would be 

maintainednearthelvMRlevel(exceptinTBRandH20,~thecost 

of timber productiw. exoeeded the value of the timber harvested). 

Forest; Le., less than faur peroent, even in the maxi" timber 

bmchark. In a&tion, discmnted public benefits in TBR would 

a"t to only $0.67 for eveq dollar expnded. The anuunt of 

suitable timber acreage in TBR was 9,500 acres greater than in WIR, 

because timber in potential developd "eation sites (primarily ski 

areas) harvested in TBR is not hamade3 when the objective function 

is to "ize PNV. This in part accounts for the difference in 

hanrest levels between mR and TBR. 

Water yield would innease My slightly uder the objedive of 

maxbwngwak, with-~~lyfrantimberharvest 

in ski areas. This b="& damstrates that the net value 

received fram irmeased water yield due to increased timberhanrest 

would be slight, since increased cutting is Offset by the high cost 

of timber harvest w steepat Slopes and the loss of potential ski 

Timber makes Up a pCpOrtiOn.al.ly SMll part Of the total PNV 081 the 

area use. 

Because of the low Forest-wide oosts associated with losses to 

wildfire, "izirg PNV ad hplement a reduced fire managmt 

organization, thereby accepting an imxease of 200 acres in average 

annual acres burned. F"m, the fire organization would shift 

to a greater emphasis on fire qqression relative to prwention, 

which is nore cost-effective than the current mix. 

The effect of Mhjnum luynagement Rquimwnts on resource outputs and 

on PNV is very slight. TNS fact is damstrated by the 0.1 percent 

decline in PNV and the "al change in resourcB cutputs betwen the 

FLW and lvMR bmharks. The impact was felt only on the timber 

harvest as a result of meeting goshawk and riparian area 

requirement. 

Resource autputs wimt market value, such as dispersed recreatim, 

water, and wildlife, make up a major portion of total benefits fm 

the Forest. The PMI fm the MKV txz&ma&, in which only market 

resources are valud, is much lower than the k"&s in which 

m-market values are amsidezed. This relaticuship is true mainly 

because the largest single cmtribution to PNV is the backgrolnd 

water yield cnning from the Forest. 

As damstrated by the MLV bmhxk, PNV can be significantly 

redwed belaw tb lvMR be"& when the budget is reduced. The MLV 

t"a&, with an objective fumtion to "ize cost, iridicates the 

largest possible xxdwtion in PMI (nearly 54 percent below M). The 

is chiefly atbdbuted to loses in recreation, mqe, 

wildlife and timber outputs and a failure to reduce wildfire. 

71 
- In general, the TBSOUIICB outplts that most significantly ccntrilalte 

to PNV on tbe Forest are mutually canpatible. Develqed and 

dispersed lecreation -ti- can be Offered -t1y, with 

little ccasequence on other outpts. Hawwer, maxu~l . *zing market 

outputs only rea.lc!es muv ami cclnflicts with wilderness recreaticpl and 

wildlife cutgmts. The FORPLAN -1 tends to select rrm-market 

resources 

(SU& as timber) 

OVBT market 

-fit 

- 

fron crmpatible 

to "ize 

-t 

PNV; market 

with =-market 

- 

-. as seen when MKV is ampared with luMR. Because certain 

mn-market values associated with timber ha"g . were not valued 

in MKV, the harvest sckdule was r&iuced nearly 17 peroent from the 

"harvest. 
Bedlmrb 

Activity/Re"ce MLV FLW wm 

R-N (-1 1605.1 3484.5 3484.2 

TIMBER (-1 

Base Y& 

Decade 1** 

%=de 2 

Decade3 

Decade 4 

Decade5 

LoNGTERMsusnmmoYIm 

(-1 

(-) 

GRFiZING (M AIM) 

Base Year 

Decade1 

Decade 2 

Decade 3 

Decade 4 

Decade5 

WATW YIELD (M --Feet) 

Base Year 

Decade 1 

Decade 2 

Decade 3 

Decade 4 

Decade 5 

10.5 10.5 10.5 

0 9.5 8.6 

0 9.6 8.6 

0 7.5 8.6 

0 7.5 8.6 

0 9.2 10.4 

0 3.6 3.8 

0 23.2 24.8 

41.4 41.4 41.4 

2.4 *** 48.6 48.7 

2.4 50.5 50.3 

2.4 53.6 53.6 

2.4 54.0 54.1 

2.4 46.5 46.6 

1093 1093 1093 

1093 1101 1101 

1093 1093 1093 

1093 1093 1093 

1093 1093 1093 

1093 1093 1093 

LAIg3" WITHROAT 'Ilaovr (Threatened) (acres of stream habitat) 

Base Year 1 1 1 

Decade 1 1 1 3 

Decade 2 1 1 5 

Decade 3 1 1 5 

Decade 4 1 1 5 

Decade 5 1 1 5 

PAIUI'E WITWROAT TRavT (Threatened) (acres of stream habitat) 

Base Year 3 3 3 

Decade 1 3 3 13 

Decade 2 3 3 18 

Decade 3 3 3 18 

Decade 4 3 3 18 

Decade 5 3 3 18 

* Base year is 1982 ** Decade 1 is the pericd 1988-1997 

*** Wild horses and burros 

72 
+ 

mm 

* 

8 + b 4 
Table 2 (continwd) 

Activi~/Rescunx --" Average €!nnual Outputs by Decade MLV 

far B~~&E&s - 

FLW " 

Base Year 0 0 0 

Decade 1 0 0 2 

Decade2 0 0 2 

Decade 3 0 0 2 

Decade4 0 0 2 

Decade 5 0 0 2 

(- of Psi=) 

--(-) 

(winter J"g - -1 

Base Year 

Decade1 

Decade2 

Decade 3 

Decade4 

Decade 5 

t4lLE DEW 

(M animals) 

Base Year 

Decade 1 

Decade 2 

Decade3 

Decade 4 

Decade5 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

12.0 12.0 12.0 

12.6 11.9 11.9 

13.0 11.6 11.6 

13.3 11.1 11.1 

13.7 10.7 10.7 

14.1 10.3 10.3 

SIERRA" r9" SHEEe (m of animls) 

Bass Year 300 300 300 

Decade 1 330 350 350 

Decade2 360 400 400 

Decade 3 390 450 450 

Decade4 420 500 500 

Decade 5 450 550 550 

" I."Am SHEEP ("lber of animals) 

Base Year 130 130 130 

Decade 1 130 140 140 

Decade2 130 154 154 

Decade 3 130 154 154 

Decade4 130 154 154 

Decade5 130 154 154 

74 
Benchnarks 

MKV !mR WLN " m H20 

0 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

-~ . 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

12.0 

11.9 

11.6 

11.1 

10.7 

10.3 

300 

330 

360 

390 

420 

450 

0 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

12.0 

11.9 

11.8 

11.7 

11.6 

11.5 

300 

350 

400 

450 

500 

550 

0 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

12.0 

11.9 

11.6 

11.1 

10.7 

10.3 

300 

350 

400 

450 

500 

550 

0 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

12.0 

11.9 

11.6 

11.1 

10.7 

10.3 

300 

350 

400 

450 

500 

550 

0 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

12.0 

11.2 

9.9 

8.7 

7.4 

5.9 

300 

330 

360 

390 

420 

450 

0 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

12.0 

11.9 

11.6 

11.1 

10.7 

10.3 

300 

350 

400 

450 

500 

550 

130 130 130 130 130 130 

130 140 140 140 130 140 

130 154 154 154 130 154 

130 154 154 154 130 154 

130 154 154 154 130 154 

130 154 154 154 130 154 

75 
Base Year 

Decade1 

Decade2 

Decade 3 

Decade 4 

Decade 5 

"ms (pairs in suitable tinber) 

Base Year 

Decade 1 

Decade 2 

Decade3 

Decade4 

Decade5 

TOTAL WnLlLnE & FISH ZnSERDAYs (-) 

m DEER 

Base Year 

Decade1 

Decade 2 

Decade 3 

Decade 4 

Decade 5 

RESILlm FISH 

Base Year 

Decade 1 

Decade 2 

Decade 3 

Decade 4 

Decade 5 

OTHER 

Base Year 

Decade 1 

Decade 2 

Decade 3 

Decade 4 

Decade 5 

1632 

1632 

1632 

1632 

1632 

1632 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

25.2 

26.5 

27.3 

27.9 

28.8 

29.6 

352.5 

68.1 

68.1 

68.1 

68.1 

68.1 

25.8 

5.1 

5.1 

5.1 

5.1 

5.1 

1632 

1640 

1649 

1658 

1667 

1674 

15 

12 

9 

6 

3 

0 

25.2 

25.0 

24.4 

23.3 

22.5 

21.6 

340.0 

342.4 

344.8 

347.2 

349.6 

352.0 

25.8 

26.9 

2.0 

37.1 

41.3 

49.2 

1632 

1640 

1649 

1658 

1667 

1674 

15 

14 

13 

12 

11 

9 

25.2 

25.0 

24.4 

23.3 

22.5 

21.6 

340.0 

342.4 

344.8 

347.2 

349.6 

352.0 

25.8 

26.9 

32.0 

37.1 

41.3 

49.2 

76 
BadmE&s 

MKV TBR WLN NON RGN HZ0 

1632 

1632 

1632 

1632 

1632 

1632 

15 

14 

13 

12 

11 

9 

25.2 

25.0 

24.4 

23.3 

22.5 

21.6 

352.5 

98.0 

98.0 

98.0 

98.0 

98.0 

25.8 

19.7 

20.5 

21.7 

22.6 

24.0 

1632 

1640 

1649 

1658 

1667 

1674 

15 

14 

13 

12 

11 

9 

25.2 

25.0 

24.8 

24.6 

24.4 

24.1 

340.0 

342.4 

344.8 

347.2 

349.6 

352.0 

25.8 

26.9 

32.0 

37.2 

41.9 

49.6 

1632 

1640 

1649 

1658 

1667 

1674 

15 

14 

13 

12 

11 

9 

25.2 

25.0 

24.4 

23.3 

22.5 

21.6 

340.0 

342.4 

344.8 

347.2 

349.6 

352.0 

25.8 

26.9 

32.0 

34.2 

38.3 

43.7 

1632 

1640 

1649 

1658 

1667 

1674 

15 

14 

13 

12 

11 

9 

25.2 

25.0 

24.4 

23.3 

22.5 

21.6 

340.0 

342.4 

344.8 

347.2 

349.6 

352.0 

25.8 

26.9 

32.0 

38.5 

40.9 

48.3 

1632 

1640 

1649 

1667 

1674 

1658 

15 

14 

13 

12 

11 

9 

25.2 

23.5 

20.8 

18.3 

15.5 

12.4 

340.0 

342.4 

344.8 

347.2 

349.6 

352.0 

25.8 

26.9 

32.0 

38.5 

43.3 

44.5 

1632 

1640 

1649 

1658 

1667 

1674 

15 

14 

13 

12 

11 

9 

25.2 

25.0 

24.4 

23.3 

22.5 

21.6 

340.0 

342.4 

344.8 

347.2 

349.6 

352.0 

25.8 

26.9 

32.0 

36.7 

42.6 

49.4 

77 
Table 2 (am-) 

A-ge Annual outplts &Decade for Bemhwks 

Base Year 

Decade 1 

Decade 2 

Decade 3 

Decade 4 

Decade 5 

DISPEXSED FtUXEZiTION (M PSlJS) 

Base Year 

Decade 1 

Decade 2 

Decade 3 

Decads4 

Decade5 

WILDFRNESS (M-1 

Base Year 

Decade 1 

Decade 2 

Decade 3 

Decade 4 

Decade 5 

KmAL cosT (M) 

Base Ye 

Decade 1 

Decade 2 

Decade 3 

Decade 4 

Decade 5 

2836 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1543 

432 

432 

432 

432 

432 

565.1 

565.1 

565.1 

565.1 

565.1 

565.1 

10.3 

2.2 

2.2 

2.2 

2.2 

2.2 

2836 

3686 

4673 

5383 

6143 

6272 

1543 

1852 

2524 

2910 

3086 

3268 

565.1 

904.9 

904.9 

904.9 

904.9 

904.9 

10.3 

12.8 

14.7 

15.6 

15.5 

17.9 

2836 

3686 

4673 

5383 

6143 

6272 

1543 

1852 

2524 

2910 

3086 

3268 

565.1 

904.9 

904.9 

904.9 

904.9 

904.9 

10.3 

12.8 

13.6 

14.7 

16.5 

18.3 

78 
2836 

3686 

4674 

5383 

6144 

6272 

1543 

1122 

1489 

1524 

1730 

1891 

565.1 

565.1 

565.1 

565.1 

565.1 

565.1 

10.3 

11.2 

14.1 

13.5 

14.7 

16.2 

2836 

3686 

4672 

4690 

4708 

4756 

1543 

1834 

2500 

2889 

3050 

3260 

565.1 

891.0 

891.0 

891.0 

891.0 

891.0 

10.3 

17.5 

17.4 

19.6 

26.8 

26.1 

2836 

3686 

4673 

5383 

6143 

6272 

1543 

1857 

2531 

2919 

3096 

3297 

565.1 

1188.9 

1188.9 

1188.9 

1188.9 

1188.9 

10.3 

12.9 

14.5 

14.6 

15.4 

20.8 

2836 

3686 

4673 

5383 

6143 

6272 

1543 

1828 

2493 

2862 

3020 

3213 

565.1 

565.1 

565.1 

565.1 

565.1 

565.1 

10.3 

12.6 

14.5 

14.6 

15.3 

18.2 

2836 

3686 

4673 

5383 

6143 

6272 

1543 

1839 

2507 

2882 

3046 

3237 

565.1 

583.5 

583.5 

583.5 

583.5 

583.5 

10.3 

14.3 

15.9 

15.4 

16.2 

17.9 

2836 

3686 

4673 

5383 

5517 

5634 

1543 

1840 

2508 

2892 

3069 

3246 

565.1 

904.9 

904.9 

904.9 

904.9 

904.9 

10.3 

13.0 

15.4 

17.2 

18.2 

14.2 

79 
-1CN 

Of the eleven alternatives originally developed, six were cbsen for mre 

detailed study. The -ice was made by evaluating each altemativa in terms 

of three prinaq factors for each resource: outputs, key effects, and 

reqxmse to issues and a"s. The eleven original alternatives represent 

a raqe of outputs for each rescutce: the six chosen for detailed study were 

selected on the basis of their response to major issues am3 a"s, and 

their ability to meet at least Mini" Management Requirements, Minimum 

Implementation RE@XE" ts, Timber policy Rquirenab and Forest-wide 

Standards and Guidelines described in the next section of this chapter. The 

outputs, treatment of issues and "s, and en- tal consequences 

represented by the alternatives studied in &tail are displayed later in this 

chapter under the heading of Clmparism of Alternatives. 

Each of the alternatives eliminated fmn detailed study was analyzed to the 

point of describing a theme, goals, objectives, outputs, and key effects. 

The alternatives eliminated fran detailed study and the primary reasms for 

their eliminatim are discussed briefly below. The outputs for eliminated 

alternatives are displayed in Table 3. The alternatives studied in detail 

are described later in this chapter. 

INDIVIMIXt ALTERNATIVE DISCUSSICST 

"e: mE0 

'Ihane: The primary purpose of this altemative is to determine the 

ability of the Forest to meet the timber targets frun the Region's 

high-prductivity alternative as assigned to the Inyo National Forest. 

Reasons for Eliminatim: The analysis of this altmtive indicated that 

the timber target could only be met by dropping the m-decliniq yield 

requirement. WithDut that requirement, timber harvest would drop to less 

than one-third of the base year level after the fifth decade for three 

decades. The timber harvest plp3ram itself would not meet 

&-efficiency criteria, as best costs muld be greater than the 

value of the timber harvested. The pm&ction of range outputs would 

require - 'c livestock to increase on key deer winter rqe, 

displacing deer. Wilderness reocmnendatians would be lmest of all but 

the MKT alternative: only the Tioga Lake, Hall Natural, and Laurel-McGee 

areas (less than three percent of further planning acreage on the Forest) 

would be reonmended for wildemess. 

1- - 

2. "e: LWI 

'Ihane: This alternative was analyzed to estimate the expected outputs 

and services that could be provided in the future if the 1982 budget were 

reduced by 25 percent. 

80 
RBasons for Elimination: Forest outputs would change noticeably if the 

budget were reduced and continued at reduced levels over an extended 

perid of time. All recreation facilities would be maintained at 

low-standard levels, and bspersed recreation and wildlife-related 

outputs would fall below current levels of use. The result would be an 

unacceptable respsnse to the prmary public issue on the Inyo National 

Forest which is the quantity and quality of recreational opp3ltunrties. 

Grazing would dmp significantly to less than a third of base year output 

levels, affecting the viability of many ranching operations depmdent on 

the Forest for sumner range. The PNV for this alternative would be the 

lowest of any alternative analyzed. The overall lack of respnsiveness 

to major public issues disqualified as alternative fran detailed study. 

3. Name: WLI 

~ Theme: Rrxa"d a substantial amount of quality acreage for wilderness 

while maintaining or increasing wty outputs through intensified 

manag-t of lands outside wilderness. 

Reasons for Eliminatim: As was shown in the benchmark analysis, further 

prcduction. The opportunity msts of increasing wilderness are 

noticeable only when "izing individual resources. 

As the Inyo does not have noticeable trade-offs between wilderness and 

ccmnxlity outputs, the need to offset such trade-offs by intensifying 

COmOOdity managqwnt 1s adequately acomplished in the CEE altemative, 

which was studied m detail. CEE would realize 76 percent of the 

Wilderness potential on the Forest in the mt cost-effective 

canbination, given the m-wilderness reso- opportunities in further 

plw areas. (23 would also select the highest quality wilderness 

acreage in t- of wildemess recreation opportunities. WLI represents 

less livestock grazing and higher timber msts than CEE. This 

alternative would also reduce the land base available for mtensive 

wildlife habitat management. 

WLI, while following the guideline that mst Further Plarmh-g acres on 

the Forest be rxa"M for wilderness, does not meet the criterion 

that those -tiom represent quality wilderness. Many of the 

acres reccmnended would be low-quality wilderness, in t- of both 

wilderness recreation and other wilderness values. In addition, WLI 

would recQrmend many acres for wilderness that represent high oosts for 

trail and trailhead constz-uction and for managemnt of wilderness use. 

AMN addresses the issue of ' mst Further Plarmh-g acres on 

the Forest for wilderness. This issue is studied in detail AMN 

mizes large wilderness acreage as part of a broader amenity 

eqbsis. The desire for overall amenity-oriented managemnt is mre of 

a public issue on the Inyo than the separate issue of extensive 

wilderness acreage. 

plannirg areas on the Forest have little potential for conmodl 'ty 

81 
4. "3: MKT 

Ihenre: This alternative eqhasizes high level Outputs of market 

"-market "es are proauOea at eccamnically efficient levels. The 

alternative includes a timber target of 25 MWF average annual harvest 

and a grazing target of 55,700 AUMS by the fifth decade. 

Reasans for Eliminatim: This alternative, like PRO, could meet the 

timber target only by dropping the ran-declining yield requirement. The 

25 MWF timber target cculd be met only if the timber volume were allowed 

to drop well below base year for three decades afw the fifth decade. 

In order to meet the range target, deer would be displaced by dawst~ 'C 

livestock g~azing on key win- range. The wildemess recorrmendation 

would also be minimal , with cmly the Laurel McGee, Tioga Lake, and Hall 

Nawal areas recammended for wilderness. 

resourceS (timber, range, developed recreation, and mineral s). 

'Ihane: Maxuruze wilderness by * all Rrrther PlaMirg Areas .. for wildaness designation. Maintain cuzrent levels of market outputs 

while producing cost-effecti-a levels of m-market outputs. 

Reascms for elimination: This alternative would not respond to the 

management ccr" that all recomnended wildemess meet basic criteria 

for suitability and manageability under wilderness designation. The cost 

of trails, supervision, and n!anag-t would be higher than the pvblic 

benefits pruvidd. 

In addition, management opportunities would be severely restricted, and 

valuable vehicle-based recreation and mineral opportunitieS would be 

foregone under wilderness designation. If all Rrrther Plannjq Areas 

were recannended for designation, 62 percent of all Inyo Forest lands 

would be wilderness. As an additicnal5 percent of Forest lands already 

have other restrictive special desiptions (e.g., mrn Basin National 

Forest Scenic Area, Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, Research Natural 

Areas), mly 33 percent of the Forest would be inrailable for the full 

range of managemnt opticms. While current outputs could be maintained 

over the first five decades under this scenario, there muld be very 

little opporhrnity for future management to change in regslse to 

changing public needs or envb" talconditions. Forthesereasans, 

AMC was not omsidered a "&le alternative to study in detail. 

82 
Table 3 

Average Amual outplts by Decade for 

Alternatives Eliminated fran Detailed study 

Alternatives 

Activity/Rescmrce PRO LBU WLI Miam 

l=w (W) 3431 2383 3480 3464 3475 

"3Eu (-1 

Base Year* 

Decade 1** 

Decade 2 

Decade 3 

Decade 4 

Decade 5 

~!mRM~yIELD 

(-) 

(-) - (MAW 

Base Year 

Decade 1 

Decade 2 

Decade 3 

Decade 4 

Decade 5 

WATER YIELD (M --feet) 

Base Year 

Decade 1 

Decade 2 

Decade 3 

Decade 4 

Decade 5 

10.5 

20.0 

25.0 

30.0 

30.0 

30.0 

4.7 

30.8 

41.4 

46.4 

55.9 

59.7 

58.3 

55.7 

1093 

1106 

1093 

1097 

1094 

1093 

10.5 

11.5 

13.0 

13.0 

13.0 

13.0 

3.3 

21.4 

41.4 

18.9 

16.4 

11.8 

11.5 

11.1 

1093 

1101 

1093 

1094 

1097 

1095 

10.5 

11.5 

13.0 

13.0 

13.0 

13.0 

4.0 

26.1 

41.4 

46.0 

47.5 

50.4 

50.7 

43.5 

1093 

1101 

1093 

1093 

1093 

1093 

10.5 10.5 

20.0 ..- 11.5 ~ ..- 

21.3 13.0 

22.7 13.0 

23.7 13.0 

25.0 13.0 

4.5 4.1 

29.4 26.5 

41.4 41.4 

50.9 38.1 

57.6 41.3 

61.8 41.7 

60.3 41.9 

55.7 40.0 

1093 1093 

1101 1101 

1093 1093 

1097 1093 

1093 1093 

1093 1093 

Wl3WROAT TROVT (Threatend) (acres of stream habitat) 

Base Year 1 1 1 1 1 

Decade 1 3 3 3 3 3 

Decade 2 5 5 5 5 5 

Decade 3 5 5 5 5 5 

Decade 4 5 5 5 5 5 

Decade 5 5 5 5 5 5 

PAIlJl'E UJITWWIT !K€IW (Threatened) (acres of stream habitat) 

Base Year 3 3 3 3 3 

Decade 1 13 13 13 13 13 

Decade 2 18 18 18 18 18 

Decade 3 18 18 18 18 18 

Decade 4 18 18 18 18 18 

Decade 5 18 18 18 18 18 

*Base year is 1982 

**Decade 1 is the perid 1988-1997 

83 
Table 3 (ccmtinwd) 

Average outplts by Decade for 

Altenlatives Eliminated fixln Detailed stll@y 

Alt€xnatives 

Activi~/Re~ pw) LWI WLI MKIAM: 

PEF" FALCQN (-) (* of pairs) 

Base Year 0 0 0 0 0 

Decade 1 2 2 2 2 2 

Decade 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Decade3 2 2 2 2 2 

Decade 4 2 2 2 2 2 

Decade5 2 2 2 2 2 

BAGD EXxE (-) (winter roosting -) 

Base Year 1 1 1 1 1 

Decade 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Decade2 1 1 1 1 1 

Decade 3 1 1 1 1 1 

Decade 4 1 1 1 1 1 

DBcade 5 1 1 1 1 1 

W DEE?! (M animals) 

Base Year 

Decade1 

Decade 2 

Decade 3 

Decade4 

Decade 5 

12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 

11.2 11.8 11.9 11.2 11.9 

9.9 11.6 11.6 9.9 11.6 

8.7 11.4 11.1 8.7 11.1 

7.4 11.2 10.7 7.4 10.7 

5.9 11.0 10.3 5.9 10.3 

SIERRA NEVADA Mm" SIEEP ("lber of animals) 

Base Year 300 300 300 300 300 

Decade 1 350 350 350 330 350 

Decade 2 400 400 400 360 400 

Decade 3 450 450 450 390 450 

Decade 4 500 500 500 420 500 

Decade 5 550 550 550 450 550 

"r"miNSHEEP(-ofanimals) 

Base Year 130 130 130 130 130 

Decade 1 140 130 140 130 140 

Decade 2 154 130 154 130 154 

Decade 3 154 130 154 130 154 

Decade 4 154 130 154 130 154 

Decade 5 154 130 154 130 154 

RFSIDENP FISH (M pounds) 

Base Year 1632 1632 1632 1632 1632 

Decade 1 1640 1632 1640 1640 1640 

Decade 2 1649 1632 1649 1649 1649 

Decade 3 1658 1632 1658 1658 1658 

Decade 4 1667 1632 1667 1667 1667 

Decade 5 1674 1632 1674 1674 1674 

84 
Table 3 (amtintEd) 

Average Annual Outputs by Decade for 

Alternatives Eliminated fm Detailed Study 

Alternatives 

Activity/Resource m LBU WLI MKIAMC 

GOSHAWKS (Pairs in suitable timber) 

Base Year 

Decade 1 

Decade 2 

Decade3 

Decade 4 

Decade 5 

15 

14 

13 

12 

11 

9 

15 15 15 15 

14 14 14 14 

13 13 13 13 

12 12 12 12 

11 11 11 11 

9 9 9 9 

TWTAL WILDLIFE AND FISH USER DAYS (M wI;uDs) 

MULE DEER 

Base Year 

Decade 1 

Decade 2 

Decade 3 

Decade 4 

Decade 5 

RESIDENT FISH--OTHER THAN T&E 

Base Year 

Decade 1 

Decade 2 

Decade3 

Decade4 

Decade 5 

CmES 

Base Year 

Decade 1 

Decade 2 

Decade 3 

Decade 4 

Decade5 

DGVEU)PEDR.ECREATION (MINDS) 

Base Year 

Decade 1 

Decade 2 

Decade 3 

Decade 4 

Decade 5 

25.2 

23.5 

20.8 

18.3 

15.5 

12.4 

340.0 

342.4 

344.8 

347.2 

349.6 

352.0 

25.8 

26.9 

32.0 

37.2 

41.9 

49.6 

2836 

3686 

4673 

5383 

5933 

6030 

25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 

24.8 25.0 23.5 25.0 

24.4 24.4 20.8 24.4 

23.9 23.3 18.3 23.3 

23.5 22.5 15.5 22.5 

23.1 21.6 12.4 21.6 

340.0 340.0 340.0 340.0 

342.4 342.4 342.4 342.4 

344.8 344.8 344.8 344.8 

347.2 347.2 347.2 347.2 

349.6 349.6 349.6 349.6 

352.0 352.0 352.0 352.0 

25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 

26.9 26.9 19.7 26.9 

31.2 32.0 20.5 32.0 

22.2 34.2 21.7 34.2 

17.9 38.3 22.6 38.3 

23.0 43.7 24.0 43.7 

2836 2836 2836 2836 

3049 3686 3686 3686 

3579 4673 4673 4673 

3846 5383 5383 5383 

3889 6143 6143 6143 

3988 6272 6272 6272 

85 
Table 3 (ccmtinued) 

Outplts by Decade fCa 

Alternatives Eliminated fran Detailed study 

Base Year 

Decade 1 

Decade 2 

Decade3 

Decade 4 

Decade5 

!lxYmL cnsr (W) 

Base Year 

Decade 1 

Decade 2 

Decade 3 

Decade4 

Decade5 

Alternatives 

m LWIm MKIAM: 

565.1 565.1 565.1 565.1 565.1 

580.4 672.5 1029.9 580.4 1188.9 

580.4 672.5 1029.9 580.4 1188.9 

580.4 672.5 1029.9 580.4 1188.9 

580.4 672.5 1029.9 580.4 1188.9 

580.4 672.5 1029.9 580.4 1188.9 

10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 

15.3 8.9 13.0 14.7 13.2 

17.8 8.9 15.1 17.8 15.0 

22.1 8.9 15.7 18.7 15.6 

22.3 8.8 16.3 19.3 16.3 

27.2 8.9 21.7 24.7 22.5 

IN" 

The six alternatives selected for detailed study were developd mxe 

thoroughly in order to address specific issues. ccmcerns. omrhmities. and 

regulations. The theme and resource prcgram direction for each alternative, 

by highlighting the main issues and cc"s to be addressed, guided the 

developnent of assmptions and &ling guidelines to be used in the FORPLAN 

analysis for that alternative. 

Average annual resource and activiw Outputs for each alternative were 

projected by decade through the fifth decade. A schedule of outputs over a 

16O-year: perid was also developed for each alternative studied in detail. 

Those long-range schedules are kept in the planning records. The 160-year 

pericd would meet the long-term legal requirement of m-decliniq yield of 

analysis W~S nece~sa~~ to that timber harvest the 50-year 

VKmd paroaucts. 

The fo1lcwk-g alternatives differ frcm me arnther jn terms of issues and 

conwxns addressed, resources and activities emphasized, total acres assigned 

to each manag-t prescriptton, cutputs prduced, and envirormental 

-. Canparative displays and discussions for the six alternatives 

studied in detail are found later in this chapter, urder the heading 

canparim of Alternatives. 

86 
DIFECI'ICN aT" TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Planning alternatives are intended to explore a wide and varied raqe of 

options for mgiq a given National Forest. Hawever, the range of 

alternatives is intended to be a "able one. 

requirements are applied to all Forest plannitq alternatives for National 

Forests jn the Pacific southwest Region. These requirements fall into me of 

three categories: M" Managme& Requirements, Timber Policy 

Requirements, orMinir" Imp1mentaticx-1 Requi~mnts. Forest servlce Manual 

direction is also assun& to apply, but is not repeated here unless 

reptition is needed for emphasis. 

A set of management 

.. 

F&@remnts in this category represent the mandates of the Natimal Forest 

Management Act and its impl"J regulaticms (36 CFR 219.27). The 

follawirg is a sumnary of MWe: 

1. Detwmlna ' ti- of suitability for Timber Managansnt 

~ands will be armsidered suitable for timber managat if: 

- the land is forested and is currently prcducirg or is capable of 

mcirg crops of - ial wwd; 

the Secretary of Agriculture, or the Chief of the Forest Senrice; 

- the land has mt been withdrawn fran timber proauCtion by Congress, 

- techmlogy and knavleage exist and are available to ensure timber 

prcduction withut irreversible damage to soil proauctivity or 

watershed conditions: 

- existing ~echrx~logy and lawprleage provide reasonable assurance that 

adequate reskdurg ' canbeattained within five years of final 

harvest; and 

adequate information is available to project respmes of the land to 

timber management activities. 

- 

2. Threatened and hdangered (T h E) Species 

Habitat that is critical for the recwery of threatened and endangered 

species will be determined and measures will be prescribed to prevent 

the destLuction or adver& modification of such habitat. Critical 

habitat includes all currently occupied habitat and that potential 

habitat necessary to meet recovery. 

The Inyo will provide nest- habitat for at least two pairs of 

endaqered peregrine falcons; at least one winter nnsting area for 

endangered bald eagles; and at least five miles of stream habitat for 

threatened L-tan cutthroat trout. The Inyo may eventually provide 

habitat for 0m-s tui chub, a species listed in 1985 as endangered. A 

manag-t plan for the threatened Paiute cutthroat trout is currently 

87 
being a3val@ and will provide diJ” far management of this 

species. 

3. Viability of Wildlife Popllations 

The maintenance of populatim viability for all native vertebrate species 

081 the ForeSt is handled h Forest plallnin3 thtwgh the following 

c(HIcepts: 

- Managment Iildicatar species (MIS) are med to represent the 

vegetaticm types, seral stages, am3 special habitat elements necessary 

to provide far all fish and wildlife species on the Forest, 

mphasiziq those habitats & likely to be affected by managenient 

activities. 

- The Wildlife and Msh Habitat Relationships (WFHR) h-ogram, 

particularly the habitat capability models and special habitat 

miteria developed by each p1anni.q zone, is used to measufs charges 

in wildlife poLxilatims. 

4. Gosha&s 

Within goshawk habitat r-0, manag0 gcehawk tmxitoriffi to maintain a 

density of at least me territory per eighteen square miles, mnmting to 

nine in the 'tentatively suitable t.imber base. Distances between 

territnries or clq of territories will not normally exceed twelve 

miles. 

Each territory will contain a minimum of 50 acres of habitat that 

provides suitable dticms for the nest stand and an alternate nest 

stand. Timber activities within occupied nest stands will be excluded 

during the nestiq perid. Timber activities durjng other time periods 

will meet the miteria for suitable habitat identified in the Forest 

habitat capability rrodel for gashawks. 

5. SMg-dependentspeCies 

To the extent possible, within each timber mnparbnent provide, maintain, 

and manage for an average of 1.5 snags per acre: 1.2 per acre between 

15-24 inches diameter at breast height (dhh) and mre than 20 feet high: 

0.3 per acre greater than 20 inches dbh and nore than 20 feet high. This 

requirement re-ts appr”a * tely 40 percent of ~t~al potential 

snag-depenaent wildlife density. 

6. Dead, &xm logs 

Leave in place an average of ane lcg per acre in the Jeffrey pine forest. 

In other coniferous forest types. leave in place an average of at least 

me log per acre that is at least 20 inches in diameter at the large end 

and 20 feet lcnq. Give preference to sound logs. 
7. Diversity 

Maintain at least 5 percent of each timber type and 10 percent of each 

shrub type in each of the named seral stages. If any given seral 

stage-vegetation type ccmbination currently represents less than the 

“I required level, manage to achieve the required level as som as 

possible within the next 50 years. 

The following timber types, shrub types, and seral stages will be used to 

determine the lvMR level of diversity. Diversity at the M level is 

measured Forest-wide. 

Timber type s: Jeffrey pine (eastside); red fir 

Seral stages (first two decades): 

1) 

2) 

3) pole/medium tree (20-50 ft. high, 0-39 percent canopy cover, 

grass/forb (with or without scatterd shrubs and seedlbgs) 

shrub/dirg/sapling (trees up to 20 feet high) 

suktantial shrub layer); 

shrub layer 

3B&C) same as 3A except 40 percent or mre campy cover, variable 

4A) large tree, make to ovennature (mst trees over 50 feet 

high, 0-39 percent canopy cover, substantial shrub layer) 

4B&C) same as 4A except 40 percent or mre canopy cover, variable 

shrub layer 

that ccmpclnent of 4B&C with 70 percent or m campy cover 

and, possibly, evidence of decadence. Seral stages (after two 

decades): 

4C) 

same as above except for the absence of 3A and 4A. 

Shrub types : Big sagebrush, bitter-, nmuntain WWt‘ 

Seral stages: early stage, middle stage, and late stage. 

8. RiparianAreaS 

Apply 110 new managemnt activities to riparian areas associated with 

lakes or perennial streams that would cause unacceptable long-term 

changes in water quality, aquatic flora and fauna, and/or hydroplytic 

vegetation within those areas. This requirement is describe2 in mre 

detail below in the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for fish, 

watershed, and riparian areas. 

Soil and Water - ’viLimit disturbance cm tbose Forest lands characterized by slopes that 

exceed the natural angle of reps? or have a very high erasion potential, 

or high levels of instability, to 110 mre than 5 percent per decade. 

9. 

89 
Timber Policy ts (TPRS) 

1. Tinker Ifarvest at CMKt. 

--aged timber stands will be scheduled for harvest at or near 

(xrlminaton of Mean Annual Increment (W) of grcwth. (Iupu: is the 

turning pint in the life of a trea aftex which its rate of growth begins 

to decline. Harvest at or near W is intended to optimize wood 

prductien in a stand of timber. 

In addition to harvest at CMAI, a range of rotation ages or timing 

st&. This variety is a means of progressing toward the of 

manag- comnercial timber for optimum proauctian while providing the 

variety of tree sizes needed for other values, such as scenic variety and 

wildlife habitat diversity. 

Opticms will be analyzed far the management of present and future timber 

2. --term Sustained Yield 

3. 

4. 

The timber harvest at the end of the planning horizon will meet the 

requirement of long-term SJStained yield of wood p~-~&~cts. This 

requirement assues that timber will be harvested at mghly the same 

rate as the Forest is growing new trees. 

Harvest Flow 

If the policy of m-declining even flow is not applied, substitute the 

fran ale 

decade to the next, to pix& the stability of tx”ities dependent on 

requirement that the amxlllt of timber harvest be stab18 enough, 

thetimberindustry. 

Dispersim 

The di-qersion plicy requFres that openings slnuld not adjoin @ne 

another if their mnbined acreage would exceed Plan or Regional standards 

for “rm size of opnings, and the timber between openiugs of similar 

age represent logical units for later harvest. 

-1-tatim ts (MIRs) 

Rapirments in this category, although not legally mandated, are considered 

necessary to ensure a ”I level of public acceptance. 

1. Manage sensitive plants to ensure that species do not becane threatened 

or endangered because of Forest Service actims. 

2. blain- the foregrounds and middlegrounds of scenic COrridDIs of 

officially designated state and CQUnty scenic highways and California 

State Scenic Highway System routes identified in the September 1970 

Master Plan to meet or exceed the Visual Quality Objective of Partial 

Retentim. 

- u.s 395 

- California Highway 120 (west of U.S. 395) 

ThDse routes on the Inyo National Forest are: 

90 
- State Him 158 (JW Lake Lwp) 

- state Highway 203 (to "tSumnit) 

- State Highway 168 (west of Bi-) 

- State Highway 168 (east of Westgard Pass). 

Forests may impose a technical or operational cxmstraint on the maximum 

total acres of clearcut on the Forest in any one time period. The Inyu 

has not cinsen to inrpose such a ccolshaint. 

3. 

The Pacific southwest Region of the Forest Service is currently preparing an 

E"ntal Inpact Statement (EIS) analyzing Vegetation Management for 

Reforestation on National Forests in the Region. That EIS includes a 

detailed analysis of alternative approaches to the treatment of undesirable 

vegetation in carrpetitlan with young trees. 

The preferred Alternative will be to mtinue with the current plicy of 

cwnsidering the NI range of vegetation management options, making specific 

decisions an a case-by-case basis. Herbicides have not been used on the 

Forest for eight years. Herbicides are Mt currently considered necessary to 

meet planned tinbr targets in the Jeffrey and lcdgepole pine types east of 

U.S. 395, I~OT mld their use increase gravth rates. C"J vegetation on 

the Forest is typically low-g~~irig relatively sparse grasses and brush that 

has been effectively and eccarmically dealt with through a canbination of 

mulches and hand releases. 

Herbicides are not planned for use in the vegetative management of 

plantations ciuring this plaming period. changes in this psition would be 

made only after wnpletion of the Region 5 Vegetation Manag-t EIS, and 

ccmapletion of appropriate site-specific envircoMlental analysis. 

Forest ts Cc"n to All Alternatives 

This category includes any management requiremen ts ixoqorated in the 

"LAN -1 by the Forest for the analysis of all Forest alternatives. 

Forest ts are intended to ensure -1-tability of alternatives 

at the =l. As such, they are based on local (rather than Regional) 

conditions. The Inyo did mt develop any such requirements. Requbxmmts 

specific to individual alternatives are discussed in Appendix B. 

Forest-wide Standat& and Guidelines Cc"n to All Alternatives 

The follaiing is a surrmary of the F-t-wide Standards and Guidelines that 

would apply under any alternative (except, in scme cases, the Current 

"No-Action" Alternative). Detailed treatmnt of these Standards and 

Guidelines (with the addition of those unique to the preferred Alternative) 

is found in Chapter IV of the Plan. The follmjng sumnary eqhasizes those 

points that respond to public issues and manag-t concerns. 

Air Quality 

Meet or exceed all applicable state and federal regulations. 

91 
chlhaalaoplsult with locat Amarican Indian group¶ when lxxxlum enviramental 

analyses for project wark. 

Identify the types of data and research efforts needed to develop "8 

efficient inventory. evaluation, protection, and cmpliance processirg. 

EWourage and supprt in-Seca and private sector efforts to adiress 

these needs. Develop and inp1-t appropriate management plans and 

ea-ies. 

Maiutain the amfidentiality of cultural resource site locatims. 

Avoid cultural resource damage fire sumirm activities, and 

pr0Ki.de pmt€?=tim for lucwn cultural 7xsounx values. 

Develop, implenent, and mglitar protection plans for Class I properties 

(UlDSe eligible for the National Register) and vandalized Properties. 

-=gY (for g-l, - s) 

Ehcourage energy deve1q"t carmensurate with other Natid Forest 

goals, objectives, and management direction for the affected lands. 

Assure that energy cx"aticm practices are applied to Natirmal Forest 

managenent Forograms. 

Facilities 

F'r#i.de additims to the transporation system for resource developnent 

and prwide public access to public land and developd recreation sites 

in a manner cnnsistent with the overall management objectives for the 

land served. 

Recx"ct or close road segments or regulate traffic as needed for 

public safety and resource protection. 

Maintain facilities to assigned standards, make them energy efficient, 

and/or replace them if necessary. 

Schedule facilities maintenance and replacement amrdiq the to 

fo1lcwb-g priorities: (1) mrrect health and safety items, (2) perform 

recurrent annual maintenance, (3) eliminate maintenance backlogs, (4) 

replace, rehabilitate, or refurbish &d facilities, (5) provide new 

facilities where needed. 

Ccazsider mass txansit options when vehicle use exceeds the capacity of 

existing roads or threatens to damage resource values. 

Develop a materials developnent and management plan for rcck and earth 

COllStnEb 'on materials. 

Provide trails for hikers, skiers, equestrians, bicyclists, s"biletS, 

the handicapped, and off-road vehicle users where "gatible with user 

92 
needs, werall developtent levels, and management objectives for the area 

SW. 

Maintain trails to assigma3 maintenance levels. 

Separate mtible trail uses where feasible. 

Fish 

Maintain and rehabilitate essential habitat for threatened Lahontan 

cutthroat trout according to the species recovery plan and "Vim of 

Undersm with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Provide high-quality habitat for threatened trout, and medium- to highquality habitat for other resident fish, emphasizing the ocoltrol of 

s&i"tation and maintenance or enhancement of riparian vegetation. 

prohibit strem-mdifyitq constxuction activities during the spawning 

seasons for resident fish in the aff&& stream. 

Design road and trail stream crossings on streams with active or 

potential fisheries to acccrrmodate fish passage. 

Maintain insham flows needed to suppz~rt resident fisheries, and lake 

and reservDir levels needed to support existing fisheries. 

Locate and design facilities to avoid or withstand seismic, landslide, 

and volcanic pncesses affecting life or Foroperty, or ensure that the 

risks fran such processes have been considered. 

Lands 

Apply the follming priorities when acquiring non-federal land: (1) lards 

with water frontage, key wildlife or sensitive plant habitat, autdmr 

recreation or aesthetic values, access value, unique historical or 

CUlbJral resources, or lands within wilderness; (2) lands needed to 

protect resource values by eliminating or reducing fire risk, soil 

erosion, or illegal occupancy; or lands needed to 1- administrative 

costs by eliminating title claims; (3) lands needed to block in or 

consolidate existing National Forest lands. 

Apply the following priorities when disp3si.q of federal land: (1) tracts 

inside of or adjacent to cxnnnmities when such tracts would be used for 

public purpcses, such as affordable housing: (2) SMll federal parcels 

that are intermingled with mnfederal lands; (3) lands under special-use 

pennit and occupied by substantial struc-al imprwements. 

Ccasolidate public utility rights-of-way to reduce impacts m other 

resources. 

Bury new or remnstructed power distribution lines (33KV or less) and 

telephone lines, unless burying would cause unacceptable eminmental 

93 
damage or unless overfiead lines muld be desirable to mitigate seisnic 

hazards. 

Omsider future needs for additicmal utility lines parallel to the 

ncath-south interstate Pacific DC Intertie transru 'ssion line when settjng 

management directx 'an for affected lands. 

Issue special-use permits only if private land suitable for the use is 

mt reasanably available and if the use is curpatible with established 

management objectives for affected National Forest lands. 

Apply the follcwing priorities when evaluating special-use permit 

applications: (1) public uses, (2) smi-public uses, (3) individual 

(exclusive) uses. 

Remrmend the reMcatian Of &Sting power, mineral, water, and Other 

withdrawals where the needed restrictions can be accaplished 

acmninistratively or where the need for the withdrawal rn laqer exists. 

Initiate new withdrawals only when other use and "y controls 

carrot adequately pirotect surface resources. 

Mmerals 

"rage the leasing of Naticmal Forest lands for exploration and 

developnent of oil, gas, and gm resources as 1- as those 

activities are cunpatible with the National Forest goals, objectives, and 

Consider all Naticmal Forest lands not specifically withdrawn fran 

*al entry available for mineral exploration, location, extxaction, or 

leasing under applicable laws and regulaticns. 

Manage mineral activities to "ize adverse impads on surface 

resources. 

Pmvide for the arspoSal of com~n variety minerals where such a&im 

(including access) will not cause unacceptable damage to surface 

management - 'an for the affected lands. 

resources. 

pest MaMganent 

Apply an Integrated Pest Managesent (IPM) approach during the plaming 

and inplementatian of all appropriate activities, particularly those that 

influence vegetatim. Under the IPM approach, a full range of pest 

management alternatives will be oonsidered and analyzed on a 

site-specific basis. 

protection 

use the apFnopriate wildfire suppression strategy bassd on management 

Use prescrikd fire as a management tool. 

prescxiption and management area diredi on. 

94 
Manage livestock g~azicg to avoid unacceptable damage to soil, water 

quality, and fish and wildlife habitat. Address riparian area objectives 

in allohent managemnt plans. AaDpt manag-t practices that "ize 

adverse inpacts on these areas. 

Recreation Residences 

Cnntinue all mzeation residence special use permits unless a 

future use determination identifies a higher public need. 

Schedule future use determinations for recreation residences in 

a&- of the ternuna ' ticm dates of prmits in order to allow 

sufficient time for public input. 

Develapea Recreaticol 

Ccastruct and maintain facilities and sites to Regional standards. 

Dim ed Recreatirm 

Ccc~rdinate with other agencies for the developnent and maintenance 

needed to pruvide parking for ow (Off-highway Vehicle) 9y3w play 

and "c ski*. 

Interpretive Selxices 

Develop ~aograms, displays, and publicaticm to interpret Forest 

resoucce managemnt and the natural ernrircarment. Maxlrm. ' 'ze the use 

of self-semice infonnation facilities. 

Off-highway Vehicles 

Design OW trails and open areas to mininu 'ze wnflicts with existing 

or potential developd recreation sites, private property, special 

uses, adjacent wilderness, administrative areas, cultural resources, 

and riparian areas. 

Cc"te Forest off-highway vehicle p1anmi-g and funding with 

federal, state, and local agencies, private landowners and the 

public. 

ResearchNatu33lAreas 

Inventory geologic RWL (Research Natural Area) candidates as a oarrp=olent 

of the Regicolal RNA program. 

Ccmiplete the establishment process for recarmended botanical RNAs. 

95 
Riparian Areas 

Prpted streams, sbxdmks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and the Plants 

and animals depncknt cn these features. prevent unacceptable, lcsq-t~~~~~ 

charges in water temperature, chemistry, sedimentation, and channel 

blockages assocl 'at& with riparian areas. 

Rehabilitate or fence riparian - that consistently show ?xsmrca 

damage or abuse if amflicts canru3t be resolved otherwise. 

Maintain instream flows needed to support the existing riparian 

ecosysten. 

Fmhibit the lccatim of new mads, campsites, and similar disturbances 

inside the borders of riparian areas unless absolutely necessary and 

inpacts can be mitigated. Relocate exisking mads and campsites outside 

riparian areas where necessary and feasible. 

Lirmlt wildfire ccmtrol and rehabilitation methods and activities that 

would adversely impact riparian areas. 

specral Interest Areas 

Evaluate and recarmend candidate Special Interest Areas for designaticm, 

and evaluate and naninate candidates for Naticmal Natural Laxharks (NNL) 

listing. 

Manage the existing Ancient Bristlecane Pine Forest Botanical Area under 

the approved management plan. 

T* 

Allow openings created by regemration harvest to border natural openings 

if other resource values are protected. Locate and design opnkgs with 

amsideration for the swmmdmg . landscape. 

Schedule artificial regeneration within three years of clearcutting. 

mize maxi" road spaciq when plaming timber sales. 

aolduct logsing and mtruction so that debris does not enter stream 

channels or cause watershed damage. 

Limit the size of tree oprurig ' s created by even-aged silviculture to 40 

acres or less. 

Apply the guideline that a harvested area will 113 longer be considered an 

stocking density is met with tress 4.5 feet tall. 

OFening for timber management pm-pses when the prescribed forest tree 

96 
Visual Reswrces 

Obtain Forest Supervisor's approval through the NEPA (National 

"mental policy Act) process for any deviation fran assigned VQOS 

(Visual Quality Objectives). 

Rehabilitate and/or enhance the visual resource, wfiere appropriate, when 

implementing projects. 

watershed 

Soils 

Use earth-rem structures or other special methods as needed in 

areas with high potential for landslides. 

Make a slope suitability examination before conshcting permanent 

developnents in unstable areas. 

Conserve the surface mineral and/or surface organic layer of the soil to 

maintain long-term productivity. 

Water 

Maintain or impme water quality to meet federal and state standards. 

Implement Best Manag-t Practices (BMps) to met water quality 

objectives and maintain and improve the quality of surface water on the 

Forest. Methods and techniques for applying the BMP will be identified 

during project level enviro"tal assessnents and incoIparated into the 

associated project plan and implementatian documents. 

Preclude channelization of natural shreams. 

Maintain instream flows needed to maintain stream chanrlel Cmpetenc0. 

Conduct const~~ction activities to mid sedimentation in the aquatic 

zone. 

Manage all stream reaches to maintain or improve streambank stability, 

emphasizing streams in municipal watershe&. 

Locate roads and trails on ~tural benches or riageS well away fran 

stream courses and other water bodies where possible. Avoid "stzuctm 

roads or trails that parallel or QIOSS tributaries of a main stream. 

Protect the streambed both upstream and downstream fran each road, Ml, 

and livestock crossjng that has neither a briae 1y3-r a culvert. 

Revegetate roads and trails when use is terminated. 

97 
Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Undertake m management activities that would preclude designation of the 

Middle Fork of the San Joaquin River as a Wild and Scenic River. 

Wildermess 

Inwrprate existing wilderness manag-t plans (a"luq as necessary 

to accxmnodate 1984 wilderness additions) for the John M&r, Ansel Adams 

( f-lY Minarets), Hewer, and Golden Trout Wildernesses. 

Develop new wil- management plans far the south Sierra Wilderness 

and any other new wildemeses designated by Gmp-ess during the planning 

pericd. 

Wildlife 

--, hdang ered, and Sensitive Plant and Animal Species 

Evaluate mgemsnt actims in threatened and endanger4 (T & E) species 

habitat. Suhnit propsals for any activities that might affect the 

viability of these species to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for 

farmal cansultatim. 

Cooperate with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the California 

Department of Fish and Game in the management of T ti E Species and the 

restma+d.on of habitat. 

Develop and implement a ccmsistent, systematic, biologically sound 

strategy to manage sensitive species and their habitats so that federal 

listing is not eventually required. 

Develop and inplement a Forest sensitive plant prqram plan. 

Pdt scientific studies on sensitive species only if the studies would 

benefit the species. 

Managmt Indicator Species 

Mule deer (harvest): Chsider key Winter range, fawning areas, migration 

routes, and holding areas when managing mule deer habitat on ths Forest. 

Bald eagle (wend): Manage bald eagle habitat for recwery of the 

species. Maintain. the integrity of the identified winter area 

on the Forest. Do rrft establish new winter uses or recreaticBl 

developnents within 0.25 mile of that area. 

Golden eagle and prairie falcon (special interest): 

the integrity of nesting habitat for these species. 

Maintain and enhance 

Peregr ine falcon (enaangerea): Implement the peregrine falam recovery 

plan, providing for at least two nesting pairs of reintxdu& birds. 

98 
Goshawk (sensitive): pssible, locate territories in unsuitable 

timber as long as high quality habitat can be found there. Develop a 

goshawk habitat management plan. 

Blue g-rwse (harvest): Maintain viability by im~lementirg lyMRs for 

diversity and riparian areas. 

Sage g-rwse (harvest) : Maintain the integrity of sage grouse habitat. 

Sierra Nevada mnmtain sheep (sensitive) and Nelson mxlntain sheep 

(special interest): Maintain the in-ity of existing habitat: do mt 

increase livestock or intrcciuce pa&& trails into such habitat. 

Consider reintnxiuction of sheep into suitable UMcCupied habitat on a 

case-by-case basis. 

Great gray owl (sensitive): Inventmy potential habitat between February 

1 and August 31 to determine the suitability of Inyo National Forest 

habitats for this species. 

Spotted owl (sensitive): Inventmy potential habitat between March 1 and 

July 30 to detennjne the suitability of habitats on the Forest for this 

species. If nesting spotted owls are found, manage their habitat as 

needed to IlBb'CZih their MtUral dish-ibution the FOr€&. 

mTRo"N 

A Managenat h-escription sets forth the management direction by element or 

activity that applies to specific types of land within the Forest. Eighteen 

Manag-t Prescriptions have been developea for the Inyo National Forest. 

Each Manag-t Prescription identifies me or mre ?x"es for primary 

emphasis, describis the management of the aphasized resource(s), and 

establishes guidance for all other resources and activities so that they are 

oorrpatible with the pr- -is. Since they apply to types of land, and 

since similar .types of land cccur on different parts of the Forest, a given 

Manag-t Prescription typically applies to a nmber of separate land units. 

For mapping and display puqmses, the Forest has been divided into twenty 

geographically identifiable areas called Management Areas. Each Managanmt 

Area may include lands managed under two or mre Management Prescriptions. 

For a description and map of Management Areas see the acccmipanying Plan. 

Manag-t Area boundaries are the same for all alternatives. Manag-t 

Rcescriptions, on the other hand, may be applied to different lands under 

different alt-tives, depenling on the goals and objectives of the 

alternative. 

Forest resource outputs for each alternative are derived, for the mt part, 

fm the FORPLAN caputerized linear program. The FORPLAN program schedules 

resource managanent activities on specific types of land and projects 

99 
resauce atputs wer a 50-year t”. Ths managemnt activities that 

provide input to FDReLAN are called FDwm presmiptim. 

FORPLAN prescriptions and Management htescriptions are related to 0~3 ather, 

but * are not identical. Each Management prescription addresses the 

entire range of resources, whemss each FORPLAN prescriptim addresses anly 

the single resou~~c~ for which activities are presscrib4 and outputs are 

generated. Management FT€?scxipticms are allocated to large, land 

types; FORPLAN prescriptions are applied to mxe distinct, “ally-defined 

land and vegetatim types. The follcdng is a s\armary of Inyo National 

Forest Management F”I ‘pticus. For a mxe detailed descriptim of 

Managenent Prescriptions, sea chapter IV of the Plan; for a discussim of 

“LAN prescriptim, see IQXnduK ‘ B of this ibcument. 

SU+Q%RYOFMRNRGEMENP~CNS 

1. Designated Wilderness 

Descriptim: Bnphasizes the protecticm of wild lands and wilderness 

values. Applies to wilderness lands that have been designated by 

Dinzctirn: Manage all resources so that they are hanmnio~~.~ with the 

wilderness values of natural ecolqical integrity, nalxral appearance, 

solitude, and primitive recreation. Regulate the anrnmt and type of 

recreatiool use; limit the kind and amxult of SkuCtLual -t; 

limit dis~~.@Aons of natural ecological processes, allow for 

m-wilderness adivities such as mining, grazing, and access to private 

land to the extent provided for by legislation and f&al laws. Apply 

the FTeservation Visual Quality Objective (VQO). Maintain the Primitive 

and Semi-Primitive Non-Fbtorized Recreation -rhmi* S- (Ros) 

classes. Apply the cnnfinmat or ccmtaimmt wildfire suppression 

strategies to natural fires unless human life, property, or valuable 

resources are endangered. 

-- 

2. Proposes Wilderness 

Descripticm: Ehphasizes the protectron of wildemess values while 

providing for traditicmal uses of the affected area until Ccmgmss 

designates the area wilderness or it is released through furbher 

aMstrative review or by Gzmgress. Apply Management Prescription #1 

imnediately up designation. Applies to all Further Planning Areas 

reMrmended for wildemess under a given alternative. 

Direction: Allow 110 construction of new facilities or authorization of 

new uses; allow for exis- facilities and uses to the extent “patible 

with the protwtion of wilderness values. Apply the preservation VQ3. 

Maintain Primitive or Semi-primitive ROS Classes. Apply the amfin-t 

or ccolcainment wildfire suppression strategies to natural fires unless 

human life, praperty, or valuable resources are endangered. 
3. MmnltainS3lep Habitat 

Descxipticm: J3qhasizes high qyality habitat for Sierra Nevada and 

Nelscol “ntain sheep to maintain or increase ppulation levels. Applies 

to the suitable mountain sheep habitat that is managed in a given 

alternative. 

Direction: Prohibit or rrodify activities that would conflict w~th 

rountain sheep habitat objectives. Such activities include road and 

trail constmction, danestic livesta% grazing, and recreation use. 

Apply the Retention VQO. Maintain F’rimitive or Semi-primitive IEOS 

Classes. Apply the ccolfinement or containment wildfire suppression 

strategies to natural fires unless human life, property, or valuable 

are endangered. 

4. MuleDeerHabitat 

Description: Pmserve or enhance key mule deer habitat to maintain or 

increase papulation levels. Applies to suitable whtw range, sumner 

range, fawning areas, and/or hol- areas manage3 with a mule deer 

manag-t eruphasis under an alternative. 

Direction: Prohibit or modify activities that muld cvnflict with mule 

deer habitat objectives. Such activities include domestic livestock 

grazing and vehicle access. Enhance mule deer habitat by such activities 

as b-e release, hpmvement of m-+forage ratios, and inprovexnent 

of aver in fawqiq areas. Allow those 

activities acceptable under the primitive, Semi-Primikve Non-Motorized, 

Semi-Primitive Pbtorized and Roaded Natural ROS classes. Apply the 

Ccolfinement or containment wildfire suppression strategies to natural 

fires unless human life, property, or valuable resnu~ces are endangered. 

Apply the Partial Retention VQO. 

5. Resear&NaturalArea 

Descripticm: Maintain the ecologicaI integrity of target vegetation 

types with an -is on research, study, and observation. Applies to 

the five established and two recarmended Research Natural Areas on the 

Forest. 

Directian: Provide for m-manipulative and m-destzuctive acadaric and 

scientific uses. Prohibit or limit activities or uses that would affect 

natural ecological processes. Such activities include facility 

(includirg road and trail) construction, recreation, livestock grazing, 

vehicle access, fish stmkhg, and fuel& gathering. Apply the 

F”ation VQO and maintain the primitive ROS Class. con.brol any 

wildfires originating outside the Roaded Natural Areas that pose a threat 

to the area. Apply the confinement or ccoltainment suppression strategies 

to natural fires originatbq within the Roaded Natural Areas unless 

persca~s, propxty, or the unique values of the Roaded Natural Areas are 

threatened. 

101 
6. Mono Basin Naticmal Forest Scenic Area 

Descripticn: Provide for rezmaticmal enjoyment, inmtation, and 

applies to the Wmo Basin Naticmal Farest Scenic Area established by 

p?XlMa Of the MtU?Zal &C fea- Of the k%XKI Bash. This 

c3qress in 1984. 

Direction: -lop a management plan for the P" Basin Scenic Area as 

directed by the California Wilderness Act of 1984. until canpleticn of 

the management Plan, follow tbe direct2 'on in the 1985 In-im Managemnt 

Plan. 

7. Ancient Bristlm Pine Forest 

Desccipticn: provide for public enjoyment, scientific study, and 

protection of mient bristlecone pines in a m-~wal setting. 

Applies to the Ancient Bristlecane Pine Forest established 

aaniniStatively in 1958. 

DireCtian: Allm recreaticmal day-use and interpretive facilities and 

uses and academic and scientific activities that cause M noticeable 

degradation. prahibit or modify any activities that could conflict with 

the ptectim arid -tim of bristlecme pine tm=es and voxl 

ramants. Such activities include overnight canping, OHV use, energy or 

nlimxal activities, mad or trail om&x&hn , private land uses, 

wildfire suppressim, and fuelwood gathering. Apply the Retention VQO 

except where a lower VeO is needed to provide public use facilities. 

Allm those activities included in the Primitive, Semi-Primitive 

~--Motoized, Semi-F'ridtive Pk3xrized, and Roaded Natural Ros classes. 

Apply the omfjnanen t or c%zEl- t wildfire suplnession strategies to 

natural fires unless human life, pqaty, or valuable lesources are 

endangsred. 

8. Wild and scaric Rivers 

Descripticn: Maintain tlae Middle Fork of the San Joquin River in a 

free-flowing dtion and euphasize scenic, recreational, geologic, 

fish, wildlife, vegetation, and cultural values for public enjoymat. 

Applies to a strip of land extediq an average of 0.25 mile fran each 

bank (unless and until it is released for other uses). 

DicectiOn: Prohibit or modify any activities that would adversely affect 

the values protected by the recomnended designation. Such activities 

include hydroelectric develqniznt, canping, vehicle access, facility 

(hcluding road) o="ctition, mineral activities, and timber harvest. 

Apply the Partial F&zentia W. Allow thDse activities included in the 

Mtive, SeML-Frimitive Nzm-Mzkorized, and RoaM Natural Ros classes. 

(my Primitive and %ani-Primitive Mm-totorized for "wild" segments.) 

&a~trol all wildfires in scenic and recreaticpl segmnts. Cn "wild" 

segments, apply the amfinement or cwntainnent wildfire suplnession 

strategies to ~t~ral fires unless lnnnan life, property, or valuable 

resources--. 

102 
Descriptian: nl@lasize the mal of sawlcgs and other wood p?L-cducts 

09. suitable timber lands, using metbods that maintain other resource 

optlop?s for the future. Applies to lands an which timber management is 

eqhsized, but on which other resource values are such that modificatim 

of high level timber managemnt strategies is warranted. 

DirectiOn: Apply timber management EbXt&ffi that do Iy3t pceClUde 

future managgnent cptim for resources other than timber. The fOllC%&Y3 

criteria apply: 

- at least three age class in the starid; 

- each age class canprises at least 10 percent of the basal area of the 

- at least twenty years between age classes; 

- cme class in the upper third at the end of the mtatim period; 

- openings up to two acres in size--- to five acres where terxain, 

stand: 

stand characteristics, op=rational factors, or m-t.Lmber resoufce 

objectives make this necessary, 

prcduct objective is large-diameter (-24" sa-). 

Favor site preparation methods that are luost canpatible with other 

resources. the Partial Retention VQ3. Provide for recreation 

activities in the Semi-primitive btorized and Roaded Natural IEOS 

Classes. "1 all wildfires. 

10. High Level Tjmber MaMgemen t 

Descriptian: mize the "I proaudicsl of sawlogs and other wwd 

p?L-cducts, asmnliq that timber managemnt will be the primary 10rg-tam 

management enphasis for the lands involved. Applies to all suitable 

tinker lands managed with a long-term timber managemat enp-dzasis under an 

alternative. Arry included wets of unsuitable timber or unf-ted 

land would be managed for uses cmptible with timber management on the 

Directi m: Wly tbDse timber manag-t strategies that "ize 

10rg-term timber pnduction. Manage all other resources at levels 

canpatible with timber management objectives. Examples of rsomces for 

which management would be mDdified are dawst~ 'c livestock grz- and 

developed recreation. Apply VQOS as jnventoried. Provide for remeation 

activities in the Semi-Primitive btorized and Roaded Natural ROS 

Classes. mntcol all wildfires. 

-ing suitable timber lards. 

Descriptim: Manage range forage to provide for lq-tenn sustained 

yield of danestic grazing outputs, irmeased forage p?L-cductlcm, and 

uniform livestock distribution. Applies to all suitable rangelands 

managed with a primary range emphasis under an alternative. 

Dirwzticm: Rejuvenate and/or type-convert suitable vegetatim types as 

needed to improve range condition or to maintain or increase forage 

103 
producticn. O”ct, maintain, and replace &ru¨ hp”ts as 

m&ed to distribute livestoclr. Wdi€y other management activities as 

nseded to accQRpodate grazing. Apply the Partial Retention VQ3. Allm 

for activities in the Semi-Fdmitive Nm-PBtorized, Semi-Primitive 

Wstmized, and Fbaded Natural ROS classes. Apply the &inen??nt or 

cnl~ t wildfire suppression strategies to natural fires unless hun!an 

life, property, or valuable are endangered. 

12. cmc€n*ted Recxeatim Area 

Description: Wze the maintenance and enhancement of major 

recxeatim values and opprhnu ‘ties. Applies to areas with high levels 

of existirg or potential recreatim use that are mged with a 

recreatim emphasis under an alternative. 

DMm: Pzuvide a broad range of recreational facilities and 

oppxtunities to accamodate large I.llrmbers of people safely, 

COaxrenientlY, and with minimal resxrce damage. Wdify other manageanent 

activities to ‘ze conflicts with recxeation values. Thess include 

vegetatim management (including timber harvest), energy developnent, 

lives- grazing, and any activity that wDuld reduce scenic quality. 

Apply the Retention VQO to all n!anag-t activities and new 

-recreation facilities, and Partial Retenticn to all other 

facilities. Maintain the Roaded Natural, Roaded Wfied, and Rural Ros 

Classes. czlnhl all wildfires. 

13. Alphe Ski Area, Misting and ch.der Study 

&scriptian: Manage ski areas for public enjoyment. Applies to all 

lands managed under permit for alpine skiing. 

Dkecticn: Develop the facilities (including runs, lifts, base lcdges, 

etc.) necessary to prwide for skiex enjoyment. Locate and design 

facilities to ensure public safety and to blend in with the natural 

emimrmnt. Exclude or mfy other T~SOUTCB objectives and activities 

where necessary to provide for alp- skiing. Such objectives and 

activities include timber harvest, develop3 recreation, public vehicle 

access, mineral activities, and inventoried Visual Quality Objectives. 

Apply the Partial Retention VQO to nms, lifts, and base areas as seen in 

the middleground fran Sensitivity Level 1 mutes and mpamy sites. 

Allow activities appropriate in the Rural ROS class. Conizml all 

wildfires. 

14. Potential Alpine Ski Arsa 

Descriptim: Maintain the potential for ski area devel-t. Applies 

to those areas of the Forest that represent downhill skiing opprtunities 

of the highest quality and are identified under an alternative as 

potential ski areas. when an alpine ski area is develaped, it will be 

managed under the prescription for Alpine Ski Area, Existirig and under 

study. 

Direction: Maintain the intqrity of potential chinhill ski mns and 

base station locations. Manage other resources to the degree 

104 
camamrate with maintaining alpine ski developnent potential. The 

other resources and activities most likely to be affect& are timber 

managenent, road consbction, fl~~~ner recreation developnent, land uses 

mcbr special use permit, and mineral activities. Timber management will 

follow the same dirw2tl ‘081 that fd in the Uneven-aged Timber 

Managenent Prescription. Meet inventoried W%. Allow the activities 

appropriate in Semi-F’rhitive Non-Motorized, Semi-Primitive Motorized, 

and Roaded Natural ROS classes. Cci-~tz-Ol all wildfires. 

15. Developed Recreation Site 

Description: Manage developed “ational facilities to pmvide 

neessary user services and to protect forest resource values. Applies 

to publicly and privately operated developed sumner recreation sites. 

Direction: Develop recreation sites to the extent consistent w~th the 

type and Ermollllt of ?x%xeation occurring on ’ lands. Encourage 

the year-round use of facilities where winter use is not limited by the 

need to shut dclwn water or sanitation facilities; regulate vehicle use to 

protect resaurces; locate and design developnents to minimize impacts on 

soil, water, vegetation, and scenic quality. prohibit or mdify 

management activities to minimize CCarElicts with recreaticmal values. 

Such activities iraclude energy developents, mineral activities, 

livestock grazing, and timber harvest. Apply the Retention V@l to 

foreground zones and Partial Retention to facilities seen as middlegrcnmd 

€ran Sensitivity Level 1 mtes and “y sites. Mazrrtain the 

Semi-primitive Mdorizfxi, Roaded Natural, Roaded Wfied and Rural ROS 

Classes. amtz-Ol all wildfires. 

16. Dispersed rkcxeation 

Descripticm: provide qg”itiffi for a wide range of dispersed 

recreation activities for bath win- and simmer use. 

Direction: Manage the area for the public enjoyment of both sum~er and 

winter dispersed recreaticBl activities. mize ncm-mtorized winter 

use such as rnrdic skiing and snowplay. Provide for centralized parking 

winter mths for nordic skiiers. 

and trailheads. provide for protection of the visual resouroe arirg 

Reroute nordic trails if necessary. 

17. Semi-Primitive Recreatian 

Description: prated and maintain remeation and wildlife values by 

limiting vehicle access and road cOPlStructiOn . Applies to those 

relatively unroaded lands on the Forest managed with an emphasis CBI 

dispersed nxreaticm, wildlife, and/or other amenity values. 

Direction: Allow rn crnstzuction of new public bm-wheel drive roads or 

activities. Close new mining roads to plblic access and obliterate when 

use ends. Allow other resource management activities to the extent 

ccnpatible with the amenity emphasis. Modify timber management; allow 

range and wildlife habitat maniplaticm; allow fax-wheel drive and OHV 

remeation on established routes where ccnpatible with resource 

Llpqraaing of existing fOJr-wkel drive roads except for mineral 

105 
protection. Apply the Partial Retention W. Maintain Primitive, 

Semi-Primitive Nan-bBtnrized, and Semi-primitive IWarized ROS classes. 

Apply the ccmfincxnent or "nt wildfire suppression strategies to 

natural fires unless human life, pruperty, or valuable resours are "- 

18. Multiple Rescurce Area 

Descxipticm: Allow for ease of access for resource manag-t, mineral 

activity, and/or vehicle-based recreation use. Applies to lands "aged 

for multiple use and ease of access. 

Directian: Allow for the cmstzuction of new public tm-wheel drive 

mads or upgrading of four-wheel drive roads. Meet VQOS as inventoried 

on lands in the Fbaded Natural Ros class. Apply Partial Retention to 

lands in the Semi-primitive Ncol-Motorized and Semi-Prhitive mtorized 

Ros classes. Maintain the Semi-Primitive Wrized and Fkaded Natural 

Ros Classes. Apply the ca-lfmt or 0xl-t wildfire suppression 

strategies to ~*al fires unless Inman life, prcrperty or valuable 

resourcesaraendarlgd. 

-1- mT ARE AREZ-SPECIFIC IN ALL AEXER"IVES 

Five of these Management Prescriptions are applied to the same land area in 

each altmtive. They are Designated Wilderness (#l), Research Natural 

Area (#5), Basin National Forest Scenic Area (#6), Ancient Bristleccole 

Pine Forest (#7), and Wild and Scenic River (#8). 

This pre-allocation of Management Prescriptions is based on decisions that 

have been made outside of this planniq pnxss. Fxistirg wilderness cm the 

Forest and the Scenic Frea have been designated by CorYJress in one of three 

separate acts: the Wilderness Act of 1964, the wered American 

Wilderness Act of 1978, or the California Wilderness Act of 1984. 

The Ancient Bristlecane Pine Forest and the five established Research Natural 

Areas (RNAs) were administratively established between 1932 and 1983. The 

twD recormended RMIS (Whippxwill Flat and Wee Meadow) have been studied 

andweredetf"d ' to be acceptable by both the Forest and the Region 5 RNA 

Cnnnittea many years ago. As the reccmnended RNAs do not contain lands with 

other resource management opportunities, the Forest has chosen to apply the 

Roaded Natural Area presu5ptim to RNAs in all altenatives. 

Since publication of the Draft Plan, Congnxs has designated both the North 

Fork and south Fork of the Kem River as Wild and Scenic Ri-. 

for the study of the Middle Fork of the San Joacph River for wild and scenic 

status is the resgzmsibility of the Sierra National Forest. The Inyo 

National Forest pmvided data for the analysis and shares respmsibility wia 

the Sierra for the reMrmendaticBl to cclngress. 

Leadershl 'P 

Geothermal energy exploration and developat are governed by site-specific 

analyses cmd~~cted outside this planniq pxess. Those geothermal decisicms 

106 
that have already been made are cx" to all alternatives. Leases have been 

offered and will cmtinue to be offered in Lease Blocks I and I1 of the 

Pkam-Icq Valley KGRA. There will, however, be m geubamal leasing in the 

Wmache Meadows area of the Kem Plateau. 

l?"mTm 

The following are narrative descriptia of the six alternatives studid in 

detail. These alte?matives are presented in the following s€quence. 

m: PreferredAlternative 

am: 

RPA: 1980 RPA proSram 

CEE: Maximize Cost-efficiency 

AMN: MaximizeAllAmenities 

AMB: hp3hasize Wildlife and Recreation 

current (1982) Frc€Jram - No Action 

Each alternative description includes a narrative and a set of figures. Each 

narrative has three &ions: "e (goals, objectives, issues and ccolcems 

addressed); Resource -am Dirakion (key activities, standards and 

guidelines); and - t to Be Created in 2030 (a broad view of the 

Forest as it would appear to the visitor If the alternative were 

inplerented). The resource prqram direztion in the alternative narrative 

does not, in most cases, repeat the dk3Zt.l 'on cc"n to all alternatives 

described above. For those few cases in which such direction is repeated, 

the reptition is included with the intention of emphasis. 

The alternatives on the follmirg pages include resowce program direction 

that is projected over the fifty year analytical horizon of the Forest 

plannirg p-. Hc;wever, any of the alternatives, if selected, muld 

represent a set of managanent decisions affect- only the first ten to 

fifteen years of that horizon. The plan perioa is defined by the NFMA 

regulaticms as one decade [36 Crm 219.3 (1982)1, while the law penrcits a 

fifteen-- "I [16 USC 1604(f)(5)]. Within ten to fifteen years, 

canditicms on the Forest will be reanalyzed, and a revised plan developed [36 

CFR 219.10(g)(1982) and 16 ISC 1604(f)(5)1. 

Management actions, outputs, and envinnmmtal and socioeconanic effects are 

projected for several decades beycola the plan perid. The purpose of these 

discussions is .twofold. They present a long-term analysis for decision 

makers and for th public to use in evaluating alternatives. These 

projections indicate the managerent actions that mld be needed to achieve 

and maintain, in perpetmty, the resource outputs called for under an 

alternative witbut -t of the pxductivity of the land (16 USC 531). 

107 
These discussicns also *de info" far the naticmal RPA Program, the 

(16 USC 1602). So that the analysis of alternatives for the RPA prosram 

links with actual amditiaw and local issues at the Forest level, a cunplete 

estimate of cutguts, Costs, and effects far the RPA Program brim is 

needed. 

The proj- of alternative attribates beyona the plan period, although 

required by law, does not legally bind the Forest to action beyond the plan 

within fifteen years of its initial developnent. !This revision may well 

establish different long-tesm goals and different future projections than 

those established in the present plan. 

See PppencUx B for details regarding the mdelirg of each alternative in the 

FuRpLAN prqram and the generation of outputs by that program. The methods 

andassmpkl 'ems used to generate certain outputs outside the FORPLAN prcg~am 

are documented in tbe Pl?.nning records. 

dr3velopnent of which requires Mormatlopl four decades tqmd the Plan perioa 

periOa shce, as mt& at", the Forest is required to revise the Plan 

PRF: -ALTERNATIVE 

lhane 

This alternative is the final €?referred Alternative revised as the result of 

public amnent an the Draft Plan and B"rm tal Impact Statement. It is 

designed to provide a mix of management activities that is sensitive both to 

historic uses and public preferences. A mixture of COllMdl 'ty and 

&ty res~ce autputs is mphasized. There is m buaget limitation in the 

F" m3del. 

The issues and cx"s addressed by this alternative are: (1) balancing 

"Odityd- 'ty benefits to optimize net public benefit; (2) reqondiq 

to the neds of each affected social group; (3) providing a variety of 

high-quality recmation opportunities and a prap3rtional distribution of use 

enhance the recreaticeml am of the Eastern Sierra: (5) maintainkg and 

enhancing habitat for harvest species of fish and wildlife; (6) restoring and 

enhancing riparian areas; (7) making wildemess recamnendatiDIls in response 

to key oppxhmities; (8) providing opprtunities for mineral and energy 

developnent in CoordiMtiCn with other resources; and (9) maintaining the 

rqe resource. 

Developed sumner recreation will be managed with the objective of increasing 

opprtsmities in me to demand. Alpine skiing will increase at a rate 

that ITSpnds to demand within errvironmen tal, infras~cture and social 

so that ski area capacity and the canrnmity's ability to provide support 

services are developed together. The management of disprsed sumner and 

winter recreatim will pruvide for an increase in use mghly proportional to 

the use of developed sites. 

between sanmier and winter; (4) maintaining and iq"J amenity values to 

constraints. Developnent will be closely coordinated with cc" 'ty Planning. 

108 
Timber will be managed t0 plX%i.de a c3JIlti.nUOUS Supply Of wood p-CtS for 

1cxa.l markets to the fkq-ee CansiStent with Cast efficiency and other 

resource objectives. 

Dcmestic livestock grazing will be managed to be anpatible with other 

resource objectives. 

The wilderness land base will be increased by the addition of Further 

P1annix-g Areas with high wilderness values, in canbination with a low level 

of cnnflict with other reswfxs or lcgical additions to existirg wildemess, 

in canbination with a low level of conflict with other resources. 

Wildlife habitat will be managed with the objectives of protecting deer 

habitat, achieving re~very for threatened and wered species, 

maintaining or enhancing habitat for sensitive and special int-t species 

and mainiAnirg ppulation viability for all other native vertekate 

species. Fish habitat will be "aged with the objectives of responding to 

projected increases in dispersed recreation and achieving recovery for 

threatened trout. 

Cultural Resources: ccoldud Forest-wide cultural resource inventory and 

project-related and non-project-related surveys. mize type-of-site 

investigation ram than the less efficient site-by-site approach to the 

extent that is feasible. Fniphasize a broad and varied cultural resource 

"agmt -am that includes inventmy, evaluation (including National 

Register rnninati- and/or National Register eligibility determinations), 

p+zection, enhancement, and inlxxpretation of cultural values. 

Facilities: Cnnstruct app"ately 87 miles of recreation access mads as 

needed and app"tely 535 miles of trails for hikers, equestrians, nordic 

skiers, and OHV users over the p1anni.q pericd. Reconsizuct the mad and 

trail system on a programned basis and maintain to assigned mbtenance 

levels. CnnsM an administrative site for the new Mmo Basin National 

Forest Scenic Area. 

Fish: Improve Stream habitat in concentrated recreation areas and in native 

golden bt Mitat. Negotiate with FERC and the affected utility ccmpanies 

to rewater streams for the re-establishment of resident trout fisheries. 

ccadud program& watershed inp"mt work to benefit fish habitat. 

Develop a managaent plan for the Paiute cutbmat trout. 

m: Acquixe lands, if they became available, in Lee Vinirg Canyon, Lundy 

Carryca, and the upper (xyens River for sumner recreation developnent. 

coordinate 1- 'p adjustments with camnnnity plw and Forest 

managenst objectives to provide for the "ity growth associated with 

Minerals: Fxm.rage the developnent of geothermal resources according to 

current agmements in Lease Blocks I and 11. Consider additional geothemml 

exploration and developmsnt in reqcmse to lease applications on any 

acWtimal Farest lands outside of designated or recannended wildemess. 

alpine ski area capacity. 

109 
Pest x” t: Respcpla to the high overall need and opportunity for pest 

management based an the high levels of develw recreation use and new site 

cmskuction and the moderate opprbxu ‘ty to manage vegetation associatad 

with timber Outputs. 

PImteCticn: Use all appropriate wildlife suppression strategies 

(ccolfinement, a3ntai.r” t and ccoltrol) on the Forest as identified in the 

Farest fire management adion plan that is birg developed. 

-: Intensify range management with a vegetative treaiment program. 

Acccmplish fifty acres a year using presaited burning. Allm for a 

rcdxtion in g-razing due to vegetation changes resulting fran timber 

mg-t 081 lands suitable for both timber and range managemat. Do not 

increase livestock gazing 081 deer whter range. Give priority to mule deer 

plans. Apply the guideline of 50 percent utilizatim of forage by livestock. 

Receeaticn: Develop the potential c“& and day-use sites needed to 

support the objective of increas iq use. Develop those sites with the 

greatest lpojected use first. Water-orientd sites in cnncentrated 

recreation areas have the greatest pjectea use; sites away fram water and 

ooncentrated use areas have the lmest projected use. Lkvelop inteqretive 

sitesasthecpporhm ’ty arises. operate facilities and a-ster permits 

at standard levels of service. Develop new concentrated recreation areas in 

the Walk- Lake-Sam11 Carryon and Dea&nan expansion areas. Develop an 

additicmal concentrated recreation acea in the upper Owens River area if 

private land alcmg the river beccmes available. 

ccslduct a dative effects study for the Manmwth/June ?+rea for any 

potential ski area deve1-t ather than that specified in the approved 

developnent plans for Mannwth Pkwntain and June Mnmtdn. Proposed ski area 

developm=nt in the Sherwin Bcnvl Area is currently being studied in an 

e”mn’cal analysis Outside the Forest p1ami.q process. Limiting factors 

for aclditicnal develcpmt include infrastruchne needs such as adquate 

water, sewar, 9y3w renuval, and transportatian facilities; land availability; 

the regicslal skier market; and errviroaMlen tal impacts. For plannirq pupses, 

the developnent level projected in the 1985 Town of Mamnoth Lakes General 

Manage for the haeasing sumner and winter dispersed use that will result 

fran hxeasea developnent. hrwide a full canplement of trails, res-, 

parking areas, and interpretive signs to enhance year-round recreational 

-ties and protect -. Manage disprsed recreation at standard 

levels of sel.vl. ’Ce. 

Designate OHV and OSV routes, corridors and open areas in the upaate of the 

existiq 1977 Interagency Motor Vehicle Use Plan. 

Reseamh Natural Areas: Qnplete the establishment process for the 

Mhippxmvill Flat and McAfee Meaday RNRS. 

Riparian m: prohibit new activities in riparian areas that will have 

unacceptable lcq-term effects on water quality, fish or other aquatic fauna, 

in key fawning areas, developing specific directt ’on in all0trnent management 

Plan represents ski area aevelopnent under this alternative. 

110 
or water-dependent plant life. Fish habitat and watershed imprc"en ttmrk 

will also benefit riparian areas. 

Special Interest Areas: 

and establish those selected. 

Evaluate identified candidate Special Interest Areas 

T-: Use management techniques for timber harvested east Of 

u.S. 395 and uneven-aged managanent west of the highway. Manage timber for 

high level prduction v&em cost-effective on all suitable lands, with these 

exceflons: 

1. west of U.S. 395 in the Ms">th/June area, 

2. existing or potential "nirated recreation areas, 

3. the bmache area, and 

4. the foregnxrnd zciles Of sensitivity Level 1 *avel routes to meet the 

Retention Visual Wity Objective. 

provide fuel& in x5-3 to demand. If the supply of logging residue 

falls below the deMnd for fuel-, cansider supplyins sane fuelmcd out of 

theForogri"edharvest. 

Visual Resources: Assign pmscxibed Visual eUality Objectives (VQOS) with 

the following exception: timber management must meet or exceed the VQO of 

Retention in potential cci-centratfxl recreation areas. Timber harvest units 

should be limited to .twenty acres or less inmost cases. 

Watershed: 

average rate of 350 acres per year. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers: The Wild and Scenic River rea"3aticm for the 

Middle Fork of the San Joaquin River will be suhnitted to Congress by the 

Sierra Naticmal Farest. 

Wilderness: Recarmend the follmiq Fkthr Plardq Areas for wilderness 

designation: Table bbmtain, Tiqa Lake, the upper elevations of the White 

i"tains, and the southeast quarter of the Paiute area in the Imp 

Ybuntains. Ccntaiment will be the primary wildfire suppression strategy for 

Inplement the Forest Watershed Impnnrement Needs (WIN) plan at an 

Mb& fm in the wildf3ITless. 

Wildlife: Enhance mule deer habitat by vegetative treatmnt at an average 

rate of 180 acres per year, emphasizing key winter range. Do not increase 

cattle grazing on key deer winter range. mize the protection of key 

fawnirg habitat, developiq specific direction in allotment manag-t 

plans. F'rohibit or m=dify ski area develop.nent, geothermal developnent, and 

timber manag-t to "ize impacts on deer migration mutes. 

Maintain the intqrity of the existing bald eagle winter rO0sti.q area. 

provide for at least two nesting pairs of reintroduced peregrine falcons. 

Maintain all existing goshawk nesting territories in suitable timber, 

allocating one hundred acres to each nesting pair. 

F'rovide for at least one additional herd of rein+zcduced Sierra Nevada 

mmtain sheep. mider the reintzcduction of additional herds on a 

case-by-case basis. provide for at least one reintrcductim of Nelson 

mmtab sheep to uroccupied range. 

111 
Maintain at least 10 percent of forested lands including hth suitable and 

unsuitable timber in older seral stages. Ehsure that old growth acreage is 

wately dislxibutd thmughout the carmercial timber types. 

Maintdn create slags inmanaged timber stands to meet at least 40 percent 

of the natural potential densi* of slag-depndent wildlife: allow for highix 

densities outside of managed timber. 

Ehvimrment to be created in the Year 2030 

Smnm visitors to the Forest in the year 2030 will find noticeably m 

recreaticPlist.5, as use will have increased nearly 60 percent since 1982. 

There will be many mra caqqmmk, day use sites, and trails of all lcinds. 

Facilities will be better n!aintaind and Services will have i"&. 

Anglers will find moderately haeased fishing 0-ties due to moderate 

fish habitat and water&& hp"nt work. Hunters will expsxienca 

declincng deer populaticns where geothermal developnent and cxm"ity gmwth 

has disturbed deer habitat. 

The type of use in #e Wnacb area will mt have changed, as the area will 

still be accessible only by four-wheel drive vehicles. Visitors to the White 

and Iqo Wnmtains will encounter - hikes and stock parties using the new 

wilderness. 

Vegetatim will differ little in appearance as seen frun major mads. 

will be less timber harvested. 

There 

112 
Table 4 

~creage Allocaticms by kbmgmsnt Prescripticm 

Altemative PRF 

MaMgement Prescriptim M Acres Percent Of 

1. Designated Wilderness 565.1 29.3 

2. proFosea Wilderness 172.6 9.0 

3. "tcdnSheep 

4. Mule5. ResearchNaturalArea* 

35.0 

118.8 

14.9 

(0.7) 

1.8 

6.2 

0.8 

6. Mnm Basin NF Scenic Area* 45.8 2.4 

7. Ancient Bnistle" Pine Forest* 28.9 1.5 

8. Wild and Scenic River* 2.6 

(15.8) 

9. Uneven-aged Timber Management 10.5 

74.5 

11. Range 138.5 

12. canoentrated Recreaticn Area 52.5 

13. Alpine Ski Area, Existing &Under Study 9.6 

14. Potential Alpme Ski Area 14.2 

10. High Level Timber Management 

15. Develop4 Recreation Site 2.2 

16. Dispersed Remeation 8.6 

17. Semi-primitiVe RecreatiOn 437.8 

18. Multiple Resource Area 199.1 

0.1 

0.5 

3.9 

7.2 

2.7 

0.5 

0.7 

0.1 

0.5 

22.6 

10.3 

* Acres with dual designaticm (existing or propxed wilderness and RNA, 

Scenic Area, etc.) are displayed in the acxeage total for Prescriptions 1 or 

2 are indicated in parentheses undtx the other applicable prescription. 

113 
Table 5 

A-ge ArrmJal Outputs by Decade 

Alternative PRF 

Base 1980 Decades 

Ye RPA Goals (Decade 1: 1986-1995) 

Resaurce Ezeoents 

- 1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

&ininistrative Sites 

-Fd - Service 

(no.) 6 

-leased (no.) 1 

DamsandReservoirs 

-ForeSt See (no.) 3 

-State/local (no. ) 4 

-private (m.) 11 

Roads (miles) 

cixstructim (tot. ) 0 

-timber 0 

-recreation 0 

R- 'm (tot.) 20 

-timber 15 

-recreatim 5 

Maintenance (tot.) 974 

Trails (miles) 

cc€lstNctim (tot.) 0 

-existingWilderness 0 

-- 

Wilderness - 

-caxentrated 

rec. areas 0 

-0penw 0 

-0HV 0 

-"C 0 

RecmSbumm (tot.) 10.8 

Wilderness 9.0 

- 

Wilderness - 

--traw 

3x32. areas 1.8 

-0penw 0 

-ow 0 

-&C 0 

-existing 

8 

1 

3 

4 

11 

2.5 

0 

2.5 

15 

5 

10 

977 

24.3 

0.7 

1.8 

9.0 

1.0 

1.8 

10.0 

39.7 

12.6 

1.3 

4.2 

2.2 

16.2 

3.2 

8 

1 

3 

4 

11 

2.3 

0 

2.3 

15 

5 

10 

1002 

24.2 

0.6 

1.8 

9.0 

1.0 

1.8 

10.0 

39.7 

12.6 

1.3 

4.2 

2.2 

16.2 

3.2 

8 

1 

3 

4 

11 

2.6 

0 

2.6 

15 

5 

10 

1024 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

10.0 

60.7 

22.7 

1.0 

7.3 

2.5 

17.0 

10.2 

8 

1 

3 

4 

11 

1.3 

0 

1.3 

15 

5 

10 

1040 

5.0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5.0 

60.1 

25.0 

3.1 

11.3 

2.9 

17.6 

10.2 

8 

1 

3 

4 

11 

0 

0 

0 

15 

5 

10 

1049 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

70.1 

25.0 

3.1 

11.3 

2.9 

17.6 

10.2 

114 
Base 1980 Decades 

Year RPA Goals (Decade 1: 1986-1995) 

ResuDxe El-is 

1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

Trails (mt'd) 

Maintenance (tot.) 1236 - - 1489 1731 1731 1731 1731 

LANDSANDMINEWW 

LdacqUired(-=) 60 0 0 54 270 270 150 70 

Leasable mjnerals 

(total F== Plants) 0 - - 1 3 5 6 6 

Locatable mjnerals 

(Vting Plans) 67 320 408 50 52 56 57 57 

FxQTEmIoN 

Fuel Treabwnt (acres) 

-total 18 500 400 1761 689 767 967 1247 

-fire related 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 

-timber related 18 - - 93 45 73 88 111 

-rqe related 0 - - 50 50 50 50 100 

-wildlife related 0 - - 100 178 228 413 280 

ncpected Wildfire (acres) 

-total 747 - - 918 981 1062 1134 1224 

-intensity level 1 13 - - 9 10 11 11 12 

-intensity level 2 34 - - 55 59 64 68 73 

-intensity level 3 53 - - 64 69 74 79 86 

-int€msity level 4 647 - - 239 255 276 295 318 

-intensity level 5 0 - - 551 589 637 680 734 

=(MAWS) 41.4 42.2 44.5 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 

RECREllTIoN USE (M PSm) 

Llevelapea private 1635 1914 2421 2832 2832 2832 

Developd public 1201 3510 5100 1578 1866 2057 2249 2249 

Dispersed 1004 2490 3120 1191 1766 2023 2229 2437 

Wilderness 540 644 680 718 755 790 

Visual Quality Index 142.07 - - 142.15 142.22 142.28 142.33 142.38 

115 
Table 5 (amthud) 

AltenLatim PRl? Aveage - outplts by - 

Base 1980 Decades 

Year RPA Goals (Decade 1: 1986-1995) 

1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

Resource E3mEntS 

100 

1047 

0 

20.2 

12.0 

16.8 

- 

- 

614 

900 

180 

476 

- 

19.8 

- 

- 

718 

918 

200 

481 

- 

+20 percent 

Bald Eagle** (winter mxtirg areas) 

Peregrine Falcen** 

Gashawks (pairs in suitable timber) 

Nelson -bin Sheep 

1 - - 

- - (m. of pairs) 0 

15 - - 

(m. of animals) 130 - - 

(no. of anhals) 300 - - 

Sierra Nevada k4xmtai.n Sheep 

7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 

10.6 11.0 8.7 5.7 

14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 

200 200 200 200 

374 374 170 0 

350 350 350 350 

1050 1058 1065 1072 

7.0 0.2 0 0 

20.2 20.1 20.0 19.9 

12.0 11.9 11.9 11.8 

1 1 1 1 

2 2 2 2 

15 15 15 15 

140 154 154 154 

350 400 450 500 

7.1 

4.2 

14.5 

200 

0 

350 

1079 

0 

19.9 

11.8 

1 

2 

15 

154 

550 

116 
Table 5 (-timed) 

Average AIXWXL outputs by Decade 

Base 1980 Decades 

Year RPA Goals (Decade 1: 1986-1995) 

Resource Elenents 

1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

WILDLIFE AND FISH (cont'd) 

Lahcoltan cr mt* 

(acres of habitat) 1 - - -3 .5 .5 .5 .5 

(acres of habitat) 3 - - 1.3 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 

Paiute cr mt* 

Resident Trout 

(M m) 1632 +20 percent 1640 1649 1658 1667 1674 

Wildlife/Fish User Days (M WFUDs) 

391.0 - - 393.8 400.5 408.8 417.9 427.6 

- mule deer 25.2 - - 25.2 25.0 25.0 24.8 24.8 

- resident trout 340.4 - - 341.7 343.5 345.3 347.1 348.7 

-other 25.8 - - 26.9 32.0 38.5 46.0 54.1 

Derived fran direct habitat hpomment 

-muledeer 0.1 - - 0.2 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.1 

- resident trout 0 - - 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 - other 0 0.4 0 <0.1 0 0 - - 

Derived fran induced habitat inpwement 

- We deer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

- resident trout 0.1 - - 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 

- other 0.1 - - 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 

- - 

Units of direct habitat improvement 

0.2 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.6 

-resident trout (ac.) 0 - - 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 

-mule deer (M ac.) 0.5 - - 

-other (M acres) 0 - - 0.3 <0.1 0.3 0 0 

HLlMRNprograms(enralle€!s) 39 14 14 39 39 39 39 39 

" - 9.9 11.1 12.2 12.1 12.4 14.9 15.0 16.2 10.3 - - 13.5 13.4 15.9 16.0 17.2 

lr" - (W) 

117 
This alternative displays the current pcgm of manag-t activities on the 

Inyo Natimal Forest and projects it over the 50-year plardq horizon. The 

1982 Farest budget is a limiting fa-. The buaget r" essentially 

over the planning horizon and ccmtinues to be distributed amxq the 

rexunxs in rougNy the same pxporticns as in 1982. 

The issues and cc"s addnxsd by this alternative are: (1) seeking to 

balance annwdl 'ties and amenities to optimize net public benefit; (2) 

respcslding to the needs of affected social groups; (3) providing a rqe of 

rea-eaticmal opporturu 'ties with an jx"q * emphasis cm private developnent 

and winter sports; (4) managing fish and wildlife habitat for public 

enjoymnt, primarily fishing and hunting; (5) making moderate wilderness 

-tias, "izing ccslflicts with other resources; (6) making land 

available for energy and mineral aeVelopnent while p"g . otherresource 

values 

EevelOpea su"r recreation will be managed with the objective of maintaining 

use at current levels throqh the fifth decade. Alpine skiing will increase 

at a rate that respan% to demand. The adual anknmt of mlopnent will be 

c1aSely "I * ted with c"Fty planning so that ski area capacity and the 

ability of the ca"ity to provide support seraices developed in tandem. The 

management of dispersed ad winter recreaticsl will allow for an 

increase in use, but will allow for the quality of the experience to 

deworate. 

Timber will be managed with the objective of maintainjq currently project& 

outpvts over the Plarlnirg brim. 

The grazjq program will be "ged with the objective of maintaining the 

current level of management intmsity though the fifth decade. 

The wilderness land base will be increassd by the addition of Further 

Planning Areas with ecolcgical systenrs rY3t yet rep333sented in wilderness on 

the Inyo. 

Wildlife habitat will be managed with the objectives of: (1) minimizing 

Forest-wide rducticm of deer habitat Capacity; (2) achieving recovery for 

threatened and endangered species; (3) main- or enhancing habitat for 

sensitive and special interest species; and (4) maintaining ppulation 

viability for all other native vertetnate species. Fish habitat will be 

managed with the objectives of ' to projected hmeases in 

Cultural Reswmes: Inventory cultural "rc~ Fnoperties (primarily in 

preparaticm for timber sales and other activities that could affect cultural 

values) at a rate of aPp"ate1y 12,000 acres per year, covering 33 percent 

of the Fcorest by the end of the fifth decade. Meet mandatory historic 

preservatian r?2qulXIts for p?mjeCt hlpl€mentaticm primarily thrrxgh 

118 
mitigatim by avoidame of impacts (Faptectiatl). undertake formal site 

evaluatim, testing, and mitigatim only when avoidance is not feasible. 

Develop and initiate --of-site evaluaticm studies as the opprtunity 

arises. Ccmtinue to provide a "I of formal site protectim, 

interpstatim, and enhancement. 

Facilities: r3"& a total of 6 miles of road to facilitate timber 

management, and 40 new loads for developed recreaticBl sites access over the 

next fifty years. (Irmstrud a -&tal of 178 miles of trail for hikers, 

equestrians, nclrdic skim, and OHVs. the road and trail system 

m a prq"& basis. Maintain to levels provide3 for by 1982 buaget 

levels. Ci"& ane additional adnhistrative site for the nau "I Basin 

National Forest Scenic Area. 

- Fish: Imprwe a total of 72 acres of stream habitat in cancentrated 

-tim and 56 acres in native golden tmUt habitat on the Kem 

Plateau. Establish 5 acres of habitat for Laksltan cutthroat trout. 

Negotiate with FERC and the affected utility an pa^ 'es to rewater at least 27 

acres of sbs?am to reestablish resident trout fisheries. The watwxhed 

imp"ent wxk will also -fit fish habitat. 

Lands: ccodlna . te 1- 'p adjustments with cu"ity plannirg and 

Forest management objectives to provide for the a"ity gmwth associated 

with increas ing alpine ski area capacity. 

Minerals: mcourage the developnent of geothermal - auwrding to 

current agreements in Lease Blocks I and 11. Consider additional geothermal 

exploratim and clarelopnent in respnse to lease applications on any Forest 

lands outside of designated or recomnended wilderness. Encourage 

exploratim and developrent by limiting the acreage with identified high 

mineral potential for wilderness designation. 

Pest Managan5-I t: Respcnd to the need and opprhmity for pest managmt at 

current, msderate levels based on the law level of developed recreation use, 

the lack of new site Construction, and the mderate opportunity to manage 

vegetation associated with moderate timber outputs. 

PruMcm: oosrtinue to operate under the 1982 fire manag-t program 

pending Capletim of the final fire management action plan for the Forest. 

Range: Maintain the current level of intensity in range manag-t. Alim 

for a reductim in grazing due to vegetation changes resulting frcm timber 

manag-t m lands suitable for both ti" and range managmt. Apply the 

guideline of 50 percent forage utilizatim by livestock. Do not increase 

livestock grazing on deer winter range. Give priority to mule deer in key 

fawniq areas, developing specific direction in allo-t managmt plans. 

Recreaticm: Maintain existing developed campgrounds and existing 

ccmcentxated rezreation areas: provide for sone additim construction of 

minor day use and interpretive facilities. operate many facilities at 

law-standard levels of atcxm-ce and service and/or shorten the operatseaso€ls. 

119 
muate patentid alpine ski areas in the following sequence: (1) Sherwin 

Bowl, (2) MEmmOth Knolls and Minaret Sunnit; (3) San Joaquin and Wte Wing. 

For the initial p1- perioa, manage shenvln * , sumnit, and WllS so that 

alpine ski area potential is rat lost. The actual a"t: and location of ski 

areas will be based cm site-specific feasibility studies and envirroynen tal 

doclmwts; for planniq plrposes, the developnent level pjedea in the 1985 

Town of Manmsth eneral Plan xqxesents full ski area aevelopnent under this 

alternative. 

Manage for slightly increased simmer dispersed recreatiw resuLting fran an 

enlarged wildarness base and the projected upgradirg of U.S. 395 and 203. 

Manage for the -ate hrxease in winter dispersed use that will result 

from --doubling of the overnight wintertime acoc" base in local 

ComrmnitieS and the establidment of a rroderate-sized nordic resort in the 

upper D?q cT€&-Deaalan crsek area. ckmstruct few, if any, new dispersed 

facilities such as trails, parking areas, and resboms. Gmtinue to manage 

dispersed recreaticsl at a low standard (limited cleanup, maintenance, and 

public ccpltact outside of aeVelOpea sites). 

Accarmodate and am-1 c%N use under the existing Interagency Vehicle Use 

Plan, r8taini.q existing sumnar open areas and slightly red~~cing winter open 

areas where they mnflict with alpine or nordic ski areas or wildernss. 

Research Natural Areas: Cauplete the establishment precess for the 

Whipp"il1 Flat and McAfee Meadow reccmnended RNAs. 

Riparian Arpas: prohibit new activities in riparian areas that will have 

unacceptable lcq-lxmn effects CPI wate.r quality, fish (or other aquatic 

fauna), or water-dependent plant life. The fish habitat and watershed 

hp"nt wxk discussed under separate heam will also be expected to 

benefit riparian areas. 

specid lhterest Areas: 

and establish thDse selected. 

Evaluate identified candidate Special Interezt Areas 

Tinber: 

suitable timber lands with the fol1mir-g exceptions: 

Manage timber for high level proaudian where 34-effective on all 

1. Do not manage for carmercial timber outputs on existing or ptential 

COBlcentrated recreation afeas or existing alpine ski areas. 

2. lvbdify timber management as needed to meet the retention visual 

quality objective in the fomgmmd zcoles of Sensitiviiq Level 1 

roads. 

Provide fuel- in respcase to demand. If the supply of legging residue 

falls below the demand for fuel-, consider supplyirg sane fuel- out of 

the-d harvest. 

Visual Resources: Assign prescribed Visual mality Objectives (m) with 

the follawing exceptions: timber management must meet or exceed the VQ3 of 

partial retention on all lands, and opniqs for timber harvest shauld be 

limited to 20 am or less. 

120 
Watershed: Inrplemnt the Forest Watershed Inp”mt Needs (WIN) Plan at 

the CUzTent rate of app”ately 40 a- per year, Canp1etix-g app”tely 

9 percent of the WOIlr identified in that plan by the end of the fifth decade. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers: Wild and Scenic River reanmx&tions are the same 

for all alternatives; thcse recarmendatica7s are described above under the 

headiq of Management Prescripticms that are area-specific in all 

alternatives. 

Wilderness: Reamnend the fol1cwi.q Further Pl- Areas for wildesignation: the upper elevaticns of the White Wnmtains and the southeast 

guarter of the Paiute area in the Inyo Wuntains. ccoltrol is the only 

apprapriate fire suppression strategy in wilderness. 

Wildlife: Maintain ovaall mule deer habitat near current levels by 

coordiMtion with other resources and by deer habitat improvement. Treat 

vegetation, eqhasizing key winter range, at an average rate of 482 acres per 

year (241 acres of Wch will be treated by prescribed inxcnkg.) Do not 

allow cattle grazing to increase on key deer winter range. mize the 

prutetion of key habitat, developing specific direction in allotment 

managment plans. Mitigate the effects of ski area developnent, geothermal 

developnent, and timber managawnt on deer migratim routes. 

Maintain the integrity of the existing bald eagle winter roosting area. 

hrwide for .two nestiq pairs of reinbxducd peregrine falcons. 

mtain all exih goshawk nestix-g territories in suitable timber, 

allocating 50 acres to each nesting pair. 

Maintain 10 peroent of all forested lands (but M suitable timber) in older 

seral stages. 

Maintain or Create snags in managed tinber stands to meet at least 40 percent 

of the natural potential density of mag-depndent wildlife; allow for higher 

densities outside of managed timber. 

Ez” 

Sumner visitors to the Forest in the year 2030 will find only a slight 

increase in recreaticnists, as no additianal a”X& will have been 

constructed. There will be a few mre day-use sites and trails. Facilities 

will be in poor dtim, and services will be provided at a low level. 

Anglers will find slightly increased fiw opprtum ’ties due to a mderate 

amunt of stream habitat inp”m t and a snall amount of watershed 

iqmwment W0l-k. Hun- will vience dec1ini.q deer populations where 

timber harvest, geothermal develapnent, and camrunity growth had increased 

overall use and di- of deer mitat. 

The type of use in the ”ache area will ha9 changed with improves access 

far timber harvest. Nxe people will use the area as a wilderness entry 

point, and fewer will seek the renote cap- and fcur-wheel drive recreatioIl 

typical of 1982. There will also be sone changes in the White and Inyo 

t to ’be created in the Year 2030 

121 
W”, as wilderness in those ranges attract - hikers and stock 

parti-. 

Vegetatim will differ little in appearance as seen fnm major roads. Views 

frun the back roads and viewpoints north and east of Mammth Lakes and in 

the Wmacb area will show a suhstantial increase in plantations of mall 

trees and lcgging debris. 

Winter visitors will encounter nearly twice as many alpine skiers and skiing 

-ties. Mamnoth and June Mznmtains will have develop3 fully, and 

additicmal ski- will be found in the She?” ‘ Bowl, Minaret Sunnit, and/or 

Mammth Knolls areas. There will be a slight haease in mrdic trails 

Farest-wide. The cc”ities of Mammth and June Lake will have gmwn and 

urbanized cca7siaerably in support of increased skiing. 

122 

I 

I 
!Fable 6 

~c~eage Azlocaticns by Managmmt Prescciptim 

Alternative aJR 

-t Presxipticn MAcres Percent of Forest 

1. Designata3 Wildcanes 565.1 29.4 

2. pmpasea Wildcanes 107.6 5.6 

3. mtainshp 35.0 1.8 

4. WeDeer 0 0 

5. ResearchNaturalFu-ea* 

6. WmoBasinNFScenicArea* 

14.9 

45.0 

(0.7) 

0.8 

2.3 

7. Athcient Bristle" Pice Forest* 28.9 1.5 

8. Wild and Scenic River* 4.3 

(19.4) 

0.2 

9 . --aged T.hk~- Managenent 0 0 

10. High Level Timber Managanent 109.8 5.7 

11. Range 178.3 9.2 

12. Cbmentrated Recreaticm Area 44.6 2.3 

0.3 

14. potentia =pine ski rea 6.6 0.3 

15. JJevelOpea Recreatian Site 1.4 0.1 

16. Dispersed Rec~?=ation 0 0 

17. Semi-PrimitiVe R-tim 364.4 18.9 

18. Multiple Resource Area 419.0 21.7 

* Acres with dual designation (existing or pmpsed wxlderness - and RNA, 

Scenic Area, etc.) are displayed in the acreage total for Prescriptions 1 or 

2 and indicated in parentheses under the other applicable prescriptim. 

123 
We 7 

Alternative am 

A==$F=-outPrtsbYBase 1980 Decades 

Year RPA Goals (Decade 1: 1986-1995) 

-Elenents 

- 1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

Edllinistrative sites 

-Farest Service 

6 - - 8 8 8 8 8 

-leased (no.) 1 - - 0 0 0 0 0 

-Forest mCe (no.) 3 - - 3 3 3 3 3 

-State/lCcal (no.) 4 - - 4 4 4 4 4 

-private (no.) 11 - - 11 11 11 11 11 

- (M.) 

DamsardReservolrs 

Roads (miles) 

c."dAm (tot.) 0 - - 3.1 1.5 0 0 0 

-timber 0 - - -6 0 0 0 0 

-2ecreatim 0 - - 2.5 1.5 0 0 0 

ReOXSkWh 'an (tat.) 20 - - 15 15.8 17 17 17 

-timber 15 15 5.0 17 17 17 

- recrrsatiapl 5 - - 0 10.8 0 0 0 

Maintenance (tot.) 974 - - 977 989 995 1003 1011 

Trails (miles) 

c3."ctim (tot.) 0 - - 9.0 8.8 0 0 0 

-existingwilderness 0 - - 0.7 0.6 0 0 0 

-- 

Wilderness - - - 0.8 0.7 0 0 0 

-comentrated 

rec. areas 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 

0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 

-ow 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 -open NF 

-" 0 - - 7.5 7.5 0 0 0 

Reconstruction total 10.8 - - 37.9 37.9 49.9 59.0 58.9 

-existing 

Wilderness 9.0 - - 12.6 12.6 22.7 25.0 25.0 

-re"ended 

Wilderness - - - 1.3 1.3 0.8 4.1 4.0 

-ccslcen.trated 

rec. areas 1.8 - - 4.2 4.2 3.7 4.2 4.2 

0 - - 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 

-ow 0 - - 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 -open NF 

-lXXdic 0 - - 3.2 3.2 6.2 9.2 9.2 

- - 

- 

124 
Table7 (cmtinued) 

Average Annual Outpts by Decade 

Alternative CUR 

Base 1980 Decades 

Year RPA Goals (OeCadE? 1: 1986-1995) 

1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

Resolrrce Elements 

Trails (cmt’d) 

(tot.) 1236 - - 1361 1469 1469 1469 1469 

LANlsANDMINERAzs 

Landacquirea(a~.es) 60 0 0 54 130 200 150 60 

Leasable *ais 

(t0ta.l power Plan+=) 0 - 1 3 5 6 6 

Locatable mhwals 

(operating Plans) 67 320 408 60 63 67 72 72 

-1C.N 

mel Reatrnent (am) 

- 

-total 18 500 400 923 514 1103 602 168 

-fire related 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 

-timber related 18 - - 163 80 97 92 168 

-range related 0 - 324 434 286 52 0 

-wildlife related 0 - 436 0 720 458 0 

- 

- 

- 

ncpected Wildfire (acres) 

-total 747 - - 1011 1069 1069 1069 1069 

-intensity level 1 13 - - 10 11 11 11 11 

-int&tylarel2 34 - - 128 135 135 135 135 

- 57 60 60 60 60 -intensitylevel3 53 - 

-intensitylevel4 647 - - 209 222 222 222 222 

-intensity level 5 0 - - 607 641 641 641 641 

(Mm) 41.4 42.2 44.5 38.1 39.3 41.6 39.3 39.1 

FECRE2ITIa USE (M RVD) 

Developed Public 1201 3510 5100 1293 1293 1293 1289 1289 

Developed PriMte 1635 1914 2421 2832 2832 2832 

Dispersed 1004 2490 3120 1238 1560 1580 1580 1640 

Wilderness 540 639 680 716 753 788 

Visual Qmlity Incaex 142.07 - - 142.13 142.18 142.22 142.26 142.30 

125 
Table 7 (antinued) 

A-ge Arnrual Outplts by Decade 

Alternative aJR 

Base 1980 Decades 

Year R!?A Goals (Decade 1: 1986-1995) 

1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

Resaucce Elenents 

TIMBJZR 

Pse (MF) 10.5 

Fuelwood (M carcls) 10.6 

Lcgls Term Sustainsd Yield 

Reforestation 

(MF) - 

(-) 300 

(a=) 328 

Timber Stand -t 

WAm 

mxov==nt (acres) 100 

Sbality - (M acre-feat) 1047 

suanuty 

(M acre-feet) 0 

wILDIL;LFEANDFIsH 

Mule Deer 

(M animals total) 20.2 

(M animals on Inyo) 12.0 

16.8 

- 

- 

614 

900 

180 

476 

- 

19.8 11.4 

- 10.6 

- 24.7 

718 817 

918 40 

200 40 

481 1047 

- 11.0 

+20 percent 20.2 

12.0 

Bald Eagle** (winter musting areas) 

Peregrine Falm* 

1 - - 1 

(no. of pairs) 0 - - 2 

Nelscn "tain sheep 

(m. of animals) 130 - - 140 

(no. of animals) 300 - 

Sierra Nevada mtain sheep 

- 350 

13.4 

11.0 

24.7 

402 

48 

40 

1049 

4.0 

20.0 

11.8 

1 

2 

15 

154 

400 

13.4 

8.7 

24.7 

483 

970 

40 

1050 

0 

19.8 

11.6 

1 

2 

15 

154 

450 

13.4 

5.7 

24.7 

459 

0 

40 

1051 

3.0 

19.7 

11.5 

1 

2 

15 

154 

500 

13.4 

4.2 

24.7 

842 

0 

40 

LO52 

0 

19.6 

11.5 

1 

2 

15 

154 

550 

126 
Table 7 (antinued) 

A-ge &mud Outpts by Decade 

Alteamative aJR 

Base 1980 Decades 

Year RPA Goals (Decade 1: 1986-1995) 

1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

Eleaenrs 

"?E AM) FISH (wnt'd) 

Lahcsltan cr TrTxt* 

(ac. of habitat) 1 - - 

(ac. of habitat) 3 

(M panads) 1632 +20 percent 

User Days (M WFULM) 391.0 - - 

- mule deer 25.2 - - 

- resident truut 340.0 - - 

- other 25.8 - - 

Paiute CP me 

- - 

Resident Trout 

Total Wildlife/Fish 

Derived from direct habitat iq"ent 

- mule deer 0.1 - - 

- resident trout 0 

-other 0 

- - 

- - 

Derived from induced habitat improvement 

-muledeer 0 - - 

- resident trout 0.1 

- other 0.1 - - 

- mule deer (M ac.) 0.5 - - 

- resident trout (ac) 0 0 0 

- other (M acres) 0 

- - 

Units of direct habitat imprmrement 

- - 

IiuaWPrcgrams (enrollees) 39 14 14 

9.9 11.1 12.2 

10.3 - - 

"L" (-1 

"L ccm (EMS) 

.3 .5 

1.3 1.8 

1635 1639 

392.9 393.9 ~~~ ~ 

25.2 24.6 

340.8 341.5 

26.9 27.8 

<o. 1 

0.7 

0.5 

0 

0.1 

(0.1 

0 

3.1 

.4 

39 

10.0 

11.0 

0 

0.7 

0 

0 

0.1 

0 

0 

3.1 

0 

39 

9.9 

10.9 

.5 

1.8 

1643 

395.2 

24.2 

342.3 

28.7 

0.2 

0.7 

0.2 

0 

0.1 

0.2 

1.4 

3.1 

0 

39 

10.0 

11.0 

.5 

1.8 

1647 

396.7 

24.0 

343.1 

29.6 

0.2 

0.7 

0.2 

0 

0.1 

0.1 

0.9 

3.1 

0 

39 

10.0 

11.0 

.5 

1.8 

1651 

398.9 

23.8 

343.9 

31.2 

0 

0.7 

0 

0 

0.1 

0 

0 

3.1 

0 

39 

10.0 

11.0 

127 
RPA: MEGT~AElDGoRIsOF~198O~~ACX"EoQEAM 

'Ihene 

This alwtive is desi- to meet the targets and goals of the 1980 FPA 

program, representing mte to high outplts of wrmodl 'ties and selected 

-ties. Sane of the assigned FPA targets and goals for the Forest are mt 

niutually cnnpatible. Whe?=e them was a ccmflict, &et cutputs (timber, 

range, and developed "eation) were given priority over r"-n!arket outputs 

and amenities. In cases for which RPA goals could mt be met in this 

alternative, they were met in ala ar mm of the other alwtives studied 

in detail. 

The issues and "-s addressed by this alternative are: (1) establishiq a 

regulated forest on a large part of tke tentatively suitable timber base; (2) 

achiev-hq high levels of -loped recreation use, (3) mkiq M additional 

wild€mless -ticals: (4) "zing ??&3zicticms an mineral 

activities. 

Timber will be managed with the objectives of achieving a prq"d annual 

hanrest of 19.2 WF. 

Donestic livestock grazjng will be managed with the objective of producing at 

least 55,600 average annual AUMS by the fifth decade, representkq the 

Ckqressicmal target of a 46 percent increase - the specified base level. 

Developed mticm will be managed with the objective of increasing in 

"s,e to danand: the actual anwnt of developnent will be limited by 

ptmtial supply. Alpine skiing will increase in response to demand to the 

extent cmpatible with timber objectives. The managanent of dispersed sumner 

and winter remeation will provide for an increase in use roughly 

Them is M wet lhitaticm in the FDFPLAN -1. 

propchticslal to developea site USB. 

Wildlife habitat will be "aged with the objectives of: (1) minimizing 

Forest-wide reducticms in deer habitat CapaciQ, given the range and alpine 

skiing priority; (2) achiwing recwery for threa+.,d and endangered 

species; (3) maintahirg p3pulaticm viability for all oA& native vertebrate 

Species. Fish habitat will be managed with the objectives of:(l) achievirg 

for threatened .trout species; (2) respx&q ' to projected increases 

in dispersed remeation; (3) increasing stream trout habitat 20 percent in 

"s,e to the RPA goal. 

Resancem Directicn 

Cdfmral Resaurces: Meet the RPA gcal of cunpleting a Forest-wide cultural 

resource inventory by 1995, at an average rate of 180,ooO acres per year. 

Develop and implement a formal --of-site evaluation prcgram for various 

types of cultural properties. Use that prcgram to supplement a primary 

strategy of impact avoidance (protection) in meeting historic preservation 

requirements for activities that could affect cultural properties. Eevelop 

and hplanent enhancement and interpretation activities as the opportunity 

arises. Initiate formal nmitorhg and pmtection programs. 

128 
Facilities: cnnstruct a total of 21 miles of road to facilitate timber 

managmat and 82 miles for developxl recreation site access wer the next 50 

years. clxstruct a total of 538 miles of trail for hikers, equestrians, 

nordic skiers, and OINs. R- the road and trail System on a 

-amred basis; maintain to assigned maintenance levels. conshruct one 

additional administrative site for the new Mxa Basin National Forest Scenic 

Area. 

- Fish: ImpIove a total of 180 acres of stream habitat in CMCentrated 

recreation areas and 56 acres in native golden trout habitat on the Kem 

Plateau. Establish 18 acres of habitat for threatened Paiute cutthroat .trout 

and 5 acres for Lahmtan cutthmat trout. Negotiate with FERC and the 

affected utility caopanies to rewater at least 27 acres of stream for the 

reestablishment of resident truut fisheries. The watershed improvement tmrk 

will also benefit fish habitat. 

Lands: ?quire lands (if they becane available) in Lee Vining Canyon, Lundy Canyon, and the upper Owens River for sumner recreation developnent. 

coordinate landownershl 'p ajushnents with ccmnunity pl- and Forest 

managmt objectives to provide for the ccmnunity growth associated with 

increasing alpine ski area capacity. ccolduct landline su~veys at an average 

rate of 33 miles per year in order to meet the RPA goal of canpleting all 

such SuIVeys by the year 2030. 

Minerals: Encourage the developnent of geothermal resources according to 

current agreements in Lease Blocks I and 11. Consider additional geothermal 

exploration and developnent in respnse to lease applications on any 

additional Forest lands outside of designated wildemess. In order to 

enamrage mal activities, m additional lands for wildemess 

designation. 

pest -gall€¶ t: Resprd to the very high mall need and 'ty for 

pest managmat based on the high levels of developed recreation use and new 

site cc-"h 'on and the major apportunity to manage vegetation associated 

with high level timber outputs. 

Pmtecticpl: Apply the fo1lcwb-g fire manag-t program: (1) prevention and 

detection represent 17 percent of the program; (2) suppression and aviation 

represent 83 percent of the program; (3) there is M fuels tzeabnent for fire 

manag-t purposes; (4) total staffing at the 1982 level; and (5) an 

appropriate wildfire suppression strategies (ccmfinemnt, mntainmeut, and 

mntml) are applied. 

Range: Intensify range manag-t with an annual average of 1,500 acres of 

vegetation mtment over the five decades. Acccmplish 570 acres of this 

tcital by prescribed burning. Apply the guideline of 60 percent utilization 

of forage by livestock. Allow for a reduction in grazing due to vegetation 

charges resulting fran timber managmat on lands suitable for both timber 

and raqe management. Allow livestock grazing to increase on deer winter 

range. Place cuiiy"al restrictions on grazirg in mule deer fawning 

areas. 

Recreatim: Develop all potential campgrounds and @-use sites that will 

not &lick with timber managmat activities. Develop those sites with the 

.. 

129 
greatest project& use first (water-oriented sites in amcentrated recreaticm 

areas have the greatest projected use: sites away fran watw and concentrated 

use -- areas have the lawest pxojedea use). Develop intwqretive sites as the 

arises. operate facilities and administer permits at standard 

level of service. 

Retain nvst existing cammtxated recreation areas. Eliminate the Deadman, 

Inyo maters, and Deadknan expansicsl amcentrated recreation areas (keeping 

the campgnxmds) to allow for “I timber proauction. Develop new 

concentrated recreatim areas in the Buttermilk and Walker Lake-Sawinill 

carrycsl areas. Develop an additimal ancentrated recreation area in the 

upper (xyens River area if private land almg the river bemnes available. 

Cmsider ~aroposals to increase alphe ski area capacity 8,000 to 15,000 SAOT 

over the 31,000 currently appnxled. Added capacity will be envisioned for 

#eshe”n * -1 and Minzxcet S&t pcrtential ski areas to minimize conflicts 

with timber managenent. 

Manage for ixxeasing dispersed use that will result fran full developnent of 

caqgwr& and a --than double Wintertime overnight base in local 

cxnnmnities. Managefurtheincreased use associated with upgrading of U.S. 

395 and State Highway 203, impravea access into currently unroaded areas, and 

the developnent of a &ate-sized nordic ski area in the upper Dry 

Creek-Dea&an Cmsk area. provide a full “plement of trails, restzxans, 

parkins -, and interprative signs to enhance year-round recreatimal 

OpPortLlnities and protect resources. Manage dispersed use at standard levels 

of service. 

EMxxlrage sumner OHV use, includirg a 65 percent increase in open OW area 

acreage. Restrict winter OHV use only to the degree needed to “ize 

Manage the following lands in am- unroaded dticm with an eqbsis 

OB1 primitive and semi-primitiv3 disperses remeaticm: San Jcaquin Wage fmm 

Deadnan Sunnit to Glass &e&, lands autSi.de wilderness and concentrated 

recreatim areas in the Rock CYeek drainage and the Mammth Lakes Basin, 

Glass muntain Ridge, and the higher elmtiom of the white ”ntains north 

of white muntain Peak. 

ccsrflicts with wilderness or alpine and dc ski areas. 

Riparian Areas: prohibit new &vities in riparian areas that will have 

unacceptable lq-d effects cm water quality, fish (ur other aquatic 

animals), or water-dependent plant life. The fish habitat and watershed 

i”entwcskdiscussed llnder separate headings will also be expected to 

benefit riparian areas. 

special Interest Areas: Evaluate identified candidate Special Interest Areas 

and establish tbS0 selected by 1990. 

130 
TW: Manage timbar for hi@ level PICdIlCthl~ Cost-effective C3l all 

suitable timber lands with the folladrg exceptims. 

1. Do not manage for carmercial timber outputs cm axcentrated recreatiopl 

areas or alpine ski areas. 

objective in the forqxmd zones of scenic highways. 

2. mdify timber management as needed to meat the Retention Visual Quality 

Allow for &Lpartvre fnm the base sale schedule, drcp the harvest dispersim 

requirement, and harvest steep slopes (even if not cost-effective) in order 

to achieve objectives. 

provide fuelwood in mqcmse to dgnand. If the supply of logging residue 

falls below the demand for fuelwood, mider supp1yix-g s~ne fuelwood out of 

theprqr&harvest. 

Visual Rescueces: Assign prescrited Visual mality Objectives (Vaos) with 

the fo1laci.q exceptions: timber manag-t must meat or exceed the VeoS of 

Retention or Partial Retention, as inventoried, where seen frun 

state-designated scenic highways: Partial Retention in the foregnxlnd zones 

of Sensitivity Level 1 mads: and Modification in the foreground zones of 

sensitivity Level 2 roads. 

watershed: Implgnent the Forest watershed iq"ent needs (WIN) plan at an 

average rate of 200 acres per year in order to meet the RPA target: at this 

rate, 46 percent of the vnrk identified in that plan will be canpleted by the 

end of the fifth decade. 

Wild d Scenic Rivers: Wild and Scenic River recarmendations are the same 

for all altematives; tkse rex"%ticns are describe3 above under the 

heading of Managgnent F%-escriptions that are area-specific in all 

alternatives. 

Wilderness: Recarmend rn Further Planning Areas for wilderness designation. 

Contaiment will be the primary wildfire suppression strategy for ~t~~ra

fires in wilderness. 

Wildlife: Maintain mall niule deer habitat capacity to the extent possible 

given livestock priority on win- range and timber harvest, geothermal 

developnent, COlTrmnity grcwth, and ski area developnent on migration routes. 

Enhance deer habitat by vegetation treatment, emphasizing key winter range, 

at an average rate of 496 acres per year (248 acres of which will be 

acconplished by prescribed burning). 

Maintain the integrity of the existing bald eagle winter rcosting area. 

provide for two nesting pairs of reintr&uced peregrine falcons. 

Maintain nine gashawk nestjrg territories in suitable timber: allocate 50 

acres to each nesting pair. 

"tab sheep. 

Provide for 170 additi@nal herds of reintroduced Sierra Nevada or Nelson 

131 
Main- 10 percent of all forested land (but M suitable timber) in older 

Maintain or create snags inmanaged timber stands to meet at least 40 percent 

of the natural potential density of snag-demt wildlife: allow for higher 

densities outside of maMged timber. 

- stases. 

t to be created in the Yeat 2030 

swmer vi si^ to the Forest in Me year 2030 will find noticeably mra 

r€xxeati~sts, as use will have increased nearly 60 percent since 1982. 

There will be many mxe “&, day use sites, and -trails of all kinds. 

Facilities will be better maintained and services will have impmvea. 

Anglers will find somewhat increases fishing opporturu ‘ties, due to the large 

a”nt of stream habitat enhancement and lroderate a“t of watm 

jq”mt wark. mnters will expenience dLFaMtical1y reduced deer 

populaticns because cattle grazing had increased 081 deer winter range and 

because timber harvest, g€o“ developnent, cxnnnml ‘ty grcwth, .ski. 

area develapnent had obstructed mig-raticm routes and iniprwed access, 

increasing overall use and disturbance of deer habitat. 

The type of use in the Wmache area will have changed with impmved access 

for timber harvest. Mxa people will use the area as a wilderness entry 

point, and fewer will find the mte canplirg and far-wheel drive recreaticn 

typical of 1982. 

Vqetaticm will differ little in appearance as seen fmn U.S. 395, Highway 

203, and other Scenic Highways. Views fion other roads and viewpints north 

and east of Ma”* Lakes and in the Wmache area will show a dramatic 

inaease in plantatbns of mall trees and lcgging debris. Timber harvest on 

steep slopes will be “s visible than the harvest an gentler terrain found 

under other alternatives. 

Winter visitors will encounter mxe than twice as many alpine skiers and 

skihg OppOrtUnities. Marmoth and June Mxmta3n.s will have developd fully, 

and additimal skiing will be found in the Sherwin Bowl, Minaret Sumnit, and 

White Wing areas. Nordic trails and support facilities will have developd 

FOrest-Wide. co” ‘ties of Mammth and June Lake will have grown and 

urbanized midexably in support of increased skiing. 

132 
WRONMENTAL 

IMPAW STA-ENT 

I 

I 

r 

ALTERNATIVE RPA 

IS I 

I 

t0 

I3 

I3 

I 
I 

Lc, 

I 
Table 8 

Acreage Allocaticms by MaMgernent prescripticm 

Alternative RPA 

MaMganslt h-escriptim M Acres Fercent of Forest 

1. Designated Wilderness 565.1 29.4 

2. prop3sed Wilderness 0 0 

3. rJkuntainsheep 4.8 0.2 

4. MuleDeer 7.4 0.4 

5. ReSearchNaturalArea* 14.9 

(0.7) 

6. bkumBasinNFScenickea* 45.0 

7. Ancient Eristleccne Pine Fore&* 28.9 

8. Wild and Scenic Wv& 4.3 

(19.4) 

0.8 

2.3 

1.5 

0.2 

9. Vneven-aged Timher Management 0 0 

10. High Level Timber Management 119.8 6.2 

11. Range 228.1 11.8 

12. cancentcated ReCreatian Area 44.1 

13. Alpine Ski kea, Ekisting and undar 10.2 

stuay 

2.3 

0.5 

14. Potential Alpine Ski kea 0 0 

15. Ewelapea Rexeation Site 2.1 0.1 

16. Dispersed Rexeation 0 0 

17. Semi-h-imitive Recreation 204.4 10.6 

18. Multiple F&”x Area 652.0 33.8 

* Acres with dual designatim (existing or prqxsed wilderness and RNA, Scenic 

Area, etc.) are display& in the acreage total for Prescriptiuns 1 or 2 and 

indicated in pawltheses under the other applicable prescription. 

133 
Table 9 

Ave~age Ar"l Outputs by Decade 

Azternatve RPA 

Base 1980 Decades 

Year RPA Goals (Decade 1: 1986-1995) 

Resomce El-ts 

1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

EACILITIES 

Administrative Sites 

-Forest service 

- 8 8 8 8 8 

-leased (no.) 1 - - 0 0 0 0 0 

-Fd Service (no.) 3 - - 3 3 3 3 3 

-State/local (no.) 4 - - 4 4 4 4 4 

-private (no.) 11 - - 11 11 11 11 11 

6 - owned (no.) 

DamsdReservoirs 

Roads (miles) 

(3lstructim (tot. ) 0 - - 0.6 4.1 2.9 2.7 0 

-timber 0 - - 0.6 1.5 0 0 0 

-recreatiO81 0 - - 0 2.6 2.9 2.7 0 

Reconstrudian (tot.) 20 0 0 20 24 28 28 28 

-timber 15 - - 18 22 26 26 26 

-recreation 5 - - 2 2 2 2 2 

Maintenance (tot.) 974 - - 977 999 1017 1036 1041 

!rrails (miles) 

c3xlshl&O81 (tot.) 0 - - 27.0 26.8 0 0 0 

- 0.7 0.6 0 0 0 

-recamwded 

wi1- - - - 0 0 0 0 0 

-- 

rec. areas 0 - - 9.0 9.0 0 0 0 

0 - - 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 

-0Hv 0 - - 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 

dpenw 

-dC 0 - - 13.8 13.7 0 0 0 

R- '081 (tot.) 10.8 - - 38.4 38.4 58.5 71.6 71.6 

-existing 

Wilderness 9.0 - - 12.6 12.6 22.7 25.0 25.0 

-recamnended 

Wilderness - - - 0 0 0 0 0 

-"?ntrat& 

rec. areas 1.8 - - 4.2 4.2 7.3 11.3 11.3 

0 - - 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.9 2.9 

-cmv 0 - - 16.2 16.2 17.2 18.2 18.2 dpenw 

-rrJrdic 0 - - 3.2 3.2 8.8 14.2 14.2 

-&stingwilderness 0 - 

134 
Table 9 (CmtilnYXl) 

AveaSe-outprtsbY- Altemati= RPA 

Base 1980 Decades 

Year RPA Goals (Decade 1: 1986-1995) 

ResaDxe a€iEslts 

1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

-1s (oont'd) 

MajnteImme (tot.) 1236 

LANDS" 

Land e (acres) 60 

(*a pawer Plank) 0 

Leasable minerals 

mCa#l0 minerals 

(operatirg plans) 67 

pR".m 

Fuel h-eatmpnt (acres) 

-total 18 

-fire related 0 

-timtar related 18 

-wildlife related 0 

-range related 0 

ncpected Wildfire (acres) 

-taM 747 

-htensitylevel 1 13 

-intensitylevel 2 34 

-intensitylevel 3 53 

-intensitylevel 4 647 

-intensitylevel 5 0 

(M-) 41.4 

IUXXEZiTIm USE (M FWD) 

DevelOpea Public 1201 

DevelOpea Private 1635 

Dispersed 1004 

Wilderness 540 

Visual Quality Index 142.07 

1506 1774 1774 1774 

54 130 200 150 

1 3 5 6 

67 70 75 80 

1312 751 541 1213 

0 0 0 0 

143 208 185 295 

356 356 356 356 

813 187 0 562 

918 981 1062 1134 

9 10 11 11 

55 59 64 68 

64 69 74 79 

239 255 276 295 

551 589 637 680 

52.7 58.7 62.3 61.1 

1674 2057 2249 2249 

1914 2421 3131 3479 

1191 1887 2103 2286 

637 671 705 739 

1774 

60 

6 

80 

1722 

0 

282 

1440 

0 

1224 

12 

73 

86 

318 

734 

55.6 

2250 

3479 

2446 

771 

142.15 142.22 142.28 142.33 142.38 

135 
Table 9 (ontlnux3) 

AlteUkatiE RF% 

~-F=-outPltsbYBase 1980 DecaIks 

Year RPA Goals (W 1: 1986-1995) 

1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

ResGnce EleEflts 

TZMBW 

(AX?) (WF) 10.5 16.8 19.8 16.9 16.9 17.9 19.2 19.8 

Lcng Tenn Sustained Yield 

Reforestatim (acres) 300 614 718 714 1040 926 1474 1410 

(WF) - - - 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 

Timbar Stand IroFawgnent 

328 900 918 113 432 390 0 0 

10.0 - - 16.1 14.5 11.7 10.3 7.2 

100 180 200 186 200 200 200 200 

1047 476 481 1052 1056 1060 1064 1068 

0 - - 15.0 0 0 0 0 

20.2 +20 percent 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 9.6 

12.0 11.2 9.9 8.7 7.4 5.9 

Eald Ekig10** (winter rcostirg areas) 

1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 

Peregrine Falcon** 

(m. ofpairs) 0 - - 2 2 2 2 2 

(pairs in suitable 15 - - 14 13 12 11 9 

Goshawks 

Nelson lvlolllntain Sheep 

(m. of animals) 130 - - 130 130 130 130 130 

Sierra Nevada t4?untain Sheep 

(m. of animals) 300 - - 330 360 390 420 450 

136 
Table 9 (continued) 

Aver- Anrrual Outputs by Decade 

Alteznative RPA 

Rase 1980 Decades 

Ye RPA Goals (oecade 1: 1986-1995) 

Resolace Elaoents 

1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

WIDLIFZ AND FISH (mt'd) 

LahYntan m hautf 

(acres of habitat) 1 - - .3 .5 .5 .5 .5 

(acres of habitat) 3 - - 1.3 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 

Paiute a TNnlt* 

Resident haut 

(M W) 1632 +20 percent 1640 1649 1657 1665 1673 

Total Wildlife/Fish User Days (M WFUDs) 

391.0 - - 392.1 396.2 401.9 408.3 415.0 

-mule deer 25.2 - - 23.5 20.8 18.3 15.5 12.4 

-resident trout 340.0 - - 341.7 343.4 345.1 346.8 348.5 

-other 25.8 - - 26.9 32.0 38.5 46.0 54.1 

Derived fran directhabitat hpmvaxent 

-mule deer 0.1 - - 0.1 <0.1 0 0.1 0 

-resident .trout 0 - - 1.3 2.6 3.9 5.2 6.6 

-other 0 - - 0.4 <0.1 0 0 0 

Derived fran induced habitat hp"mt 

-mule deer 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 

-resident trout 0.1 - - 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 1.9 

-Other 0.1 - - 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.1 

Units of direct habitat imprmremen t 

-mule deer (M acres) 0.5 - - 1.0 0.3 0 1.1 0 

-resident trout (ac) 0 0 0 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 

-other (M acres) 0 - 3.0 0.2 0 0 0 

- 

- 

H"REs0uRCEs 

progrirmS(enr0llees) 39 14 14 39 39 39 39 39 

9.9 11.1 12.2 12.0 13.7 15.8 17.2 20.6 

!"L ms) 10.3 - - 13.4 14.7 15.8 18.2 21.6 

TOTAI. - (-1 

137 
lheoe 

This alternative seeks the mst cost-effective mix of land allccatiom and 

management pactices available on the Inyo National Forest, given the 

Management R-ts (W), Timber policy 

Implementation Recpiram ts (MI-). and 

applicatim of Mini” 

R-* (wm), M.m” 

The issues and addressed by this alternative are: (1) “izirg 

cost-efficiency in resource management; (2) . totheneedsof 

regi- r%=reatimists, - employees, and special use permittees; (3) 

‘ty to “ize alpine skiing; (4) increasing the 

deveiopea and dispersed recreation prcgrams: (5) increasing opportunities for 

fishing and hunting; (6) ‘ suhstantial acreage for wilderness. 

If the Forest: is managed with the siqle objective of “izing costefficiency, the following CoMiitionS will be f&. 

.. Forest-wide Standards & GuidelineS (FSEG) . 

Developea recreaticsl (imluding alpine skiing) and dispersed recreation 

will be provided in respmse to projected demand to the extent possible, 

limited by sllpply; all potential sites will be developed and operated at 

standard levels of &,=e. 

Those Further Planning Areas with &ate to high potential for 

wilderness recrsaticn use will be 

Timber outputs will be managed at cost-effective levels outside of 

developed recreaticm sites and ski areas, represetjng an allowable sale 

quantity of 10.1 lvMBF by the fifth decade. 

The grazing nog gram will be managed at cost-effective levels, 

representing 46.5 MAW, or a 12 p81-cent increase over base year by the 

fifth decade. 

Wildlife and fish habitat hp”en t for harvest species will be 

maximized in respome to demand for hunting and fishirg (the supply could 

species will be managed for recavery. Habitat for all other species will 

be managed far populatim viability. 

for wilderness. 

not, however, meet that demand). Habitat for threatened and enclang& 

Rescucce- D* ‘on 

Wtural -: Inventosy cultural resource properties (primarily in 

ppsratim for timber sales and other activities that could affect cultural 

prqw3.ie.s) at a rate of appr”a tely 12,000 acres per year, Ccmp1eth-g 33 

percent of the Forest by the end of the fifth decade. conduct other swxeys 

as the opporhnulty arises. Meet cultural resource requirements by applyirg a 

balanced of impact midame (pmtecticm), site-specifiic 

evaluaticms, and type-of-site evaluations. Develop and inplement formal site 

protectian, &bring, enhancement, and inkqretive activities in 

crmjunctim with the develcpd ~ogram. 

138 
Facilities: c"t a total of 21 miles of road to facilitate timber 

management and 44 miles for developea recreation site access over the next 50 

years. ccnstruct a total of 725 miles of trail for hikers, equestrians, 

nordic skiers, and Ws. Recc"ct the road and trail system on a 

aediticmal aabbtrative site for the new btm Basin National Forest Scenic 

Area. 

Fish: Inprove a total of 211 acres of stream habitat in C"3ntrated 

recreation areas and 56 acres in native golden trout habitat on the Kern 

Plateau. Establish 18 acres of habitat for threatened Paiute cutthroat tmut 

and 5 acres for Latrmtan cutthroat trcut. Negotiate with FERC and the 

affected utility canpanies to rewater at least 27 acres of stream for the 

reestablishmnt of resident tmut fisharies. Watershed hp"ent vmrk will 

also benefit fish habitat. 

Linds: ?quire lands (if they beccam available) in Lea Vhiq Carryon, Lundy tSj%, and the upper mens ~ver for "er recreation develapnent. 

Qordinate landownershl 'p adjusbnents with cm"ity planning and Forest 

"g-t objectives to @de for the cu"ity graorth associated with 

increasing alpine ski area capacity. 

current agreements in Lease Blocks I and 11. Cknsider additional geothermdL 

exploration and developnent in respcnse to lease applicatiors on any 

additional Forest lands autside of designated or recormended wilderness. 

Allow for *al exploration and developrent to be restricted by the large 

acreage in recormended wilderness. 

pest bbnag6nsl t: Respmd to the high overall need and opprtunity for pest 

management based m the high levels of developed recreatim use and new site 

cmnstzuction and the moderate opprhmity to manage vegetation associated 

with moderate timber outputs. 

detection represent 17 percent of the pnqram: (2) suppression and aviation 

represent 83 percent of the program; (3) there is ID fuels treatment for fire 

management purposes; (4) total staffing is reduced fran the 1982 level; and 

(5) all apprqriate wildfira suppression strategies (confhemnt, 

"nt, and cxntrol) are applied. 

e: Intensify range management with an annual average of 1,250 acres of 

vegetation hatrnent over the five decades. Accanplish 486 acres of this 

total by prescritd burning. Allm for a reduction in graziq due to 

vegetation changes resultiq fran timber manag-t on lands suitable for 

both timber and range management. Apply the guideline of 50 percent forage 

utilization by livestock. Do not increase livestock grazing on deer winter 

rarge. Give priority to mule deer in key fawning areas, developing specific 

direction in all0trnent management Plans. 

Recreaticm: Develop potential and day-use sites as needed to 

neet the demand for developed recreation. Develop those sites with the 

greatest projected use first (water-oriented sites in concentrated recreation 

areas have the greatest projeded use; sites away fran water and concentrated 

grxg"& basis: maintain to assigned maintenance levels. consbxt one 

- 

M' 1s: hmurage the developnent of geothenml resowces according to 

protection: Apply the f0lla.Zil-g fire managanent prcQ??am: (1) p?zevention and 

139 
use areas have the lowest projected use). Develop intapretive sites as the 

-ty arises. operate facilities and admjnister permits at standard 

level of service. 

Ewelop new a"ted recreatim areas in the Walker Lake-Sad11 Carryon 

awi Deaalan expansia areas. Develop an additicnal conoentrated recreation 

area in the uppar Owens Rives area if private land alq the river becanes 

available. 

~derprop-Jsals to increase alpine ski area capcity 15,000 to 30,000 SAOrp 

over tha 31,000 cxurently apprwed. Added capacity will probably involve all 

potential ski areas. 

Manage for - ' dispersed use that will result fmn full developnent of 

SLmmer ovwnight developed sites and lmfe than three times the cutrent 

WintertJne ' owmight base in local onmnmities. Manage for the increased use 

associated with qgraduq ' of U.S. 395 and State Highway 203, imprwea access 

into currently unmaded areas, and tha developmt of a moderate-sized rwrdic 

ski area in the uppsr Dry (Seek-Deadman Creek area. provide a full 

canpl-t of trails, restroanrs, parking areas, and intwpmtive signs to 

enhance year-ramd nxxeaticmal -ties and protect resources. Manage 

dispersed use at standard levels of service. 

E"ge - CBN use, including an haease of 47 percent in open OW 

area acreage. Restrict winter OFN use rmly to the aegree needed to "ize 

ccplflids wi* wilderness or alpine and mrdic ski areas. 

Manage ths follavjq lands in cxmtinuiq unroaded condition with an emphasis 

on primitive and semi-primitive dispersed recreation: lands outside 

wil- and cowoentrated recreation areas in the Oxek drainage and 

the Ihnmt3-1 Lakes Basin; Glass "ntain Ridge. 

-: wieta the establi-t process for the 

Whipp3onuill Flat and =ea Wackxv RNRS. 

Riparian Azeas: Prohibit new activities in riparian areas that will haw 

unacceptable lciq-term effects on water quality, fish (or other aquatic 

ds), or water-dependent plant life. The fish habitat and water&& 

improvement work discussed llnder separate headings will also be expected to 

benefit riparian areas. 

Special Interest Areas: 

and establish ihse seleded. 

Evaluate identified candidate Special Interest Areas 

Tinhr: 

timber management is cost-effective with the following exceptions: 

Manage timber for high level pxduction on all suitable lands where 

1. Do not harvest timber in developed recreation sites or alpine ski 

areas. (Allow for thnkr hanrest in collcentrated recreation areas. ) 

2. Modify timter management as needed to meet the Retention Visual 

Qmlity Objective in the foreground zmes of scenic highways. 

140 
provide fuelwmd in respnse to demand. If the supply of lcggirg residue 

falls below the demand for fuelwood, consider supplying some fuelwood out of 

the prcqalnned harvest. 

Visual Resolrrces: Assign prescribed Visual Quality Objectives with the 

following exceptions: 

1. Timber harvest must meet the VQO Of Retention or Pmal Retention as 

inventoried) in the foregmmd zcnes of state-designated scenic 

w3hWaYs. 

2. Ski lifts and mns rrmst meet or exceed the VQO of Wficatim; base 

facilities must meet or exceed Maxi" Wdification. 

3. Su"x developed recreation sites mt be located and designed (or 

rehabilitated) to meet or exceed the VQO of Wdification as seen fran 

Sensitivity Level 1 roads. 

watershed: Implement the watershed imprwement needs (WIN) plan at an 

average rate of 470 acres per year, resulting in the canpletion of all the 

mrk identified in that plan by the end of the fifth decade. 

Wild and scenic Rivers: Wild and Scenic River -tions are the same 

for all alternatives; thase reC0mnendatia-s that are described abwe under 

the heading of Management F'rescriptions are area-specific in all 

Alternatives. 

Wilderness: Recarmend the following Further Plardng Areas for wilderness 

designation: Coyote southeast, Laurel-McGee, Ticga Lake, Icg 

Cabin-Saddlebag, and white Ivbuntains. Containment will be the Primary 

wildfire suppression strategy for ~Wal fires in wilderness. 

Wildlife: Maintain overall mle deer habitat capacity to the extent possible 

given timber harvest, geothwmal developnent, and ski area developrent on 

migmtion routes. B-hame deer habitat by vegetation treatment, enphasizirag 

key winter rqe at an average rate of 744 acres per year (372 acres of which 

will be auxrnplished by prescribed burning). 

Maintain the integrity of the existing bald eagle winter roosting area. 

Provide for two llesthg pairs of reinixGducd peregrine falcons. 

Maintain nine goshawk laesting territories of 50 acres each in suitable 

timber. 

Provide for rn additicmal Sierra Nevada or Nelson mnmtain sheep 

rejn+.zcdu~cms. 

Maintain 10 percent of all forested lands (but m suitable timber) in older 

Maintain or create slags in managed timber stands to meet at least 40 percent 

of the natural potential density of snag-de-t wildlife; allow for higher 

densities cutside of managed timber. 

seral stages. 

141 
nnrimnrent to be created in the Year 2030 

Sumner visitax to the Forest in the year 2030 will find noticeably more 

l33creatidsts, as use will have increased nearly 60 percent since 1982. 

There will marry be mre -, day-use sites, and trails of all kinds. 

Facilities will be better maintained and services will have imprwed. Cn the 

otbr hand, the recreation experience will be Canlpanised in ccolcentcated 

recreation areas with suitable timber, as that timber will be harvested 

outside of developed sites. 

Aqlers will find inmxa3d fishirg o~rtmities due toth to full stream 

habitat -tand full watersted improvenent. Hunters, on the other 

hand will experience substantially declining deer populations where ski 

areas, geothermal developnent, am"ity gmwth, and timber harvest had 

otsbxtd migraticm mtes and access, increasing overall use and 

dist"B of dear habitat. 

ma type of use in the mche area will have changed with jllpmwd access 

for timber harvest. Wm people will use the area as a wildwmess entry 

point, and fewer will find the remote ca"g and four-wheel drive recreaticm 

typical of 1982. Visitors to tlae White Wwntains will see s~ne increase in 

use by backpackers and stock Farties using the wilderness. use of the coyote 

Plateau will charge due to wilderness designaticm. bkst of the exid3.y 

vehicle-based canp?ing, fi-, and drivirg for pleasure will be lost, as 

vehicles will be mined to CcBlStruded roads. Ncol-mtorized recreation 

will lbcm3se , as potential conflicts with vehicle users will be eliminated. 

Vegetation will differ little in appearance as seen fm U.S. 395, State 

Highway 203. and other Scenic Highways. Views fran other roads and 

viewpints rorth and east of Marmr>th Lakes and in the Monache area will show 

a Kxlcxate increase in plantatim of snall .trees and logging debris. Timber 

harvest will also be fcurd in c"trated recreation areas with suitable 

timbar. 

Winter visitors will en0znmts-r thtee times as marry alpine skiers and skiing 

opprhmities as in 1982. and June Wwntains will have developed 

fully, and additicmal skiing will be forrnd in the Sherwin Bowl, Minaret 

Sunnit, Ma"& Knolls, San Joaquh Ridge, and Whtte Wing areas. Nordic 

trails and Support facilities will have dwelOpea Forest-wide. The 

ComrmnitieS of Mamnoth and June Lake will have grown and wbanized 

dramatically jn support of increased skiing. 

142 
V 

_. 

I 

- 

I 

2 

TIS 
Y 
Table 10 

~creage Allocati- by mnapmmt prescription 

Alternative cm 

MaMgaoent prescriptim M Am?sS percent of F-t 

1. Designated Wilderness 565.1 29.4 

2. Wilderness 339.8 17.6 

3. "*Sheep 4.9 0.3 

4. Mule ~eer -is 108.1 5.6 

5. ResearchNahralArea* 6.3 

(9.3) 

6. MmoBasinNFScenicArea* 40.2 

(4.8) 

(6.0) 

7. Ancient Bristlecone Ph Fore&* 21.5 

8. Wild and Scenic River* 4.3 

(19.4) 

9. Uneven-aged Timber Management 0 

10. High Level Timber Management 97.7 

11. Range 144.4 

0.3 

2.1 

1.1 

0.2 

0 

5.1 

7.5 

12. Clmcentrated R-tion Area 44.1 2.3 

13. Alpine Ski Area, =sting and Under 21.8 

SkaV 

1.1 

14. potential ~lpine ski rea 0 0 

15. Ewelopea ReCreathn Site 2.1 0.1 

16. Dispersed Recreation 0 0 

17. Semi-primitive Recreation 68.0 3.4 

18. Multiple Resource Area 461.4 23.9 

* Acres with ciual designation (existing or proposed wilderness ant]. RNA, 

Scenic Area, etc.) are displayed y1 the acreage total for Prescriptions 1 or 

2 and indicated in parentheses under the other applicable prescription. 

143 
Table 11 

A-ct=-olrtprtsbY- Alten-ative c5 

Base 1980 Decades 

Year RPA Goals (Decade 1: 1986-1995) 

1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

Resanrz EleEntS 

-private (m.) 

Roads (miles) 

-on (tot.) 

-timber 

-reCr€?aizifxl 

Pcn (tat.) 

-timber 

-reCr€?ati.Cn 

Maintenance (tot.) 

Trails (miles) 

c3"cticn (tot.) 

-existing wilderness 

-reccmnended 

Wilderness 

-cx.wentrated 

-0penw 

-0Hv 

-"C 

rec. areas 

4 

11 

0 

0 

0 

20 

15 

5 

974 

0 

- 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Wcn (tot.) 10.8 

-exi.stingWilderness 9.0 

-recarmended 

-cx.wentrated 

wildenESS - 

rec. areas 0 

-om NF 0 

-ow 0 

-nordiC 0 

144 

8 

0 

3 

4 

11 

0.6 

0.6 

0 

21 

16 

5 

977 

26.3 

0.7 

3.0 

9.0 

1.0 

2.6 

10.0 

36.3 

12.6 

0.6 

4.2 

2.2 

13.5 

3.2 

8 

0 

3 

4 

11 

3.5 

1.5 

2.0 

21 

16 

5 

1001 

26.2 

0.6 

3.0 

9.0 

1.0 

2.6 

10.0 

36.3 

12.6 

0.6 

4.2 

2.2 

13.5 

3.2 

8 a 

0 0 

3 3 

4 4 

11 11 

2.4 0 

0 0 

2.4 0 

21 21 

16 16 

5 5 

1022 1031 

10.0 10.0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

10.0 10.0 

59.9 76.3 

22.7 25.0 

1.7 2.4 

7.3 11.3 

2.5 2.9 

14.5 15.5 

11.2 19.2 

a 

0 

3 

4 

11 

0 

0 

0 

21 

16 

5 

1040 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

76.3 

25.0 

2.4 

11.3 

2.9 

15.5 

19.2 
Table 11 (cmtinued) 

Average Atmud Outputs by Decade 

Alternative m 

Base 1980 Decades 

Year RPA Goals (Decade 1: 1986-1995) 

1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

Resource El-ts 

mails (cont'd) 

Maintenance (tot.) 1236 

LAMXSANDMINERAIS 

Land acquired (acres) 60 

Leasable "xal s 

(totalpoWerp1ants) 0 

(wating plans) 67 

Locatable minerals 

pri"w 

Fuel Treatment (acres) 

-total 18 

-fire related 0 

-timber related 18 

-range related 0 

-wildlife related 0 

Eqected Wildfire (acres) 

-total 747 

-intensity level 1 13 

-int-ity level 2 34 

-intensity level 3 53 

-intensity level 4 647 

-intensity level 5 0 

RANGE (MAUMs) 41.4 

mTICN USE (M RVD) 

Develop3 Public 

Develop3 private 

Dispersed 

Wilderness 

Visual Quality 

Index 

1201 

1635 

1004 

540 

142.07 

0 0 

320 408 

42.4 44.5 

3510 5100 

2490 3120 

1517 

54 

1 

46 

1412 

0 

61 

316 

1035 

1134 

9 

124 

70 

313 

618 

48.6 

1772 

1914 

1190 

667 

1767 

270 

3 

48 

376 

0 

58 

316 

2 

1213 

10 

132 

75 

335 

661 

50.4 

2252 

2421 

1820 

711 

1867 

270 

5 

51 

373 

0 

57 

316 

0 

1300 

10 

142 

80 

359 

709 

53.6 

2252 

3131 

2157 

762 

1967 

150 

6 

55 

791 

0 

88 

316 

387 

1395 

11 

152 

86 

385 

761 

54.0 

2252 

3895 

2281 

815 

1967 

70 

6 

55 

2023 

0 

117 

1168 

738 

1410 

11 

154 

87 

389 

769 

46.5 

2252 

4024 

2441 

838 

- - 142.10 142.12 142.14 142.16 142.16 

145 
Table 11 (-timed) 

Average ArrmJal Outplts by Decade 

Alteaative CEE 

Base 1980 Decades 

Year RPA Godls (Decade 1: 1986-1995) 

Resarrce El-ts 

1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

TIMBER 

W (WF) 10.5 16.8 19.8 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 10.1 

Fuelwood (M cm&) 10.0 - - 7.2 12.9 9.7 5.1 5.0 

Iciq Term Sustdned Yield 

(WF) - - - 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.7 

Reforfstatim(acres) XKl 614 718 307 288 284 442 558 

Timber Stand -t 

(a-) 328 900 918 578 480 106 0 0 

WATER 

Quality - (M acre-ft.) 1047 476 481 1051 1055 1059 1063 1067 

Quantity 

Watershed -t 

(M --feet) - - - 7.0 0 0 0 0 

(acres) 100 180 200 500 500 500 500 350 

WILDLIFEANDFISH 

Mule Eeex 

(M animals total) 20.2 +20 percent 20.0 19.5 18.8 18.1 17.4 

(M animals an Inyo) 12.0 11.9 11.6 11.1 10.7 10.3 

I3ald Eagle** (winter Iwsting areas) 

Peregrine Falm** 

Gc&awk.s (pairs jn suitable timber) 

1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 

(M. of pairs) 0 - - 2 2 2 2 2 

15 - - 14 13 12 11 9 

Ne1scU-l MZalnltain sheep 

Sierra Nevada kmtain Sheep 

(no. of animals) 130 - - 130 130 130 130 130 

(no. of animals) 300 - - 330 360 390 420 450 

146 
Table 11 (ccntinued) 

Al-tive CEE 

A-9= - outprts by 

Base 1980 Decades 

Year RPA Goals (Decade 1: 1986-1995) 

FesaDxe El-ts 

1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

b” AND FISH (ccmt‘d) 

LalYmtan cr Trout” 

(acres of habitat) 1 - - .3 .5 .5 .5 .5 

Paiute cr Trout* 

(acres of habitat) 3 - - 1.3 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 

Resident Trout 

(M paads) 1632 +20 peroent 1643 1655 1666 1678 1689 

Total Wildlife/Fish 

USer Days (M WFUDS) 391.0 - - 394.3 398.5 402.5 409.3 414.8 

-muledeer 25.2 - - 25.0 24.4 23.3 22.5 21.6 

- resident trout 340.0 - - 342.4 344.8 347.2 349.6 351.9 

-ather 25.8 - - 26.9 29.3 32.0 37.2 41.3 

Derived fram dired habitat hp”mt 

- mule deer 0.1 - - 0.2 <0.1 0 0.1 0.2 

- resident trout .o - - 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 

- other 0 - - 0.3 0 0 0 0 

Derived frun induced habitat inpnmwnt 

- mule deer 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 

- resident trout 0.1 - - 0.9 1.8 2.7 3.6 4.4 

- other 0.1 - - 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 

- 

Units of direct habitat inp”ent 

- mule deer (M ac.) 0.5 - - 1.5 0.1 0 0.8 1.4 

- resident trout (ac.) 0 0 0 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.8 

- Other (M z.) 0 - - 2.8 0 0 0 0 

l”- 

prosrams (enrollees) 39 14 14 39 39 39 39 39 

= 

9.9 11.1 12.2 11.9 13.4 13.5 14.3 17.1 = - 

(-) 10.3 - - 12.8 14.3 14.4 15.2 18.0 (-1 

*Threatened, **mdangwxd. 

147 
m: MnmnIZEmlhene 

vnder this alternative, amenities am "ized with little regard for the 

effects cm annudity outputs. Wilderness, wildlife, and primitive and 

4-prjmitive recreation are aiphasized. is rn buaget 

limitation in the mRPm -1. 

?he issues and ccncems addressed by this altemative are: (1) midthe importance of amenity values as an aspect of net public benefit; (2) 

managing vegetative diversity, riparian areas, and wildlife hahitat at levels 

abwe" manag-t rquhments; (3) emphasizing the quality of 

primitive and semi-primitive types of recreation while deaphasizing the 

guantity of outputs; and (4) * substantial acreage for wildemess. 

The wilderness land base will be increased by the additim of all Further 

Plannirg Areas that are at least "l ly suitable for wildemess, 

considerirg wilderness characteristics and bolnadary manageability. 

Wildlife habitat will be managed with the objectives of: (1) increasjq mule 

deer habitat capaci- at least 20 peroent in resp3~lse to the RPA goal: (2) 

"izing habitat for threatened and endangered species; (3) meeting the FPA 

gcal of at least maintaining cufient habitat capacity for cavity-nestiq 

birds; (4) -zing habitat capacie for sensitive and special inten?& 

species; and (5) maintainjng or enhancing habitat for all other native 

vertebrate species. Fish habitat will be managed with the objectives of 

rspmdng to projected levels of dispersed recreation and "izjq habitat 

for threatened trout. 

Dispersed rem333tion will be manage3 with an emphasis on the quality of the 

experience, rather than the quanti* of use. Primitive and semi-primitive 

-ties and a high level of scenic quality will be emphasized. 

Developd s"?r recreation will be managed with the objective of maintaining 

current levels of use through the fifth decade. Alpine ski area developnent 

will increase at a rate that respmds to demand to the level projectea in the 

Mammth-r"tm0 unit Plan. 

Timber will be managed for oarmercial production to the extent canpatible 

with cost efficiency and amenity objectives. 

Dcmestic livestock graziq will be managed to the extent cmpatible with 

wildlife objectives. 

 resource^ D* 'an 

CdM Resources: Canplete the Forest-wide inventory of cultural resource 

properties by the year 2030, at an average rate of 45,000 acres per year, 

including both project-specific and formal surveys. Meet cultural resource 

requirements for project implementation using a balanced program of impact 

avoidance ( ptection) , site-specif ic evaluations, and type-of -site 

evaluaticw. Dwelop and inrpl-t a formal site protection and mnibring 

program. undertake cultural resource enhancement and interpretation 

activities as the opprtunity arises. 

148 
Facilities: Cbmbxct a total of 14 miles of road for developed recreation 

site access, but M new roads for timber managenent over the next 50 years. 

canstruct a total of 429 miles of trail for hikers, equestrians, mWc 

skiers, and OWs. Recca7struct the road and Wail System on a programned 

basis; maintain to assigned main- levels. Constzuct one additional 

administrative site for the new Plnn Basin National Forest Scenic Area. 

- Fish: ~np" a *OW of 134 acres of stream habitat in concentrate3 

"ation areas and 56 acres in native golden trout habitat on the Kern 

Plateau. Establish 24 acres of habitat for threatened Paiute cutthroat trout 

and 16 acres for Lal-rmtan cutthroat trout. Negotiate with FERC and the 

affected utility conpanies to rewater at least 27 acres of stream for the 

reestablishment of resident .trout fisheries. Watershed 3p"nt mrk will 

also benefit fish habitat. 

Iaxls: Pursuel~ 'p adjustments to protect or enhance wilderness 

values, wildlife or fish habitat, dispersed recreation, or visual resource 

Values. 

Minerals: Ehzourage the developnent of geothermal resources according to 

current agreements in Lease Blocks I and 11. Consider additional geothermal 

exploration and developst in respnse to lease applications on any 

additional Forest lands outside of designated or recarmended wilderness. 

Allow mineral activity to be restricted by the larye acreage in "ended 

wilderness. 

pest Manag€ixri t: RespCaa to the low mall need and opp3rtunity for pest 

managamat based on the law levels of developed recreation use and lack of 

new site construction and the low level opp~rtunity to manage vegetation 

associated with low level timber outputs. 

protectim: Apply the fo1lmi.q fire management program: (1) prevention and 

detection represent 17 percent of the program; (2) suppression and aviation 

represent 83 percent of the program; (3) there is 1y3 fuels treatment for fire 

managenat purposes; (4) total staffing at the 1982 level: and (5) all 

appropriate wildfire suppression strategies (confinemnt, containment, and 

ccsltrol) are applied. 

-: Intensify the managenent of rangelands by an average of 690 acres of 

vegetation .treatment per year ccrrrpatible with amenity objectives; treat 

by prescribed l"iq on 348 of those acres. Allow for grazing to be reduced 

due to vegetation charges resulting frcm timber managemnt on lands suitable 

for both timber and raqe manag-t. Apply the guideline of 50 percent 

forage utilization by livestock. Remnre cattle frcm key mule deer winter 

range. 

Recxeatim: Retain all existing concentrate3 recreation areas and existiq 

developed sites. cc"t new inmtive and day-use facilities as the 

opprtmity arises. operate facilities and actrninister permits at standard 

level of service. 

Consider Faoposals to hcrease alphe ski area capacity to the 31,000 SAOT 

currently approved. Added capacity will be limited to the exist- Mamnoth 

and June Mxmtain ski areas. 

Delay grazing in key fawniq habitat until after July 15. 

149 
Manage for increasa dlispersea use that will result frcm a greatly expanded 

wilderness base, the projected qg"g ' of U.S. 395 and Highway 203, the 

eqansion of existing rrudic ski resorts, and a 50 percent increase in the 

winter overnight base in local onnnmities. Manage dispersed recreation use 

by developing a *ate number of kails and other facilities to pmtect 

soil, water quality, and vqebticm. Manage dispersed use at standard levels 

of Savice. 

l3mghasize can.h-01 of OHV use. 

to the Forest-wide 

in wilderness. 

Maintain the following lands in continuing UNOaded dtion with an 

€i@lasis 081 dispersed recreation in the Pcimitive and semi-primitive m 

catqpries: the Mmache area, the coyote Plateau outside recomnended 

wildemes, lands outside wi1dwme-s~ and mncentxated recreation areas in the 

Mammth Lakes Basin and the upper Rock Creek drainage, the Sherwin Em1 area, 

unroaded lands aloq and to the east of San J0aqui.n Ri&je, and Glass Mountain 

Ridge. 

Minimize the n- of open areas in respsnse 

cm 1y)n-IMtoTized recreation and the large acreage 

Research Natural Areas: ccmplete the establishment process for the 

Whippcorwill Flat and PllCAfee Meadow RNAs. 

Riparian Areas: prohibit any new activities in riparian areas that will have 

unacceptable lmg-term effects CBI water quality, fish (or other aquatic 

animals), or water-depemknt plant life. The fish habitat and watershed 

imprmranent vmrk discussed under separate headings will also be expected to 

benefit riparian areas. 

Special Interest Areas: 

and recormend the establidmient of thDse selected by 1990. 

Thker: Manage timber under the uneven-aged managem& System an suitable 

lands with the following exc€!~ons: 

Evaluate identified candidate Special Interest Areas 

1. I)o not manage for carmercial timber outputs on existing or potential 

COBlcentrated "eation areas or aeVelopd alpine ski areas, or lands 

with a primitive/smiprimitive rexeaticm -is. 

2. Wdify timber managemnt as needed to meet the Retention Visual 

Wity Objective in the foreground zcmes of Sensitivity Level 1 and 

2 roads. 

Provide fuelwwd in respcatse to demand. If the supply of loggirg residue 

falls below the demand for fuelwood, consider supplying sane fuelwood out of 

WEnOgraned harvest. 

Visual Resaaces: Assign prescrikd Visual Quality Objectives (W) with 

the f0llming exceptions. 

1. Timber management must meet or exceed the VQOS of Retention in the 

faregnxlnd zc~les of Sensitivity Level 1 or 2 roads and trails, and 

Partial Retention an all other lands. openings sbould be limited to 

20 acres or less. 

150 
2. Ski lifts, nms, and base facilities must meet or exceed the Partial 

3. Adivities in areas managed rrnder the Semi-Primitive Recreation 

prescripticron with an -is 081 visual quality or dispersed 

recreaticsl must meet the Retention m. 

Retention VSD fm any viewpoint. 

hlatershed: Impl-t the Watershed Imprrxrement Needs (WIN) plan at an 

average rate of 470 acres per year, resultjrg in the oanpletion of all mrk 

identified in that plan by the end of the fifth decade. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers: Wild and Scenic River recarmendatians are the same 

under all altematives. Those rewmnendatians are described abwe under the 

heading of Management Prescriptions that are --specific in all 

altenlatives. 

Wilderness: Rezxmwrd the following Further Planriing Areas for wilderness 

designation: Coyote SE, Table lubuntain, Buttermilk, Wheeler RiCge, 

LaUrel-Md;ee, Horse Meaday, Ticga Lake, Hall Natural Area, Lcg 

Cabin-Saddlebag, white FBuntainS, Mnmtain, and the Paiute area. 

Contairment will be the prima^^ wildfire suppression strategy for ~bal 

fires in wil-. 

Wildlife: Increase mule deer habitat capacity at least 20 percent in 

mspwe to the FfPA goal. Mbit timber managmt and ski area 

developnent on migration routes. Enhance deer habitat by vegetation 

treatment, a@nsizhq key wink range at an average rate of 820 acres per 

year (410 acres of which will be acccmplished by prescribed burnhg). Rermnre 

livestock fm key deer winter range. Defer grazing on key fawning areas 

until after July 15. 

Maintain the integrity of the existing bald eagle winter rocsi5-g area. 

provide for four llestiq pairs Of rein- peregrine falwrs. 

Maintain all existing goshawk nesting territories in suitable timber; 

allocate 100 ac18s to each nesting pair. 

Mde for seven additional herds of reintrcdud Sierra Nevada muntain 

sheep if suitable habitat can be found. 

provide for one Nelson "tajn sheep raintrodtucton. 

Maintain at least 30 percent of suitable timber in older seral stages. Of 

that acreage, ensure that approximately 6,500 acres are adquately 

distrihted throughout the affected timber types. 

Maintain or create snags to meet 100 percent of the natural potential density 

of snag-de-t wildlife. 

151 
m- it to be czeated in .the Year 2030 

Sunner visi- to the Forest. in the year 2030 will find cmly a slight 

dsveloped. There will, however, be mxe day-use sites and trails of all 

kinds. Facilities will be better maintained and services will have imprwed. 

Anglers will fM imxeasd fi- cgprhmities due to a &ate amunt of 

stream habitat enhancement and full hpl€m?ntation Of the watershed 

hp”nt program. Hunters will also eqxxience imprmrea oppxhmities, as 

deer popllaticas will have imresed with habitat improvement; “val of 

cattle fran winter range; plotecUon of migration routes and fawnirg areas; 

and tbe overall lckv levels of denrelopnent, imprwea access, and inneased 

use. 

increase in Txxeati-, as M amitional caqg”% will have been 

me type of use in the mche area will remain the same, as the area will 

still be accessible only to four-wheel drive vehicles. Visitors to the White 

and Inyu t.tluntains will see sone hzxease in use by backpackfx-s and stock 

parties Uscng the wilderness. Use of tbe ODyOte Plateau will change under 

wilderness designatim. Wst of the existing vehicle-based whg, fishing, 

and driviq for pleasure will be lost, as vehicles will be carfined to 

ccn&m&d roads. Nm-mbrized recreatim will increase, as potential 

conflicts with vehicle users will be eliminated. 

Vegetation will differ little in appearance fran any viqint. Plantatiom 

of anall trees and logging debris will be even less prevalent than in 1982. 

Winter visitors will emamtar a 50 parcent increase in alpine skim and 

skim -ties. Mamnoth and June b5mntain.s will have developd fully, 

but m aMitiCmal ski areas will have aevelopea. Nordic trails and support 

June Lake will have grown and urbanized surewhat in support of inneased 

a*. 

faCilitieS will have aeVelm Forest-wide. T&I Camnnzitie~ Of mth and 

152 

3 
Table 12 

~creage Allocatims by Managawnt Prescription 

Alt€mlative AMN 

Mamgment Prescription MU Percent of Forest 

1. Designated Wilderness 

2. Pmposed Wilderness 

3. "tainsheep 

4. Mule5. ~esearch Nattxal Area* 

6. PkmoE?asinNFSdcArea* 

7. Ancient Bristlecane Pine Forest* 

8. Wild and Scenic River* 

9. Uneven-aged Timber Management 

10. High Level Timber Management 

11. RaIp 

12. capacentrated Recreation Area 

13. Alphe Ski Area, Efistirg and Under 

stua 

14. potential Alpine Ski Area 

15. Developed Recreation Site 

16. Dispersed Recreation 

17. S&-primitiVe R-tim 

18. Multiple Rescerrce Area 

565.1 

510.8 

4.9 

117.6 

3.0 

(12.6) 

40.2 

(4.8) 

21.5 

(6.0) 

4.3 

(19.4) 

97.3 

0 

95.8 

48.2 

6.2 

0 

1.4 

0 

387.0 

26.4 

29.4 

26.5 

0.3 

6.1 

0.2 

2.1 

1.1 

0.2 

4.9 

0 

4.9 

2.5 

0.3 

0 

0.1 

0 

20.0 

1.4 

* Acres with dual desiption (existing M Inop3sed wilderness and RNA, 

scenic rea, etc.) are displayed in the acreage total for prescriptianS 1 or 

2 and Mcated in parentheses under the other applicable prescription. 

153 
Table 13 

Average Armual Outputs by Decade 

mt€3matim A" 

Base 1980 Decades 

Year RPA Goals (Decade 1: 1986-1995) 

1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

Resource ElawXts 

-pivata (m.) 

Roads (miles) 

clxstnlcti081 (tot.) 

R€OTSkUh '081 (tot. ) 

-timber 

-reCreati.Cn 

-timber 

-reCreatim 

Maintenance (tot.) 

Trails (miles) 

constructi081 (tot.) 

4 

11 

0 

0 

0 

20 

15 

5 

974 

0 -existiqwilaerness 0 

-recomnended 

Wilderness - 

-cc"tzatd 

rec. areas 0 

apenw 0 

-0nv 0 

-nZdiC 0 

-am (tot.) 10.8 

WilW 9.0 

-recarmended 

Wilderness - 

-cc"tratd 

rec. areas 1.8 

-0PenN.F 0 

-0nv 0 

-IYXdiC 0 

-&sting 

8 8 

0 0 

3 3 

4 4 

11 11 

1.4 0 

0 0 

1.4 ~~ 0 

13 13 

11 11 

2 2 

981 984 

19.0 18.9 

0.7 0.6 

3.3 3.3 

4.0 4.0 

1.0 1.0 

0 0 

10.0 10.0 

34.9 34.8 

12.6 12.6 

1.9 1.8 

4.2 4.2 

2.2 2.2 

10.8 10.8 

3.2 3.2 

8 

0 

3 

4 

11 

0 

0 

0 

13 

11 

2 

988 

5.0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5.0 

52.6 

22.7 

2.6 

5.8 

2.5 

10.8 

8.2 

8 

0 

3 

4 

11 

0 

0 

0 

13 

11 

2 

993 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

64.5 

25.0 

5.2 

7.4 

2.9 

10.8 

13.2 

8 

0 

3 

4 

11 

0 

0 

0 

13 

11 

2 

998 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

64.4 

25.0 

5.1 

7.4 

2.9 

10.8 

13.2 

154 
Table 13 (anthud) 

A-W~(krtprtsbY~ Al-kznative AMN 

Base 1980 Decades 

Year RPA Goals (Decade 1: 1986-1995) - 

1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

ElenEnts 

Trails (mt’d) 

Maintenance (tot.) 1236 - - 1489 1678 1728 1728 1728 

LANDSmMINERAIs 

Landacquird(acres) 60 0 0 54 220 220 120 60 

Leasable Kinerals 

(-€m=Plants) 0 - - 1 3 5 6 6 

Locatable “l S 

(werating plans) 67 320 408 29 30 32 33 33 

PRmEcrIm 

Fuel Treatment (acres) 

-total 18 500 400 1461 266 297 735 1565 

-fire related 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 

-timber related 18 - - 6 6 17 51 66 

-rqe related 0 - - 202 280 280 280 696 

-wildlife related 0 - - 1253 0 0 404 803 

ncpected Wildfire (acres) 

-total 747 - - 927 972 972 972 972 

- 9 10 10 10 10 

- 57 58 58 58 58 

-intensitylevel3 53 - - 65 68 68 68 68 

-intensity level 4 647 - - 241 253 253 253 253 

-intensity level 5 0 - - 556 583 583 583 583 

(M-1 41.4 42.2 44.5 35.6 35.6 38.0 38.0 35.1 

-intensitylevel 1 13 - 

-intensitylevel 2 34 - 

FECXEFiTIW USE (M FWDs) 

Developd public 1201 3510 5100 1293 1293 1293 1293 1293 

Llevelopd Frivate 1635 1914 2330 2330 2330 2330 

Dispersed 1004 2490 3120 1114 1302 1579 1642 1738 

Wilderness 540 680 724 777 834 863 

Visual mality 

Index 142.07 - - 142.34 142.59 142.84 142.08 143.31 

155 
Base 1980 Decades 

Year RPA Godls (Decaae 1: 1986-1995) 

Rescurce a-ts 

1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

TplsER 

AX2 (WW 10.5 16.8 19.8 2.7 3.5 4.2 5.1 6.3 

Fuelwood (M cords) 10.0 - - 4.2 8.2 3.0 3.2 3.0 

Lag "n Sustained Yield 

(WF) - - - 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 

Reforestatim (acres) 300 614 718 32 32 84 255 332 

Timber Stand -t 

(-) 328 900 918 539 392 0 0 0 

WATm 

Quality (M acre-ft.) 1047 476 481 1052 1062 1072 1082 1088 - suantity 

WatarSheaImpmvement 

(M acre-feet) 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 

(am) 100 180 200 500 500 500 500 350 

"FISH 

Me Deer 

(M animals total) 20.2 +20 percent 20.7 21.2 21.7 22.2 22.6 

(M animals m Irryo) 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.4 

Bald -le** (winter masting areas) 

Peregrine Falcon** 

1 1 1 1 1 1 - - 

(no. of pairs) 0 - 2 3 4 4 4 - 

~oshawks (pairs in suitable ti") 

- 15 15 15 15 15 15 - 

Nelm Wuntain Sheep 

Sierra Nevada 

(no. of animals) 130 - - 140 154 154 154 154 

kl3urltaiI-l sheep 

(no. of animals) 300 - - 350 400 500 700 loo0 

156 
Table 13 (cantinued) 

A-ge Arrmual Outputs by Decade 

Alternative AMN 

Base 1980 DecacaeS 

Year RPA Goals (Decade 1: 1986-1995) 

Resaurce Elenents 

1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

WIIDLDZ AND FISH (cont'd) 

Labntan cr Trout* 

(acres of habitat) 1 - - .3 .5 .9 1.3 1.6 

Paiute cr bout* 

(acres of habitat) 3 - - 1.3 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.4 

Resident hout 

(M W) 1632 +20 percent 1641 1651 1661 1670 1679 

Total Wildlife/Fish 

User Days (M WFUDs) 391.0 - - 395.0 403.2 409.7 416.7 411.6 

-muledeer 25.2 - - 26.2 27.3 28.3 29.4 30.2 

- residenttrout 340.0 - - 341.9 343.9 345.9 347.9 349.7 

- other 25.8 - - 26.9 32.0 35.5 39.4 31.7 

Derived fruu direct Witat imprmrement 

-muledeer 0.1 - - 0.2 0 0 0.1 0.2 

- resident trout 0 - - 1.0 2.1 3.2 4.3 5.3 

-other 0 - - 0.6 0 0 0 0.2 

Derived fruu in&& habitat imprwemen t 

-muledeer 0 - a 0 0 0 0 

- resident trout 0.1 - - 0.9 1.8 2.7 3.6 4.4 

- other 0.1 - - 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 

- 

units of Direct Habitat Improvement 

- mule deer (M acres) 0.5 - - 1.8 0 0 0.8 1.5 

- resident trout (ac.) 0 0 0 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.3 

- Other (M acres) 0 - - 3.4 0 0 0 0.3 

IiU-mNaograms (enrollees) 39 14 14 39 39 39 39 39 

9.9 11.1 12.2 12.9 9.9 10.4 11.6 13.1 

"I asr (MI 10.3 - - 13.9 10.9 11.4 12.6 14.1 

"I (M) 

157 
AME - “sIZE w”E AND REmEmJ.cN 

This alte.rnative places a ‘ on the quality and quantity of 

wildlife habitat with a SBcOndazy eqhasis on -ate expansion of the 

developedrecreatrianprogram. WccmUd?. ‘ty outputs ar% proauoea to the 

&pee cnnpatible with wildlife and recreaticpl objectives. Amenity values 

other than wildlife receive a moderate dqma of mphasis. There is no 

budget limitaticn. 

The issues and oxxecns in this al-tive are: (1) managing 

habitat for fish and wildlife aknre management requFwmen ts; (2) 

restor- and enhancing riparian areas; (3) offering a full and diverse 

recreation program; (4) * suhstantial acreage for wilde.mess; and 

(5) miritainirg current levels of grazing in suitable timber. 

Wildlife habitat will be rr!anaged with the objectives of: (1) imxeashg me 

deer habitat capacity: (2) maximizing habitat for threatened and endangered 

species; (3) maximizing habitat for sensitive and special inkaxst species; 

and (4) mderately impmvhg ecolcgical diversity to enhame habitat for 

Other native vertebrate Species. Fish habitat will be managed with the 

objectives of raspdug ’ to projected increases in dispersed recreation, and 

”izing habitat for threaten& tmut. 

Developed remeaticm will be managed with the objave of irmeaslng ‘ use 30 

to 35 percent by the year 2030. Alpine ski area developcent will increase in 

respnse to demand where axpatible with wildlife objectives. The “g-t 

roughly pxqorkimal to developed site use. 

of dispersed surrmer and winter recreation will provide for an increase in use 

The wilderness land base will be increased by the aaaition of Further 

Planning Areas with modsrate to high wilderness recreation values and/or 

ecological types not yet m-ted in wilderness on the Inyo. 

Danestic livestock grazirg will be managed to the extent wtible with 

wildlife objectives. 

Timber will be managed for maxi“ prddzmn ‘ to the extent onpatible with 

cost-efficiency and wildlife, recreation, and range objectives. 

Cdtural Resomws: canplete the Forest-wide inventmy of cultural resource 

properties by the year 2030, at an average rate of 45,000 acres per year, 

including both project-specific and formal surwrys. Meet cultural resource 

requirenents us- a Wanced -am of impact avoidaxe (ptection), 

site-specific huaticms, and --of-site evalu2ticms. Develap and 

inplenent a formal site protection and “itoring prqram. mqhasize 

cultma resoutue enhancement and interpmtatiian in association with the 

developed IECreation program. 

-ties: c”t a total of 38 miles of mad for developed recreation 

site access, hut m new roads to facilitate timber lMnagenent aver the next 

158 
50 years. Omsbxct a total of 509 miles of trail for hikers, equestrians, 

dc skiers, and CHVs. Reccglstrud the road and trail System on a 

pxgrd basis; maintain to assigned maintenance levels. Cbrdzuct one 

additional ar3ninistrative site for the new PBrn Basin National Forest Scenic 

Area. 

- Fish: Improve a total of 156 acres of stream habitat in ccolcentrated 

recreaticm areas and 56 acxes in native golden trout habitat on the Kern 

Plateau. Establish 24 acres of habitat for threatened Paiute cutthroat trout 

and 16 acxes for LaIrmtan cutthroat trout. Negotiate with FERC and the 

affected utility to rewater at least 27 acres of stream for the 

reestablishtent of resident trout fisheries. Watershed inp"ent work will 

also benefit fish habitat. 

Lands: 

forwized wildlife species. 

Lee vining Canyon and Lundy Canyon for recreation purpses. 

Minerals: wage the developnent of geothennal resources according to 

current agreements in Lease Blocks I and 11. Consider additional geothennal 

exploration and developnent in respmse to lease applications on any 

additional Forest lands outside of designated or recomnended wildmess. 

Allow for mineral activity to be restricted by the mderately large acreage 

inMwilderness. 

pest MaMgenen t: Respcaaa to the &ate overall need and apportunity for 

pest managexat based on the mxlerate levels of developed recreation use and 

new site construction and the &ate opprtunity to manage vegetation 

associated with &ate timber outputs. 

protectim: Apply the following fire managmt program: (1) prevention and 

detection represent 17 percent of the prcgram; (2) suppression and aviation 

represent 83 percent of the pmgram; (3) there is m fuels treatment for fire 

managexat purposes; (4) total staffing at the 1982 level; and (5) all 

appropriate wildfire suppression strategies (confinement, wnta.unnent, and 

control) are applied. 

Rarage: Intensify the managexat of rangelands with an average of 830 acres 

of vegetation treatment per year there ccnptible with wildlife objectives; 

treat 498 of those acres by prescribed burning. Maintain current levels of 

grazirg on lands suitable for both timber and range managexat. Fqply the 

guideline of 50 percent forage utilization by livestock. Remve livestock 

fran key mule deer winter range. Delay grazing in key fawnkg habitat until 

after July 15. 

Recxeatim: Develop potential camp3rounds and day-use sites with an emphasis 

on potential sites with the greatest projected use such as water-oriented 

sites in ccolcentrated recreation areas. Develop interpretive sites as the 

opportunity arises. Operate facilities and administer permits at standard 

levels of service. 

Gmsider propsals to hcrease alpine ski area capacity 6,000 to 12,000 SAOT 

over the 31,000 currently approved. Added capacity will be envisioned for 

Pursuelandownershl 'p adjustments to protect and enhance key habitat 

Acquire lands (if they becane available) in 

Maintam all existing CoIlcentrated recreation areas. 

159 
the Minaret sunnit, Man" Knolls, and White whq potential ski areas to 

minimize crmflicts with mle deer migration routes. 

"age for the increasing dispersed use that will result fm -ate 

-1-t of 4-s and nrRe than aoubling the wintl3kime overnight 

base in local cc"ities. Manage for the inneased use associated with the 

* of U.S. 395 and state Highway 203, an enlarged wilderness 

base, and the developnent of a mjor nordic ski area in the upper Dry 

M-Dea&nan Cbsek area. Mde a &ate level of trails, restroans, 

parkins -. and interpretive signs to enhance year-round recreatimal 

-ties and protect ~esoufc~s. Manage dispersed use at standard levels 

of SerVicB. 

Ocsltrol OHV use, including a reduction both in open sumner and open winter 

area acreage. 

Maintain the following lands in CKR-I- unroaded condition with an 

emphasis on primitive and semi-primitive dispersed recreation: the MR-EC~~ 

area, the myote Plateau outside recomnended wilderness, lands outside 

wilderness and cmcentrated remeation areas in the Rock (;teek drainage and 

the Marmoth Lakes Basin, the White ad Inyo Mznmtahs outside wilderness, and 

the Excelsior P4x.mtai1-1~. 

Research NaM Areas: Cmplete the establishment process for the 

Whi~rwill Flat and Wee Meadow RNAs. 

Riparian Areas: prohibit new activities in riparian areas that will have 

unacceptable lcmg-tem~ effeds on water quality, fish (or other aquatic 

animals), or water-demt plant life. The fish habitat and watershed 

inp"mt work discussed under separate headhgs will also be expected to 

benefit riparian areas. 

Special Interest Ikeas: Evaluate identified candidate Special Interest Areas 

and recomnend establishnasnt for Vnse selected. 

Timber: 

suitable timber lands with the follcwiq exceptions: 

djManage timber for high level prcduction where cost-effective on all 

1. Manage for moderate level prcduction in the area east of San Joaquin 

Ridge and south of Deadnan Creek. 

2. Do mt "age for cannercial timber outputs on existing or potential 

concentrated recreation areas, developd alpine ski areas, or lands 

managed with a primary -is on primitive and smiprimitive 

recreation. 

3. MXEfy timter management as needed to meet the Retention Visual Quality 

Objedive in the forqmund zones of Sensitivity Level 1 mads. 

F'rovj.de fuelwood in response to demand. If the supply of logging residue 

falls below the demand for fuelwood, consider supplying scme fuehccd out of 

theprogramnedharaest. 

160 
visual ~esources: Assign prescribed Visual Quality Objectives (VQOS) with 

the follming exceptions. 

1. Ski lifts, -, and base areas must meet or exceed the VQO of Partial 

Retention frcm any viewpint. 

2. Activities on lands managed under the limited access prescription with 

an aphasis on dispersed -tion must meet the VeO of Retention. 

3. Timber Openirags should be limited to 20 acres or less. 

Watershed: Implement the Watershed Imp“ent Needs (WIN) plan at an 

average rate of 470 acres per year, resulting in the “pletion of all work 

identified in that plan by the end of the fifth decade. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers: Wild and Scenic River -Cons are the same 

for all alternatives; those -tiom are described abare under the 

headiq of Management prescriptians that are area-specific in all 

altanatives. 

Wilderness: Recarmend the follming Further Pl- Areas for wildemess 

designation: the western third of Coyote Southeast, Laurel-Md;ee, Tiqa 

Lake, and Log Cabin-Saddlebag, the upper elevations of White 

bbmt&ns/Eamdary Peak, and the Pauite area. Containment will be the 

primary wildfire mppmssion strategy for natural fires in Wilderness. 

Wildlife: Me deer habitat by an average of 580 acres annual 

vegetation tzxdmmt on key winter range; apply prescribed bumiq to 260 of 

those acres. Delay grazing in key 

fa- habitat until after July 15. prahibit ski area developnent or timber 

harvest on deer migration routes. 

Maintain the integrity of the existing bald eagle winter roostkg area. 

provide for four nesting pairs of reintroduced peregrine falcons. 

Maintain all existing goshawk nest5.q territories in suitable tmber; 

Remove cattle frcm key deer winter range. 

allocate 100 acres to each nesting pair. 

Provide for seven additional herds of reintnduced Sierra Nevada mountain 

sheep if suitable habitat can be found. 

praride for one Nelscsl nmmtain sheep reintroduction. 

Maintain at least 20 percent of suitable timber in older seral stages. 

Ensure that app”tely 6,500 acres of this acreage is adequately 

distributed throughout the affected timber types. 

Maintain or create snags to meet 100 percent of the natural potential density 

of snag-depdent wildlife. 

161 
t to be Ckeated in the Year 2030 

Sumw visitars to the Forest in the year 2030 will find a &ate increase 

in recreationists. There will be additional campgrounds in the mt 

heavily-used areas, and thera will be mre day-w sites and trails of all 

hmreiqJrw=d. 

Arglers will find ilEFasd fi- opprhmities due to a mxkrate munt of 

stream habitat enhancement and full implementatian of the watershed 

deer popilaticns will have inneased clue to habitat hp”mt, mal of 

cattle fran winter raqe, and protecticol of migration routes and fawning 

Mnds Forest-Wide. Facilities will be better maintained and Services will 

imprmrement pqram. Hunters will also experience imprwea OpprtLn-Jities, as 

areas. 

The type of use in the EJLHlache area will remain the same, as the area will 

still be accessible cmly to four-wheel drive vehicles. Visitors to the White 

parties using the wilderness. Use of the coyote Plateau will have changed 

veq little, as the wilderness portion of that area has 

txaditionally been used for “torized recreation. 

Vegetatian will differ little in appearance fmn any viewpint. 

of SMll trees and logging debris will be even less prwalent than in 1982. 

Winter visitors will enccunter mxe than twice the alpine skiers and skiing 

opporhnrities as in 1982. Mammth and June Mnmtains will have developd 

fully, along with additional ski areas in the Minaret smt, Mammth Knolls, 

and Wl-dte Wing areas. There will be a major mrdic resort in the upper Dry 

Creek-Deadman Creek area. Additicplal nordic trails and support facilities 

will have developea Fon?.st-wide. The az”L ‘ties of Mammth and June Lake 

will have grown and urbanized considerably in support of increased skiing. 

and Inyo Irl3untains will see SDme increase in use by backpackers and stock 

Plantations 

162 
T 

I 

I 
z I 

I 

Y 
Table 14 

&meage Azlocaticns by Mmagamnt Prescripticn 

Alternative €!ME 

Mmagemnt Prescription M Acres Percent of Farest 

1. Designatd Wilderness 

2. Proposes Wilderness 

3. muntainslaeep 

4. We5. ResearchNaturalA?xa* 

6. mBasinNFScenicArea* 

7. Ancient Bristle" Pine Forest* 

8. Wild and Scenic River* 

9. Uneven-aged Timber Management 

10. High Level Timber Management 

11. Range 

12. ocglcentrated Recreation Area 

13. Alpine Ski Area, Existjng and Under 

14. potential Alpine Ski Area 

15. Developd Rexeation Site 

16. Dispersed R-ation 

17. Semi-Primitive Recreation 

18. Wtiple Resource Area 

study 

565.1 

222.7 

32.0 

118.3 

11.6 

(4.0) 

40.2 

(4.8) 

27.5 

4.3 

(19.4) 

2.9 

86.7 

101.4 

46.1 

14.6 

0 

1.9 

6.8 

589.4 

58.2 

29.4 

11.5 

1.7 

6.0 

0.6 

2.1 

1.4 

0.2 

0.1 

4.5 

5.3 

2.4 

0.8 

0 

0.1 

0.4 

30.5 

3.0 

*Acres with dual designation (existing or proposed wilderness and RNA, Scenic 

Area, etc.) are displayed in the acreage total for Prescriptions 1 or 2 are 

indicated in parentheses undex the other applicable prescription. 

163 
Table 15 

A- - 

Alternative 

outplts 

AMB 

by - 

Base 1980 Decades 

Year RPA Goals (Decade 1: 1986-1995) 

1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

Resrxlrce El-t.s 

FAclLzTIEs 

ad mini strati^ Sites 

-Forest - service 

(no.) 6 

-leased (no.) 1 

-piVab (no.) 

Roads (miles) 

-m (tot. ) 

Wm (tot. ) 

Maintenance (tot.) 

Trails (miles) 

cxalsbxctim total 

-timber 

-recxeatim 

-timber 

-rWxeatim 

-existing 

Wilderness 

-reccmnended 

Wilderness 

-c€axenbated 

-0PenN.F 

-0Hv 

-dC 

rec. areas 

4 

11 

0 

0 

0 

20 

15 

5 

974 

0 

0 

- 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Reccmskuctim (tot.) 10.8 

Wilderness 9.0 

Wilderness - 

rec. areas 1.8 

-oE=nm 0 

-0Hv 0 

-rrrrdiC 0 

-existing 

-lewrmended 

-c€axenbated 

164 

8 

0 

3 

4 

11 

0 

0 

0 

17 

14 

3 

974 

20.5 

0.7 

2.8 

6.0 

1.0 

0 

10.0 

37.5 

12.6 

1.8 

4.2 

2.2 

13.5 

3.2 

8 

0 

3 

4 

11 

2.4 

0 

2.4 

17 

14 

3 

989 

20.4 

0.7 

2.8 

6.0 

1.0 

0 

10.0 

37.5 

12.6 

1.8 

4.2 

2.2 

13.5 

3.2 

8 

0 

3 

4 

11 

1.4 

0 

1.4 

17 

14 

3 

loo0 

10.0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

10.0 

56.6 

22.7 

2.1 

6.6 

2.5 

13.5 

9.2 

8 

0 

3 

4 

11 

0 

0 

0 

17 

14 

3 

1005 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

70.2 

25.0 

4.6 

9.0 

2.9 

13.5 

15.2 

8 

0 

3 

4 

11 

0 

0 

0 

17 

14 

3 

1010 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

70.2 

25.0 

4.6 

9.0 

2.9 

13.5 

15.2 
Table 15 (mtinued) 

Average Annual Outputs by Decade 

Alternative AMB 

Base 1980 Decades 

Year RPA Goals (Decade 1: 1986-1995) 

1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

FkxREce El-ts 

Trails (cont'd) 

Maint" (tot.) 1236 - - 1498 1702 1802 1802 1802 

IANlXANDMINERAGs 

Landacquired(acres) 60 0 0 54 270 270 150 70 

Leasable minmals 

(totalp3werp1arlts) 0 - - 1 3 5 6 6 

mwle minerals 

(operating plans) 67 320 408 50 52 56 57 57 

PRurEC" 

Fuel Treatment (acres) 

-total 18 500 400 1521 766 412 551 1326 

-fire related 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 

-timber - 19 34 35 59 84 related 18 - 

-range related 0 - - 290 342 342 342 1172 

-wildlife related 0 - 1212 390 35 150 70 

- 

- 

Mpectea Wildfire (acres) 

-total 747 - - 918 990 1071 1080 1080 

- 55 59 64 65 65 

- 64 69 75 76 76 

- 239 257 278 281 281 

551 594 643 648 648 

RAtiGE (M-1 41.4 42.2 44.5 37.3 39.0 42.4 43.4 39.4 

FWXE4l'ICW USE (M RVDs) 

Develop4 public 1201 3510 5100 1448 1448 1735 1832 2024 

-intensity level 1 13 - - 9 10 11 11 11 

-intensity level 2 34 - 

-intensity level 3 53 - 

-intensity level 4 647 - 

-intensity level 5 0 - - 

Develop4 Private 

(total) 1635 1914 2421 2885 2885 2885 

Dispersed 1004 2490 3120 1189 1496 1819 2010 2264 

Wilderness 540 675 716 767 818 837 

165 
Table 15 (cantinu&) 

Average &mud Outputs by Decade 

Alternative €!ME 

Base 1980 Decades 

Year RPA Goals (Decade 1: 1986-1995) 

Resource m-ts 

1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

TIMBER 

ASQ (mF) 10.5 16.8 19.8 5.1 6.2 6.2 7.5 9.2 

melwood (M cords) 10.0 - - 11.9 8.3 3.8 4.3 4.7 

Term Susbined Yield 

(mF) - - - 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 

Reforestatifm 

(acres) 300 614 718 96 168 173 296 421 

Timber Stand -t 

(-) 328 900 918 558 353 0 0 0 

WATER 

Improvement (acres) 100 180 200 500 500 500 500 350 

Quality (M acre-ft. ) 1047 476 481 1052 1062 1072 1082 1088 

Increased euantity (M acre-feet) - - - 1.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

WILDLIFEANDFISH 

Mule Deer 

(M arimals total) 20.2 +20 percent 20.2 20.7 21.2 21.7 22.2 

(M anhals CBI Inyo) 12.0 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5 14.0 

Bald -le** (winter Ioosting areas) 

Pezqrine Falcon** 

Gashawks (pairs in suitable timber) 

Nelsohl muntain sheep 

Sierra Nevada 

mtain sheep 

1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 

(no. of pairs) 0 - - 2 3 4 4 4 

15 - - 15 15 15 15 15 

(M. of animals) 130 - - 140 154 154 154 154 

(no. of animals) 300 - - 350 400 500 700 loo0 

166 
Table 15 (-timed) 

Average Annual Outputs by Decade 

Alternative AMB 

Base 1980 Decades 

Year FfPA Goals (Decade 1: 1986-1995) 

Resource El6lBmtS 

1982 1990 2030 1 2 3 4 5 

"LIFE AND FISI (mt'd) 

Lahontan (;T mi3 

(acres of habitat) 1 - - .3 -5 -9 1.3 1.6 

Paiute cr mt* 

(acres of habitat) 3 - - 1.3 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.4 

1632 +20 percent 1642 1652 1662 1672 1682 

Total Wildlife/Fish 

User Days (M WFUDs) 391.0 - - 394.2 399.7 405.6 415.2 424.7 

-mule deer 25.2 - - 25.2 26.2 27.3 28.3 29.4 

-resident trout 340.0 - - 342.1 344.2 346.3 348.4 350.4 

-other 25.8 - - 26.9 29.3 32.0 38.5 44.9 

Derived frun direct habitat improvement 

-mule deer 0.1 - - 0.2 0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 

-resident trout 0 - - 1.2 2.4 3.6 4.8 6.0 

-other 0 - - 0.4 0 0.4 0 0 

Derived fm induced habitat inpmmmmt 

-mile deer 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 

-resident trout 0.1 - - 0.9 1.8 2.7 3.6 4.4 

-other 0.1 - - 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 

- 

Units of Dired Habitat Improvement 

-mule deer (M acres) 0.5 - - 1.7 0.8 0 0.3 0.1 

-resident kout (ac.) 0 0 0 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.7 

-other (M acres) 0 - - 3.8 0 3.5 0 0 

n"NREs0uIECEs 

aograms (enrollees) 39 14 14 39 39 39 39 39 

9.9 11.1 12.2 12.6 10.3 2.6 13.0 15.1 

!l" (M) 10.3 - - 13.6 11.3 13.6 14.0 16.1 

lwlm - (W) 

*Threatened, *Xhdangered 

167 
 he alternatives can be canpared and mb--asted in terms of many factors: 

outputs, costs, envirownentdl effects, ard mspns to issues and "s. 

The ccmparisim of altematives in this section sumnarizes material addressed 

in mre detail el- in Chapter I1 and in Chapter IV. 

This sectim includes: (1) a canparative overview of alternatives; (2) 

figures displaying ccmparative data for the alternatives: (3) narrative and 

tabular lxllpan 'scms of e"ic fadors; and (4) tables onparing 

alternatives in terms of their key -tal cansequences and response to 

issues and cxmcens. 

COMPARATIVE lnlE" OF ALTERNAT" 

The followhg discussion canpares the six alternatives studied in detail in 

terms of major resources on the Forest. The discussion under each heading 

addresses issues and comexns, quality and quantity of outputs, and/or 

envkm"tal". 

E%rE 

The primary issues and "IS for dzmesb. 'c livestock grazing are the needs 

to maintain or increase range outputs and to coordinate the grazing program 

with ccnpsting or wnfliding resources and activities. The majority of 

perceived conflicts between graz- and other resaurces, such as water 

quality, soil stability, and riparian area conditicol, are addressed in the 

direction cannon to all alternatives. 

The ccnpstition between danestl 'c livestock and mule deer is addressed 

differently by alternative. Cattle have priority over mule deer (in terms of 

increased forage result- frun range inpmvemnts) on key deer winter range 

in RPA; mule deer have priority in PRF, UIR, and CEE: cattle are removed 

entirely frun key wintm range in AMN and AMB. Cattle grazing in key deer 

fawning areas is deferred until after July 15 in AMN and AMB; fawning areas 

are also enpbsxz ' ed in PRF and CIR, but specific details are left to 

resolution in all0trnent management Plans. 

The ccnpstition between livestock grazing and timber managenat is also 

handled differently by alternative: cattle grazing is allowed to decline 

frun current levels in suitable timber under all alternatives except AMB, in 

Wch current levels are maintained. 

Range outputs are increased in RPA by 34 percent; in CEE by 12 percent. The 

remaining alternatives propose reductions in range outputs over time with UIR 

and PRF ' current outputs for the p1arrh-g pericd. 

The primary issues and cx"s in recreation deal with the quantity, 

quality, and type of outimr recreation opprbnities available to the public 

168 
on the Inyo National Forest. The quantity of use, quality of recreational 

experiences, and type of recreational apportUnities differ considerably by 

alternative. It is essential to mte, however, that most of that difference 

cccurs on a limited nmkr of acres: 

1. Most differences in the quantity of developed recreation, other than 

alpine skiing, OCCUT primarily in concentrate3 recreation areas as a 

result of increased developed site capacity. Differences in quality of 

developed recreation result frun maintenance and service standards. 

The greatest differences in quantity of dispersed recreation use OCCUT 

in cnncentrated -eatim areas in association with the quantity of 

developed site use. Differences in the type of dispersed use are found 

primarily where new roads could be built to facilitate timber managenent 

2. 

and/or ge3thenMl devel0pnent. 

The differences highlighted alxnre tend to be concentrated on lands in the 

area frun i%um&h to Lee Vixhq (timber, geothermal, alpine skiing, and 

developed site potential), the major Sierra Nevada drainages from Cbnvict 

Lake to Horseshoe Meadow (developed site potential,) and the ~bna~he area of 

the Kwm Plateau (timber potential). The follming discussion is based on 

the assmption that, other than a nrxlerate .trend toward mre dispersed use, 

recreation on mxt other Forest lands will mt change substantially from the 

current situatim under any alternative. 

Developed -tim: The quantity of developed sunnier recreation represents 

a wide range of outputs under the alternatives. CUR and AMN represent the 

lmest level of use with the maintenance of current levels. AMB repmsents a 

moderate increase in use. PRF, RPA, and CEE re-t the high end of the 

scale with an increase of 57 percent over base year by the fifth decade. 

Increases will OCCUT primarily in the public sector. The identified 

potential for increased private sedor (other than ski area) developnent is 

negligible. 

The quality of developed recreation experiences will also vary. A standard 

level of facility maintenance and service contributes to recreational 

quality: low standard levels detract frun such quality. The quality of 

developed rereaticm experiences will be impired by lcw standard operation 

only in CUR. 

Dispersed Remeation: The quantity of disparsed recreation is assmed to 

increase in general proportion to public develop5 site capacity and use 

because a large part of m-wilderness dispersed sunnier use on the Forest is 

generated in concentrated recreation areas by people staying in campgrounds. 

To a lesser m, dispersed win- use is generated by people wtm come to 

the Forest primarily because of alpine skiing opprtum ‘ties. 

The quality of dispersed recreatim in concentrated recreation areas is 

related to the overall a”t of use and the availability of facilities (such 

as kails, rest”, and inetive signs) that distribute use and protect 

resourCe values. Increased use will be highest in PRF, RPA, and CEE; this 

mction is offset, however, by full developnent of facilities and standard 

levels of service. CUR will perpetuate the current low level of recreational 

quality, despite the minimal increase in use, due to a lack of support 

169 
facilities and low levels of service. AMB will represent higher overall 

quality with a moderate increase both in use and in facilities: BMN projects 

high quality with slightly increased use and substantially increased 

facilities. 

The type of dispersed recreation can vary frun primitive (no facilities, M 

vehicles, few people), through semi-primitive, to intensively develop& (many 

facilities, many vehicles, many people). Dispersed recreation opportunities 

will be clustered at the primitive and semi-primitive end of the scale in BMN 

andAMB. r4Jreopprtum 'ties related to road -tzuction and facility 

developcent are available in PRF, alR, RPA, and CEE. 

Rmtion quality for other Visitors is represented by freedan fmm conflict 

with other Forest activities. Timber management on the Inyo does not 

generally ccnflict directly wi+A dispersed recreation use. Conflicts with 

sumner use are "ized because mxt logging oc(5u~s in the winter, and 

conflicts with winter dispersed use can be "ized by locating mrdic ski 

and sr"bi1e tcails as needed to avoid those areas bsing harvested. 

The major impact of timber on recreation is indirect . When new roads for 

timber harvest are built into an unmade3 area, the type of dispersed use 

shifts. Where access was previmly p3ssible only by foot, horseback, or 

four-wbml drive vehicle, cxmventicmal vehicles can IYJW enter the area. As 

the type of use changes, the a"t typically increases. The two areas msst 

susceptible to new or increased mtorized use resulting frun timber road 

access are the unroaded forested lands east of San Joaquin Ftidge and the 

mche area of the Kern Plateau. Neither area is harvested in BMN and PW: 

only the San Joaquin area is harvested in AMB. Both areas are harvested 

under the other alternatives. 

Alpine skiing represents a localized conflict because alpine ski areas 

represent exclusive use of lands otherwise suitable for dispersed sumner and 

winter recreation. 

The quality of dispersed recreation is also affected by fishing and hunting 

cpprhmities. Fishingopg" 'ties outside of hatchery-stocked fisheries 

are related to the prcduch 'vity of resident bmut fisheries, which is 

affected in turn by the irmcolllt of stream habitat and watershed imprwement 

& an alternative. 

The greatest resident stream fish prcductivity is found in CEE, followed by 

AMB, BMN, PRF, RPA, and CUR. The mall difference between the nrxt 

proaudive and the least proaudive alternatives is, however, relatively 

mall. This relatiomhip reflects the geed overall condition of fish habitat 

081 the Forest, the large a"t of fish habitat in wilderness, and consequent 

limitaticils on Opprhml 'ties to increase habitat capacity. In m case, 

however, can the projected idemand for fishing be met by increases in resident 

trout habitat. 

Big game hunting -ties are related to the nu" of deer on the 

Forest. Deer populations decline wder the impacts of facility developcent, 

inpmvedaccess, andincreased livestock on winter rarge; they increase with 

habitat impnXrement and reduced capstition with livestock on key deer 

range. The ranking of alternatives according to hunting opprhmities will 

170 
list AMN andm at the high e&, PRF and CUR in the mime, and FPA ard a 

at the lm end. 

The primary issues and coxems related to timber managarmt include the 

desirability of establishing the size of the suitable timber base in 

c"tion with other potential land uses, establishiq a regulated forest 

on all suitable acres, and proauCjng fuelwood for public use. 

The alternatives differ in tha amxlllt of acreage detexmined suitable for 

timber management, as ccmpared with the acres considered tentatively suitable 

for Forest pl- plrposes. The final calculation of suitable acres (thsa 

that will actually be managed for timber ploauctim under an alternative) was 

derived fmu tentatively suitable acres by the subtraction of timber in 

recarmeraded wilderness, collcentrated recreatian areas, alpine ski areas, and 

areas managed with an amenity amphasis urder an alternative. The laryest 

suitable timber acreage is folad in RPA; acreage figures decline fmn RPA to 

CEE, to alR, to FFF, to AMB, to AMN at the low end of the scale. The 

suitable timber in RPA represents 90 percent of tentatively suitable timber: 

AMN represents 56 percent. 

The alternatives also differ in timber outputs, but the difference is not 

directly Fnopcatimal to suitable timber acreage under the alternative. The 

reasan for this lack of pzqxrtionality is the fact that suitable acreage may 

be managed under one of several sets of management strategies: high level 

timber managarmt will prcduca 11~31'8 board feet per acre than wen-aged 

managewnt. Timber outputs in the fifth decade range fran 19.8 lvMBF for RPA 

to 6.5 WF for AMN, representjn~ a range frun 2,000 to 1,000 board feet 

proauCea (on the average) per acre of suitable timber. 

Fuelwood resultirg from logging debris is roughly proporticola1 to overall 

timber outputs. Additional fuel& may be made available as part of the 

prwgrdhamest if needed to reqxxxl to demand. 

Wilderness 

The primar.y issues and w" related to wilderness focus m the need to 

make well-considered decisicm between wildemess and =-wilderness for each 

Further Planning Area m the Forest. 

Alternatives differ in the nm&x of Further Planning Areas and the total 

acreage reccmnended for wilderness. RPA represents the low end of the scale, 

with m wilderness recarmendations; AMN represents the high end of the scale, 

with 510,800 acres in twelve areas & for wilderness. The other 

alternatives, in -irg order of acres -, are: PRF, CUR, AMB, 

and CEE. 

The quality of prom wilderness, in terms of wilderness characteristics, 

and the quantity of wilderness recreation use are not directly proportional 

to quantity of acres recarmended, however. The Further P1anni.m~ Areas on the 

Forest, as a group, tend to rank much lower in overall wildemess 

characteristics than designated wilderness. Although natural integrity and 

opp3rtunities for solitude tend to be high, natural appearance and 

171 
qpxtunitias for primitive "atim tend to be low. The latter is true 

primarily because many Em-ther P1ardl-g Areas are intzudeJ3 by prhitive 

roads, accessible by four-wsleel drive vehicle, and lam in the available 

water sxres that will facilitate Ivmnotorized re". 

The amdlllt of wilderness re4Xeatil.n use pjectea for an alternative reflects 

ths dlability of primitive recreatim opportunities in the areas 

remmnended for wi1- under that alternative. mtal acres of 

recQrmended wilcaerness and -tion use are not directly pmprtional. 

AW, for example, which has the largest rsoarmended wildemess acreage, 

includes dderable acreage in Rrrther Plannirg Areas with hate to low 

wilderness quality and low projected levels of wildemess recreation use. 

ClJR reccmuends my that part of the White and Irryo W" with 

outstandcng ecological features (e.g. desart sprhp, alpine bndra). PRF, 

CSE, AMN and AMB jnclude additicmal acxeage withut such features. 

Wildlife ad Fish 

The primary issues and cc"s related to wildlife and fish habitat address 

species; threatened, -, sensitive, and special interest species; and 

tbase species depsxct cm riparian areas, older seral stages of timber, and 

slags. 

The mjori* of directl *cm for wildlife and fish habitat is found in the 

direction is intended to meet Mini" Management Rqui?"ts (MVRs) for 

native vertebrate species. In my the followirg cases does directx .on exceed 

the lvMRs and, therefom, vary by alternative. 

Mule deer: PRF, aLIR, and (3EE give priority to mule deer over cattle for any 

inneases in forage 'on on key deer winter range; AMN and AMB remnre 

cattle from key wink range; RPA gives priority to cattle on winter range. 

AMN and AMB call for delayed livestock grazing in key deer fawning areas; PRF 

and ClJR also emphasize fawning areas, but leave the details to alloiment 

management plans; RPA and CEE place no special emghsis an fawning areas. 

AMN, AMB, and PRF aphasize the integrity of mule deer migraticm mutes; the 

other alternatives do not address migration routes. 

Peregrine falccn: PRF, OUR, RPA, and CEE pmvide for the reintxducticm of 

two nesting pairs; AMN andAMB prwide for four. 

Goshawk: PRF, (IIR, AMN, and AMB maintain fifteen (all existing) goshawk 

territories in suitable timber; RPA and CEE will allow a reduction in the 

"hr 

"I 

of such territories, maintaining only nine (the nuinter needed to meet 

management requirements). PRF, AMN, and AMB provide 100 acres per 

goshawk territory; the r"g alternatives provide only the "m 

managment level, 50 acres per territory. 

Sierra Nevada mxmtain sheep : RPA and CEE pruv.i.de for no additional 

reintroduced herds; PRF and OUR pmvide for at least one herd based on 

additional errviraMlen tal analyses; AMN and AMB provide for seven additional 

herds. 

the quantity and quelity of habitat, with Spsial emphasis an harvest 

Forest-wide S- and Guidelines COmDn to all alt-tiW. Such 

172 
Ripa?=ian area-- tspec ies: All alternatives call for negotiating with 

utility canpanies to rewater selected reaches of stream and reestablishment 

of streamside riparian vegetation. Wet meadows represent mre than 

two-thirds of the riparian vegetation on the Forest; of the 26,000 acres of 

wet meadow cm the Forest, 23,500 acres have been identified for watershed 

restoration. Alternatives PRF, CEE, AMN, and AMB call for full watershed 

resto?=ation in wet over 50 years; RPA for 9,900 acres; and CUR for 

2,000 acres. 

Species clepndm t an snags: PRF, CUR, RPA, and CEE will apply only the 

nun“ management requirement for slags (maintain at least 40 percent of 

natural potential); AMN and AMB call for maintaining 100 percent of ~tural 

potential snag-dependent wildlife density. 

*. 

species aepenaen t an older seral stages of t-: The alternatives vary in 

the ar”t of timber maintained in older seral stages. (XIR, RPA, and CEE 

maintain my the a”t for goshawk nesting territories (See ai”). 

PRF maintains 10 percent of the timber base in older seral stages, AMN 30 

percent, and AMB 20 percent. 

- Fish: Were is limited potential to increase fish habitat capability on the 

Forest. Pbre than 90 percent of resident trout are found in lakes, where 

habitat conditicn is generally goOa and there are m identified opportunities 

to enhance or increase habitat. The majority of both lake and st” habitat 

is in wilderness, where habitat is also gmerally good and any potential for 

enhaMJement will be limited by wilderness management. 

Of the stream acreage identified as suitable and available for habitat 

impnxrement, CEE implements the full prcgram; PRF, RPA, AMN, and AMB 

represent high levels of imprommmt: CUR represents a mxierately high 

level. Additional fish habitat impnxrement is induce3 fran watershed 

i”ent, discussed abme ur&r riparian area-depndent species. 

Threatened trout habitat is “aged cmly for species recwe~y under PRF, m, 

FPA, and CEE; AMN and AMB call for increasing threatened trout habitat above 

r€#nery levels. 

173 
Table 16 

Acreage Allocatim by PrescriptioPl and Alternative (M Atxes) 

1. Designated Wilderness 565.1 

2. proposed Wilderness 172.6 

3. mmtainsheep 35.0 

4. MileDee 118.8 

5. ResearchNaturalArea* 14.9 

(0.7) 

6. mBasinNFScenic 45.8 

Area* 

7. AncientBristleccmePine 28.9 

Forest* 

8. Wild and Scenic fiver* 2.6 

(15.8) 

9 Vnwen-WdTimberm. 10.5 

74.5 

11. Range 138.5 

12. cancentrated Recreation 52.5 

10. Kigh Level Timber Mpt. 

Area 

13. Alpine Ski Area, Ekistjng 9.6 

14. mtentid ~lpine ski m 14.2 

15. Developed Remeatim Site 2.2 

and under Study 

16. Semi-primitive Reneatian 8.6 

17. Disparsed Remzation 437.8 

18. Multiple Resaurce Area 199.1 

565.1 

107.6 

35.0 

0 

14.9 

(0.7) 

45.0 

27.5 

4.3 

(19.4) 

0 

109.8 

178.3 

44.6 

6.2 

6.6 

1.4 

0 

364.4 

419.0 

565.1 565.1 

0 339.8 

4.8 4.9 

7.4 108.1 

14.9 6.3 

(0.7) (9.3) 

45.0 40.2 

(4.8) 

27.5 21.5 

(6.0) 

4.3 4.3 

(19.4) (19.4) 

0 0 

119.8 97.7 

228.1 144.4 

44.1 44.1 

10.2 21.8 

0 0 

2.1 2.1 

0 0 

204.4 68.0 

652.0 461.4 

565.1 

510.8 

4.9 

117.6 

3.0 

(12.6) 

40.2 

(4.8) 

(6.0) 

4.3 

(19.4) 

21.5 

0 

97.3 

95.8 

48.2 

6.2 

0 

1.4 

0 

387.0 

26.4 

565.1 

222.7 

32.0 

118.3 

11.6 

(4.0) 

40.2 

(4.8) 

27.5 

4.3 

(19.4) 

2.9 

86.7 

101.4 

46.1 

14.6 

0 

1.9 

6.8 

589.4 

58.2 

* Acres with dual designatim (existing or props& wilderness RNA, 

Scenic Area, etc.) are displayed in the acreage total for Prescriptions 1 or 

2 and indicated in parentheses un&r the applicable prescriptian. 

174 
Table 17 

Ccopariscn of AveraW Yearly mtprts 

for the Planning Fericd by Altmmative 

Base 8ORPA Alternatives 

Resource - E.l€mZ¶lts Year PR!? (XIR RPA CEEAMN AMB 

atkinistrative Sites 

-Forest Service 

owned (no.) 6 -- 8 8 8 8 8 8 

-leased (m.) 1 -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 

-Forest service (no.) 3 - - 3 3 3 3 3 3 

-State/lo=al (m.) 4 -- 4 4 4 4 4 4 

-private (no.) 11 - - 11 11 11 11 11 11 

DanrsadReservoirs 

Roads (miles) 

cxlnshuctim (tot.) 0 -- 2.5 3.1 0.6 0.6 1.4 0 

-timber 0 -- 0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0 0 

-rFa?=atim 0 -- 2.5 2.5 0 0 1.4 0 

R- 'on (tot.) 20 - - 15 15 20 21 13 17 

-timber 15 - - 5 15 18 16 11 14 

-rFa?=ation 5 -- 10 0 2 5 2 3 

Mairll33ance (tot.) 974 - - 977 977 977 977 981 974 

hails (miles) 

~tzuctian (tot.) 0 -- 24.3 9.0 27.0 26.3 19.0 20.5 

-&- wild- 0 - - 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 

-reCarmendedwildemeSS- - - 1.8 0.8 0 3.0 3.3 2.8 

-cancentrated 

ret. areas 0 -- 9.0 0 9.0 9.0 4.0 6.0 

-open NF 0 -- 1.0 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

-ow 0 -- 1.8 0 2.5 2.6 0 0 

-nOrdiC 0 -- 10.0 7.5 13.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 

R-CECm (tot.) 10.8 - - 39.7 37.9 38.4 36.3 34.9 37.5 

-existirgwilderness 9.0 - - 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 

-&wilderness - -- 1.3 1.3 0 0.6 1.9 1.8 

-cc"txated 

rec. areas 1.8 - - 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 

-ow 0 -- 16.2 14.4 16.2 13.5 10.8 13.5 

-open NF 0 -- 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 

-nOrdiC! 0 -- 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 

175 
Table 17 (an-) 

far the Planning Period by Alternative 

Of Average Yearly Outprts 

Base 8ORPA Alternatives 

Resoucce El6EntS Ye PRF CUR RPA CEEAMN AMB 

Trails (mt'd) 

Maintermx!etOtal 1236 - - 1489 1361 1506 1517 1489 1498 

LANasANDMINElws 

Landacquired (ac.) 60 0 054 54 54 54 54 54 

(tot. p3WerPlants) 0 - -1 1 1 1 1 1 

Leasable minerals 

Locatable minerals 

(0Peratt-g plans) 67 320 408 50 60 67 46 29 50 

PmnzcrIm 

FuelTreabnent (acres) 

-total 18 500 400 243 923 1312 1412 1461 1521 

-fire related 0 - -0 0 0 0 0 0 

-timber related 18 - - 93 163 143 61 6 19 

-range related 0 - - 50 324 356 316 202 290 

-wildlife related 0 - - 100 436 813 1035 1253 1212 

ncpected Wildfire (acres) 

-total 747 - - 918 1011 918 1134 927 918 

-intenSityl-l 1 13 - -9 10 9 9 9 9 

-intensitylevel2 34 - - 55 128 55 124 57 55 

-intensitylevel3 53 - -64 57 64 70 65 64 

-iutensitylevel4 647 - - 239 209 239 313 241 239 

-intensitylevel 5 0 - - 551 607 551 618 556 551 

RnmE 

Grazing (MAUMs) 41.4 42.2 44.5 41.4 38.1 52.7 48.6 35.6 37.3 

REXXERTICN USE (M RvDs) 

Develcpd public 1201 3510 5100 1578 1293 1674 1772 1293 1448 

DevelOpeaWivate 1635 - - 1914 1914 1914 1914 1914 1914 

DisperSea 1004 2490 3120 1191 1238 1191 1190 899 1189 

Wilderness 540 - - 644 639 637 667 680 675 

Visual aality 

InLkx 142.07 - -142.15 142.13 142.15 142.10 142.34 142.20 

176 
Table 17 (amtiwed) 

CEmpariscm of Amrage Yearly Outputs 

for the Planning Period by Alternative 

Base 80RPA Alternatives 

Re- Elements Year PRF (;uRRPA CEEAMN AMB 

TlMBER 

Ase (mW 10.5 16.8 19.8 7.1 11.4 16.9 8.3 2.7 5.1 

meld (M wrds) 10.0 - - 10.6 10.6 16.1 7.2 4.2 11.9 

Lorg Tarm Sustained Yield 

(mF) - - - 14.5 24.7 29.9 24.7 15.6 18.9 

Reforestation 

(acres) 300 614 718 465 817 714 307 32 96 

Timbar Stand Impnxrement 

(-) 328 900 918 374 40 113 578 539 558 

WATER 

Impmvemnt (acres) 100 180 200 350 40 186 500 500 500 

Quality (M acre-ft.) 1047 476 481 1050 1047 1052 1051 1052 1052 

Increased Quantity 

(M --feet) 0 - - 7.0 11.0 15.0 7.0 0 1.7 

WILDLIFE” 

Mule Deer 

(M animals total) 20.2 +20 % 20.2 20.2 18.0 20.0 20.7 20.2 

(M animals on Inyo)l2.0 12.0 12.0 11.2 11.9 12.5 12.0 

Bald Eagle** (winter rccsthg areas) 

Peregrine Falcxn** 

Goshawks (pairs in suitable timber) 

Nelm Pbmtain Sheep 

1 - -1 1 1 1 1 1 

(M. of pairs) 0 - -2 2 2 2 2 2 

15 - - 15 15 14 14 15 15 

(M. of animals) 130 - - 140 140 130 130 140 140 

Sierra Nevada Pbmtain Sheep 

300 - - 350 350 330 330 350 350 

(no. of animals) 

177 
Table 17 (amthud) 

Ccoparison of Average Yearly Outplts 

for the Plmnhg Pericd by Alternative 

Base 80RPA Alternatives 

ResQlDxx Ezempnts Year F’RF CUFt RPA mAMN Am 

wI”3 AND FISH (mt’d) 

Lahcoltan m Trout* 

(acres of habitat) 1 - - .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 

Paiute cr Trout* 

(acres of habitat) 3 - - 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 

Resident trout 

(M m) 1632 +20% 1640 1635 1640 1643 1641 1642 

Wildlife and Fish User Days (M WFUDs) 

391.0 - - 393.8 392.9 392.1 394.3 395.0 394.2 

-mule deer 25.2 - - 25.2 25.2 23.5 25.0 26.2 25.2 

-resident trout 340.0 - - 341.7 340.8 341.7 342.4 341.9 342.1 

-other 25.8 - - 26.9 26.9 26.9 26.9 26.9 26.9 

Derived fran Direct Habitat Improvement 

-mule deer 0.1 - - 0.2 a.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 

-resident trout 0- - 1.1 0.7 1.3 1.5 1.0 1.2 

-other 0- - 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.4 

Derived fran Habitat Improvement 

-mule deer 0- - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

-resident trout 0.1 - - 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.9 

-Other 0.1 - - 0.3 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 

Units of Dired Habitat hpmement 

-mule deer (M 0.5 - - 0.2 0 1.0 1.5 1.8 1.7 

-resident trout (ac.) 0 - - 0.4 3.1 5.3 5.9 4.4 4.8 

-Other (M acreS) 0- - 0.3 4.1 3.0 2.8 3.4 3.8 

Hu.”REsoRcEs 

Prcgcams! (enrollees) 39 14 14 39 39 39 39 39 39 

!Rn”AL (W) 9.9 11.1 12.2 12.1 10.0 12.0 11.9 12.9 12.6 

asr (W) 10.3 - - 13.5 11.0 13.4 12.8 13.9 13.6 

178 
Table 18 

Additid Key Ccnparisons 

by Al-tive 

LANCS AvAILAgLE EllRMlNERAL EXCRY (M acres) 

-Mineral potential high 108.2 107.5 110.4 84.3 28.1 62.6 

-Mineral patential medium 174.5 176.6 204.1 130.3 107.4 174.8 

-Mineral potential 1a.J 885.8 888.4 965.8 731.6 631.6 825.9 

Total 1168.5 1172.5 1288.3 964.2 775.2 1063.3 

LANDS WI’lT” FROM MINERAL EXCRY (M acres) 

-Mineral potential high 26.6 26.3 23.5 50.6 10.7 72.3 

-mineral potential medium 34.5 32.4 5.0 78.7 101.6 34.2 

-Mineral potential low 135.0 132.3 55.0 289.1 381.0 194.9 

-Existing WLldemesS* 565.1 565.1 565.1 565.1 565.1 565.1 

Total 761.2 756.2 648.6 983.5 1058.4 866.5 

%al potential ratings are not available for existing wilderness. 

FECREaTICN 0- W ROS CLASS (excludirg the Mom Basin NF Scenic Area) 

Area (M acres-decade 5) 

-primitive 867.1 867.1 836.2 865.7 869.8 867.8 

-Semi-primitive Ncol-Motcaized 404.9 402.7 380.6 418.9 490.4 442.2 

-Semi-Prmitive Motorized 215.4 238.1 230.7 183.8 152.7 195.9 

-Roaded Natural 335.6 319.1 381.0 343.1 325.7 308.5 

-Roaded Wfied 47.0 43.3 39.8 48.1 36.6 51.5 

-mal 13.1 13.0 14.3 22.0 10.2 16.5 

-Urban* 1.6 1.4 2.1 3.1 1.3 2.3 

projectea Use (M RVDs-decade 5) 

-mjmitive 781.2 781.2 752.4 779.4 783.0 781.2 

-Semi-primitive l?m-?4zhrized 226.8 225.79 213.4 234.6 274.4 247.5 

-Semi-Primitive Motorized 257.7 284.2 275.6 219.3 182.6 233.8 

-Roaded Natural 2225.0 2115.8 2526.0 2274.9 2159.4 2045.6 

-Road& Wfied 4542.1 4184.3 3846.4 4648.3 3537.3 4977.3 

-mal 2432.0 2413.3 2654.6 4084.1 1893.3 3063.3 

-urban 0 0 0 0 0 0 

179 
Altematives 

PRF aJR RPA CEE AMN AMB 

"l'ICN (mt'd) 

Capacity (M PAOT-decade 5) 

-Primitive 4.34 4.34 4.18 4.33 4.35 4.34 

-Semi-Primitive "mrized 3.02 3.33 3.23 2.57 2.14 2.74 

-FOaded Natural 57.1 54.3 64.8 58.3 55.4 52.5 

-l?oaded lvbdified 71.0 65.4 60.1 72.6 55.3 77.8 

-Rural 46.8 46.4 51.1 78.5 36.4 58.9 

-urban 0 0 0 0 0 0 

-Semi-prirrbtive ---Motmized 4.05 4.03 3.81 4.19 4.90 4.42 

REsERRMNAnJRALAREAs 

"ber/(M acres) 7(15.6) 7(15.6) 7(15.6) 7(15.6) 7(15.6) 7(15.6) 

LAM) (;zAsSIEIcATIW FQR TIMBER (M acres) 

Ncn-FOrested Lard 

(including water) 978.7 978.7 978.7 978.7 978.7 978.7 

Forested- 952.5 951.1 951.1 951.1 951.1 951.1 

Withdrawn fran timber 

prductim* 328.8 326.4 326.4 326.4 326.4 326.4 

Not capable of 

industrial wwd 

prcdll&m 483.1 483.1 483.1 483.1 483.1 483.1 

Unregenerabe within 

five years of hanrest 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 

Tentatively Suitable 

T* Base 110.7 110.7 110.7 110.7 110.7 110.7 

Not suitable for 

timbsrunderthe 

alternative 35.5 21.6 11.5 13.1 48.9 40.9 

lbtal Unsuitable Forested 

Acres 877.3 862.0 851.9 853.5 889.3 881.3 

Total suitable Forested Acres 75.2 89.1 99.2 97.6 61.8 69.8 

180 
Table 18 

Additional Key Cnnpariby Al.t€?nlative 

-preservatian 

-Retentim 

-Partial Retentim 

-MAificatim 

- Maxi" Modificatim 

WILD & SWIC K" (miles) 

Recannended Wild 

segient 1 

segment 4 

segient 3 

segment 2 

Recarmended scenic 

Reccmnended-tim 

WILD- (M acres) 

-Plan- Area Net(M) 

*Area No. &xes 

Coyote SE 

Table Min. 

Buttermilk 

Wheeler Ridge 

Laurel-- 

Horse madm 

Ticga Lake 

Hall Natural 

Log cabinSaddlebag 

Benton Range* 

whit0 Mts. 

BlanM Mt. 

Birch creek 

Black Canym 

Andrews Mt. 

PaiuteMazourka 

sugarloaf 

Excelsim 

5033 

5035 

5038 

5040 

5045 

5049 

5050 

5051 

5052 

5056 

5058 

5059 

5060 

5061 

5063 

5064 

5296 

5989 

55.6 

4.1 

0.9 

16.2 

9.1 

5.6 

0.9 

5.2 

17.1 

10.5 

251.9 

16.3 

32.7 

34.8 

13.6 

130.6 

10.7 

8.0 

mtal 623.8 

692.6 

660.9 

428.2 

103.1 

0 

18.0 

6.0 

5.0 

2.5 

4.5 

737.7 

- 

4.1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0.9 

- 

- 

- 

113.2 

- 

- 

- 

- 

54.4 

- 

- 

172.6 

687.6 580.0 911.2 1078.9 799.4 

471.8 332.8 325.0 504.3 684.2 

623.7 815.3 416.0 269.7 349.7 

98.8 153.8 226.9 29.9 49.3 

2.8 2.9 5.6 1.9 2.0 

18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 

6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 

5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 

4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 

672.7 565.1 904.9 1075.9 787.8 

55.6 

4.1 

0.9 

16.2 

9.1 

5.6 

0.9 

5.2 

17.1 

- 

251.9 

- 

- 

- 

13.6 

130.6 

- 

- 

510. a 

11.8 

- 

- 

- 

9.1 

0.9 

17.7 

- 

- 

- 

53.2 

- 

- 

- 

- 

130.6 

- 

- 

222.7 

ToIlAL "RL FOREST XXES 1931.1 

181 
The major ecoBEmic benefits and tradeoffs between the al+xmatives are 

presented ccmparatively in the follcwirg tables. These Canparisaw are based 

on projected ecnrnnic effects, costs and values of priced and Iy)II--pTiced 

resources and benefits, and the level of naticnal and Regicnal issue 

resolution. E€x”u ’c indicators such as present Net Value (PNV) and net cash 

flw are of concern to the fedexal taxpayer, as they measure alternatives in 

term of their respansivemss to ecananic efficiency in g0Verr;unent. 

Table 19, the Sumnary Canpar imof E” ‘c Effects, displays in detail the 

operation and maintenance costs, and ~ti~i~tl, regianal, and local benefits 

and Costs of each alternative. Totaz public benefits €ran the Inyo National 

Forest increase over the next fifty years primarily in respanse to the aimunt 

of dispersed and develoged recreatim, and (to a mch lesser degree) in 

reqxnsa to wildlife, watershed, timber, and rqe outputs. Inrrreases in 

total benefits for the alternatives studied in detail range fran 20 to 107 

percent above the 1982 base level. 

The lowest ecoMnic benefit levels are found in those alteznatives in which 

develqed recreation or ski area expansion are limited by budget or other 

res” amsiderations. ”-cash benefits, derivsd primarily frm 

recreation use, ccnprise 94 to 97 percent of total Forest benefits in the 

first decade. Cash returns increase over the fifty-year plarming horizon in 

direct proportion to the size of the developd recreation, timber. and range 

programs. 

Total Costs inn‘ease frcm 7 to 35 percent abave the 1982 base year level in 

the first Caecade. These cost imxeass primarily reflect increases in 

capital irnrestmen ts, which range fmn a 28 percent reduction to nvre than 600 

percent increase over the 1982 base year level. Recreation facility, trail, 

and timber road cmnstructim vary with the size of the recreation program, 

the amxtnt of wilderness proposed, and the quantity of timber harvested. 

!&ploymat and incane oprtmities are dram primarily fran developd 

recreation, alpine skiing, timber harvest, and livestoclc grazing. Related 

support businesses provide considerably snaller pmpxticms of the available 

jobs. (xanges in local emplcqimmt opportunity ranged fran zero to an 

increase of mre than 36 percent. 

total cost, cash and m-cash econanic benefits, capital irnrestrnen t -, 

WR prwides the least impressive gains in cash benefits. 

Table 20. hresent Net Value Canpan ‘m-mjnal cost of maints, presents 

theenxxsnl ‘C and resowxe opJp%mity costs of the MIhi” Management .. Requiremen ts (PMRs), Timher Policy Requbsmnts (TPRs), and M” 

Implawntation Rcxpin” ts (MIRS). (See Appendur ’ B for a detailed 

explanation of these requiremen.ts. ) 

The basis of the present net value mnparison is the mast eccayrru 'tally 

efficient, u“ztraimd benctmarlr (FLW). TheMuumnll Managmmt 

Rqukemnb and Timber Policy Requi~mnts represent the first set of 

objectives added to FLW, resulting in the IWR ix”a&. These requFrements 

include goshawk nestirg territories, riparian area protection, maintenaxe of 

soil and water prcductivity, and mini” diversity of vegetative seral 

stages. On the Inyo Naticmal Forest, mly gcshawk territories and riparian 

.. 

182 
- m- . vmre applied as cx"ln ' ts cm the resource allocation 

nodel. Each of these re@rments slightly restricted timber harvest. 

TherGni" liq?lfmentaticm ResuirepnentS represent the seoand set of 

objectives analyzed; they were added to the WE? benchmark, resultiq in the 

CEE altamatiVe. On the Inyv Natimal Forest, maintenance of visual quality 

RquiraEnt applied to the analysis. The only effect was a slight additional 

restriction cm timber harvest. 

The Management ~-ts, ~imber miicy ~~tand ~inir" 

Implementaticm Rquire" ts collectively represent a reduction in Present Net 

Value (PNV) of only $0.3 million, less than 0.01 percent of the PNV for the 

FLW benchmark. This r&~cticm in PNV results primarily fran increased oosts 

for timber prdUction and a loss of 0.275 WF of timber harvest wer the 

first five decades. The gcdmdz and riparian area requirements had the 

of nine gashawk territories of fifty acres each in suitable timber and the 

protection of riparian area-dependent resources in suitable timber. The two 

along state-aesignat€d soenic higl-rivays was the only Minil" lilIpleIW.IltatiCUl 

greatest effect cm timber costs. These requiremen ts ensure the maintenance 

requirements shared qUal1y in redtlcing PNV. 

The timber policy re@"ents of harvest dispersion and m-declining yield 

had negligible effects on PNV due to the lcw relative value of timber on the 

Inyo National Forest and the interaction of stand growth, diswunthg of 

costs and benefits, and price trends. These factors cmbined to reduce the 

harvest in earlier decades with the trend steadily climbing and stabilizing 

in later decades. Allwing for harvest to decline in the later decades had 

m appreciable effect on PNV, due mainly to the discounting factor. 

The M.Lni" Implementation Reqirawnt for visual cpality protection resulted 

in a very slight drop of $0.1 million in PNV due to restrictions on timber 

harvest techniques and limitations on the size of openings. 

The marginal cc6ts of CclIlStraints added to benchmarks to develop the CEE 

altemative were insignificant in terms of reduced PNV or reduced resource 

prcduction capability. The impact of the Minir" Management RequFrements, 

Timber Policy Requi" ts, andM.Lni" Implementation Requirawnts was felt 

exclusively on thker benefits, WNch at most provide less than three percent 

of the total Forest PNV. 

Table 21, Present Net Value Canpar ison of Alternatives, presents the total 

pNv and the casts and benefits of the mior - cantributinq - resources for each 

of the alternatives studied in detail. 

Recreation accounts for 81 to 88 percent of the total discounted benefits in 

the Forest alternatives. The drs~ibution of benefits within the recreation 

prcgram varied on the basis of facility maintenance levels, wilderness 

recannendations, and the extent of alpine ski area developnent. Timber, 

range, and other resource benefits and costs were far less significant than 

recreation in detennmrg the relative PNV of the alternatives. 

The alternative ranked lowest in PNV, primarily because bu6get 

cxmstraints limit& Wrhmities to 0On.tribute to PNV. 

.. 

183 
Table 22, Average Armual Cash Flows and "-Cash Benefits, presents the total 

costs. Lenefits. and net cash flaw by al-krnative for decades C0-s and five. 

-tures E& greater than returnit0 the -tseasury in all alternatives for 

both the first and fifth d€cades. 

Cash receipts will be &.rived mainly fm developed ntim and timber 

prmalctim, 

mmw 

with 

three to 

livesb2k 

eight percent 

grazing 

of 

and 

the total. 

geothermal 

GK-I?ss 

energy 

receipts 

- 

for all 

alternatives will be higher than the 1982 base level of $2.2 million. 

Receipts will be expected to nearly &&le between the fhXk and fifth 

decades in all alternatives except QIR, which increasas the least becauss of 

buaget limitatlans. Evsn with substantial increases in re- to the 

treasury, negative net cash flow increases in all alternatives except Cxm, 

AMN, and m, which have the l& total federal costs. This relatiaship 

is dtle primarily to the need for substantial irnresbnen t in e to realize 

major benefits in the remeaticn and timber programs. 

A large part of the tatal benefits derived fmn Inyo Natimal Forest lands 

represents the est;lma ' ted anount that a"ws will be willing to pay for 

Forest cutguts such as rexeatim (mt the a"t that they actually pay for 

thase outputs). Omsequently, the actual cash received by the U.S. 

gwefiment is mt pmpxticmal to total benefits generated by Forest 

The ranking of altematives by net cash flaw is inversely prupdional to 

costs in the first decade. Generally, thDse alt-tives that m3ve up in the 

ranking between the first and the fifth decade are those that remrmend large 

acreages for wilderness and that have re&& timber and develop3 recreation 

prcduction. This relatiaship results fran the high initial oosts of 

wil- designatim (trail and trailhead co"ctim) versus the moderate 

costs and high-level -fits of wildemass management ov€z the lorg tem. 

The rrast ecannically efficient alternative, CEE, falls near the middle of 

the first-decade ranldng acmrduq ' to net cash flaw. The CUR and RPA 

alternatives rank abwe CEE, as they emphasize resuxes pnxhcirg incane to 

the .treasury, primarily developed recreaticBl an? timber prcduction. 

accamMdate large acreages of proposed wilderness. By the fifth decade, 

tkir costs are reduced substantially because neither alternative supports a 

large timber or develm recreation program. CEE ranks lowest in the fifth 

decade, primarily because it puvides dy the rrost eccorrm 'cally effici& 

timbar harvest levels (lower than OUR or PA) in canbination with a 

substantial recreation prcgram which provides little in terms of actual 

managementprogramsAlbmatives AMN and AMB incur large first decade capital-invesbnen tcoststo 

incanetothetreasury. 

In general, alternatives CUR, AMN, and AMB (with budget limitaticns, major 

initial irnresbnen ts for wilderness, and/or with lcolg-tam low-profile timber 

and recreation programs) provide both less negative net cash flow and fewer 

--cash benefits than Other alternativeS. AlternativeS RPA, CEE, and PRF 

(which Strive to meet project4 public needs thtough increased develop3 

recreation programs) incur high costs, prwide the highest returns to the 

treasuy, offer the highest xwn-cash benefits, and higher negative cash 

flaws. 

184 
That p?Aian of ttle exlmnlic benefits that Will not be collected as cash 

receipts varies considerably across the alternatives. These benefits are 

based primarily an recreation, wildlife, and rarge outputs, which provide 

upwards of 90 percent of the total PMT. For this re-, there is not a 

large range of net cash flow amrg the alternatives (except OJR, which is 

considerably lower because of huagetary restrictions). 

Table 23, Indicators of Respns iveness to Major National and Regional Issues 

displays the relationships amxg key e"ic values, cx"ity effects, and 

the differing respo~zses amxg alternatives to selected issues and mnce~-~. 

The is to highlight major differences and similarities amug 

al~ematives in terms of tradeoffs amq key objectives, responses to public 

issues, "g-t ccncems, and resoufce use and developnent opprtunities. 

However, a mnplete understanding of the differences amng alternatives 

requires a -W"@ reading of Chapters I1 and IV of this document. 

185 
Table 19 

Surmary Cmpariscm of Ecanaru 'c Effects 

Alternatives 

PRF CVR RPA CEEAMN AMB 

(millions of 1982 dollars per year) 

1. Total Benefits 

Ease Year 

Decade 1 

Decade2 

Decade 3 

Decade4 

Decade5 

9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 

9.7 9.4 10.0 10.2 9.3 9.6 

12.6 10.7 13.0 14.0 11.9 12.1 

13.6 11.2 14.5 15.3 12.5 13.1 

14.3 11.3 15.3 16.5 13.1 13.8 

14.5 11.4 19.6 16.6 13.2 14.3 

2. Returns to the U.S. Treasury 

Base Year 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 

Decade 1 3.8 3.9 5.5 4.0 2.7 3.5 

Decade 2 5.0 4.2 7.5 5.3 3.4 4.2 

Decade3 5.6 4.5 8.7 7.0 3.6 4.8 

Decade 4 6.5 4.4 11.0 8.0 4.4 5.4 

Decade5 7.5 4.4 13.0 8.5 5.4 6.7 

3. Ncsl-cashbenefits 

Base Year 

Decade1 

Decade 2 

Decade3 

Decade 4 

Decade5 

4. Total costs 

Base Year 

Decade 1 

Decade2 

Decade3 

Decade 4 

Decade 5 

9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 

9.4 9.0 9.5 9.8 9.0 9.3 

12.2 10.3 12.3 13.5 11.6 11.6 

13.0 10.7 13.6 14.5 12.1 12.7 

13.7 10.9 14.2 15.7 12.6 13.3 

13.7 11.0 18.4 15.8 12.6 13.6 

10.3 

13.5 

13.7 

10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 

11.0 13.4 12.8 13.9 13.6 

10.9 14.7 14.3 10.9 11.3 

17.0 11.0 15.8 14.4 11.4 13.6 

17.1 11.0 18.2 15.2 12.6 14.0 

17.7 11.0 21.6 18.0 14.1 16.1 

1. Total benefits include both cash returns to the U.S. Treasury and rrm-cash 

benefits. Tbtal benefits are the estimated total a"t that consumefs will 

be will- to pay for Forest outputs, whether or mt this munt is actually 

collected by the U.S. !p"st. 

2. Returns to the U.S. Treasury are the estimated payGf?nts by cansumers of 

Forest cutputs collected by the federal gwenrment. 

3. Non-caeh benefits are the difference between the total estimated arpaunt that 

cam" will be williq to pay and actual mllecticm by the federal 

gwenment. At present it is naticg-~al policy to provide & Forest outputs 

either at IXJ charye to CCBISU~~SS or at a charge lower than the total 

willingnesS-to-paY value. 

4. mtal costs include the federal and m-federal costs needed to proauce 

(See Appendix B for specific values). 

Forest oui&n.lts. 

186 
Table 19 (antinwd) 

Sunmry carparison of Ecayrm 'c Eff€€!t!3 

Alternatives 

PRFmRpAcEEAMN AMB 

(millions of 1982 dollars mr war) 

5. mn-federal Qst 

Base Year 

Decade1 

Decade2 

Decade3 

Decade4 

Decade5 

6. Fm Oost 

Base Year 

Decade1 

Decade 2 

Decade 3 

Decade4 

Decade5 

7. Total wet 

Base Year 

Decade 1 

Decade 2 

Decade3 

Decade4 

Decade5 

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 

10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 

13.3 10.8 13.2 12.6 13.7 13.4 

13.5 10.7 14.5 14.1 10.7 11.1 

16.8 10.8 15.6 14.2 11.2 13.4 

16.9 10.8 18.0 15.0 12.4 13.8 

17.5 10.8 21.4 17.8 13.9 15.9 

9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 

12.5 10.0 12.4 11.9 12.9 12.6 

12.7 9.9 13.7 13.4 9.9 10.3 

16.0 10.0 15.8 13.5 10.4 12.6 

16.1 10.0 17.2 14.3 11.6 13.0 

16.7 10.0 21.6 17.1 13.1 15.1 

8. Operation and MaintenaMJe Cast 

Base Year 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 

Decade1 9.9 10.2 8.9 8.3 7.0 8.7 

Decade2 10.4 9.8 9.9 8.9 8.0 9.1 

Decade 3 12.9 10.2 9.5 9.5 8.4 11.4 

Decade4 12.6 10.5 12.9 10.9 9.2 10.2 

Decade5 12.0 10.5 16.1 12.8 9.9 11.5 

5. --federal costs include all costs paid by mn-federal cooperators 

(examples include State Fish and Game habitat hpmvenent expenditures, 

capital i"n ts made by rarge permittees, etc. ) 

Federal costs are all mstS home by the federal gwemment, including costs 

paid fm general tax receipts, costs paid fm funds set aside fm 

payments (such as K-V), and costs paid by accepting in-kind payments in lieu 

of cash (such as purchaser road credits). Federal cost also equals total 

cost less mn-federal cmpxator cost. 

6. 

7. Total budget is equal to federal cost less the cost of fight- forest fires 

(m). 

8. Opration and maintenance costs include the of -stration, 

managment, and protedion of existing resources and capital assets. 

Opratian and maintenance cost equals total cost less capital investrent. 

187 
Table 19 (cmtfn1~3) 

Sumrvy Ccnparison of Eecnaru 'c Effects 

AlteLnatiw 

PRF alR RPA CEEAMN AMB 

(millions of 1982 cbllars per year) 

9. capital Investment cost 

Base Year 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 

Decade1 3.7 0.8 4.5 4.5 6.9 4.9 

Decade2 3.3 1.1 4.8 5.4 2.9 2.2 

Decade3 4.1 0.8 6.3 4.9 3.0 3.4 

Decade4 4.5 0.5 5.3 5.1 3.4 3.8 

Decade5 5.7 0.5 5.5 5.2 4.2 4.6 

10. Recreation f3"ctim 

Base Year 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 

Decade1 3.2 0.5 2.8 3.5 6.5 4.1 

Decade 2 2.3 0.7 2.8 3.6 2.4 1.0 

Decade3 2.6 0.4 3.1 2.8 2.5 2.4 

Decade4 3.1 0.2 2.7 3.1 3.0 2.3 

Decade5 2.7 0.2 2.7 3.0 2.9 3.0 

11. ouler Capital I"mt 

Base Year 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 

Decade1 0.5 0.3 1.7 1.0 0.4 1.2 

Decade2 1.0 0.4 2.0 1.8 0.5 1.2 

Decade3 1.5 0.4 3.2 2.1 0.5 1.0 

Decade4 1.4 0.3 2.6 2.0 0.4 1.5 

Decade5 3.0 0.3 2.8 2.0 1.3 1.6 

12. 25-percent R&pt Shares 

Base Year 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Decade1 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.9 

Decade2 1.3 1.0 1.9 1.3 0.9 1.0 

Decade3 1.5 1.1 2.2 1.8 0.9 1.2 

Decade 4 1.7 1.1 2.8 2.0 1.1 1.4 

Decade5 1.9 1.1 3.3 2.1 1.4 1.7 

9. Capital jnvestmnt costs are the costs of creatirg or enhancing capital 

assets. costs of Izeatmnts or activities that generate outputs or benefits 

over mre than one perid are capital irnrestrnen t oosts. 

10. Remeatim cx"cticm to mt projected recreation demand. 

11. Other capital investmen t is all i"n t cost other than recreation 

ci"Jct.im. 

12. Twenty-five percent of returns to the U.S. rreasUry are distributed to the 

amties in pmp0I-h 'on to Iny~ National Forest acreage in each county. 

188 
Table 19 (ccmtinued) 

Surmary Canpacisanof Ecxanu 'c Effects 

ILlternativeS 

PRF CUR RPA CEEAMN AM6 

(millions of 1982 dollars per year) 

13. County Yield Tax Revenues 

Base Year 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 

Decade1 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.02 

Decade2 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.02 0.03 

Decade3 0.05 0.03 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.03 

Decade4 0.10 0.03 0.16 0.10 0.04 0.05 

Decade5 0.10 0.03 0.22 0.10 0.10 0.10 

14. Incane, first decade 

(m 1982 $/year) 31.8 26.4 33.3 35.8 26.1 26.6 

15. Employment, first decade 

16. Discounted Benefits 

(M F.=-=-Y-=s) 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.1 

(IVM 1982 $) 1847.0 1151.8 2017.8 2166.6 1550.7 1740.4 

17. Discounted Costs 

(W 1982 $) 

18. hresent Net Valu-e 

(m 1982$) 

280.9 197.6 312.2 287.6 233.4 261.5 

1566.1 954.2 1705.6 1879.0 1317.3 1478.9 

19. Benefit/cost ratio 6.6 6.0 6.5 7.5 6.6 6.7 

13. Under California law, a yield tax currently equal to three percent of 

timbx harvest value is levied cm timber operators. 

14. Total perscrd incane, including wages, salaries, proprietors' iranie, 

See Appendix 

15. Employment generated by the Forest h the zone of influence was 

and mts was estimated for the Forest's zone of influence. 

B far a descxipticm of the methodology used to make estimates. 

estimated. 

16. Discount& benefits over the plamhg period. Background benefits are 

not iracluded. 

17. Discounted costs over the planning perid. Background msts are mt 

18. Dixxxmted benefits less total discoun ted costs. Background Present Net 

included. 

value is not included. 

19. Dixxxmted benefits divided by total di-M Costs. 

189 
c 

I 

PW Change 

be r 

288 a 2168 2 1271 o 633 7 49 8 13 o 31i 32 27 5 

200 9 01 2168 0 -0 2 1271 o 633 7 49 8 13 o 27 2 

1879 0 -0 1 287 6 -1 3 2166 6 4 4 

81 1 1686 2 WA 79 8 0 65 4 0 IO 1619 8 0 3 0 0 
TABLE 21 

Presenk Net Value Comparison 

M&rginal Costs of Constraints 

(HillKons of 1982 Dollars) 

PNV Change Change 

PNY I-/ Coat cost 11 Benaf i t s Rec be r 2/ Rcc I Rec bee 

CEE 

RPA 

PRP 

w 

co 

t-3 

AMB 

4MN 

MLV + 4/ 

1879 0 N/A 287 6 

1705 6 -173 4 312 2 

1566 1 -312 9 280 9 

1478 y -400 1 261 5 

1317 3 -563. 7 233 4 

i6u5 i 81 1 

WA 

24 6 

-6 7 

-26 i 

-54 2 

-90 0 

1686 2 

-1014 8 

1271 0 633 7 48 5 13 0 zoo 4 151 o 76 o 304 30 27,2 

1098 g 62L8 76 5 14 8 205 8 134 5 73 0 620 38 38 9 

983 8 610 i 44 4 10 1 198 6 123 9 82 2 409 27 31.2 

910 7 57gC6 40 7 10 2 199 2 104 o 96 7 243 25 34,o 

806 o 508 8 31 9 93 194 7 95 o 84 4 216 19 3Q*5 

603 8 

0 

311 o 28-3 io 4 198 3 69 4 67 2 287 23 30*7 

65 4 Q 10 1619 8 0 3 0 0 79 8 

I 
TABLE 22 

Average Annual Cash Plows and Wm-Caah Benefits 

(rillions of undhcaunted dollars per year) 

CUR 

RPA 

CEE 

AMB 

AMN 

-6 9 

-7 8 

-8 6 

-9 4 

-9 9 

-11 0 

10 8 39 90 1 -6 4 

13+3 55 944 -94 3 

12,6 40 97 6 

13 3 38 93 5 

-9 5 

-9 7 

-8 4 

-9 2 

4,4 109 9 

183 5 

84 157 9 

74 138 o 

67 135 9 

54 126 4 
CEE 1879 0 

RPA 1705 6 

PRF 1571 9 

AMB 1478 9 

AMN 1317 3 

CWR 954 2 

-8 w-9-5 97 m57 9 

-7 81-9 3 94 91183 5 

-9 3/40 3 94 w137 2 

-9 9/-8 4 92 71135 9 

bii op3 2 89 81126 4 

-6 9/-5 6 90 w09 9 

35 8 

33 3 

32 8 

26 6 

26 i 

26 4 

339 8 

0 

172 6 

222 7 

510 8 

107 6 
Table 24 

sunaary Listing of Rsasans for changes in the 

Present Net valve of Alternatives shdied in Detail as 

cmpared with the ccmsw Econrm 'c Efficiency Altanative 

Cast-EffiCiency .. CzE-MaXlrmze 

PNV = 1,879.0 million 

Fifth period Net Cash Flow = -$9.5 millirn/yr. 

This is the nnst eccannically efficient alternative, as it ploauces the 

highest PNV of any alternative. The high PNV is obtalnd ' through a large 

recreatian program, providirg developnents in respaplse to projected 

recreatiopl demand. All facilities are maintained at standard 

levels, with colxe.ntrated recreaticm areas and potential alpine ski areas 

fully developd over the next fifty years. 

Timber, range, and wildlife autpvts are pmvidd at &-efficient levels. 

~ange and wildlife outputs will increase slightly over base-year levels. 

Watarshed inpnmmmt will increase and irrspove riparian area-aependent 

rescxlrces. 

Regional publics, primarily maeatirm users fran Southem California, will 

find inneased CppxtUdty for both SLmmer and winter recreation. HcWever, 

with the emphasis cm PNV, the quality of their experience will be 

canprauised, primarily because timber harvest will take place in CCBlcentrated 

r€€xeatian use areas. 

Local plblics, primarily those vi- the Forest as a source of enployment 

and inmme, will find increased opportLlnity due to expanded ski areas and 

aevelopea sumner recreation Lnograrrrs. Land use and cc" 'ty stability and 

cohesiveness will be strained with the pjectea popllaticm increases needed 

to support: proposed ski area developtent. The intensive land-use -is in 

ski areas and other develapea recreation sites will be ccuntered by the large 

acreage in wilderness for those pvblics wln sea presarvation as an 

-ate "gensnt them. 

RPA - 1980 RPA 

RW = $1,705.6 million 

Fifth period Net Cash Flow = -$9.3 millicn/yr. 

Managmmt to meet 1980 PA "e g3als and targets represent a variety of 

-ties for Forest users. The PNV of this alternative will, however, 

be reduced for IWny Keasals. 

hi* timber harvest msts and displacanent of other resource opporhnu 'ties 

recreation will cccur because rn al%itional wilderness areas are prcpxed. 

Developed reczeatian ogpxhml 'ties will be limited because timber will be 

Timbar hatvest will Considerably fm tbe 1982 base year. The 

will amlxibute significantly to the lass of PNV. Loss of dispersed 

194 
harvested in sone cas3entrated recreatcol areas and on potential alpine ski 

ms level of proauctiohl prwides inneased oppxhml 'ties for local 

e"ent and inccme. In addition, the alternative provides the laryest 

areas. 

returns to the Treasury. Regicmal plblics (primarily recreation users) will 

experience reduce3 recreation quality due to the intensive timber harvest. 

The large acreage available for regemration harvest will be quite evident in 

areas within and adjacent to important recreation areas. The land-use 

r3phasis will be mtrary to the view of th2se Fplblics who see presemation 

and wilderness as important management themes. 

PRJ? - preferred 

PNV = $1,566.1 million 

Fifth Period Net Cash Flow = -$9.7 millicdyr. 

This alternative is mxt similar to CEE, but three importan t factors 

omtribute to reduced PNV. Alpine ski area developnent will be limited to 

pawide only the a"t of ski area develapwnt mate with identified 

camnmity ability to support mre skiing. While this scenario will increase 

largest reasc~l for the PNV dmp frun CE3. PNV will also decline due to 

production. Goshawk territories and vegetative diversity (old growth) 

requirements will be higher than CEE; potential ski areas will receive only 

mdified timber managmerit: and timber in the PImache area and the red fir 

belt of the San Joaquin Riage will not be harvested. The implementation of 

une~en-agd manag-t timber i"a&iq practices will be costly. The third 

factor will be a ljmitatim on range AW& to reduca conflicts with deer on 

key winter range. 

This altwmative will benefit all groups. Local interests wiii be met 

through a moderate increase in jobs and in"e opprhmities. Regional 

publics will find increased recreatimal opp3rtunFties with a high level of 

vismal quality. Timber harvest will affect only 68 percent of the total 

suitable timber lands, reducing &lid with a high-quality recreational 

local CpJ" 'ties for jobs and incane , limitations on skiing are the 

restrictica-s on the size of the managed timber base and increased costs of 

Over lrmch Of the Forest. 

AMB-EhphaS ize Wildlife and Recreation 

PNV = $1,478.9 milli.cn 

Fifth &id Net Cash Flow = -$8.4 million 

This alternative places primary errp?hasis on the quality and quantity of 

wildlife habitat, with a secrmdary mghsis on expansinn of the developed 

recreation nog gram. 

The acreage managd for vegetative diversity (old growth) and goshawk nesting 

Reguirement level, and m timber harvest is allowed on those acres in order 

to provide "um pmtediasl level for wildlife. Ski area developnent and 

The reasons for the reduced PNV are discussed below. 

territories is increased about 44-fold Over the Minir" Management 

195 
tbnbr harvest in the San Jm area will be limited in order t0 pOt0Ct 

key desr migraIA.cn cornldars. Timber will not be harvested in the Mclnache 

area so that impacts an wildlife and visual quality will be minimized. 

DaneStic iivestodr gazing will be eliminated m deer win- range and 

delayed in key fawning habitat. Local plblics will lose SQne opp" 'ties 

for growth in 6lploym2nt and inarne due to these restridiapls. 

The rexked timber and -e pxgrams, mupled with a mderate reneatim 

prqram, will dce costs and maintain adequate benefits to allow this 

dtemative to have the second ld fifth-period net cash-flow deficit. 

Those regional plblics interest& in wild en^^^ and/or ski* will benefit 

fran this alternative; losal. plblics will experieme increased jobs and 

will increase in this alkmative. In later decades, while regimal publics 

add find mxe amgesticn in develOpea mxeatim sites, ample -ties 

for dispersed nxzeatimal uses will still be available. 

irvrrne levels in respmsa to increased SkFFng. overall recreatim quality 

"-!&&uze - all.z!nEllttAes 

PNV = $1,317.3 millian 

Fifth period Net Cash ElaJ = -$9.2 millim 

This alternative emphasizes prcdwtim of 1y~1-cash and mn-market benefits. 

The loss in PNV is significant, nearly 30 percent below CEE. ?he follcxving 

factors explainrrmch of the drcp inw. 

VegetauVe diversity (old grcurth) and pshawk nesting territories will be 66 

t.imes as large as in the r4h.t" ManaganentRequiremen ts. Notimberharvest 

will be allowed ci~ these areas; the "ah and San Joaquin areas will mt be 

harmst&. 

areas. Very little new remeatim facility ix"ctim will occur, while 

dispersed-ti- _- i 'ties will increase primarily fm a greatly 

expand& wildarness base. Tlmber managenent uses uneven-age3 managanent 

techniques my ad will meet the Retentim Visual mality Objective in the 

faregnxlnd zcme of all sensitivity Lag1 1 travel routes and Partial 

retenticm cm all other lands. Dcmestlo livestock grazing rill be eliminated 

fran key mule deer winter range, and grazing m key fawning areas will be 

delayed. 

sld aevelopnent will be restricted to increases on exim ski 

Few groups will gain hom this alternative. Lccal publics will find little 

change in johs or incam, primarily because increases in ski areas and 

developed sites are limited. Regional publics will find restricted developed 

-ties and vehicle access; recreati.cn demand will mt generally be 

met. publics with an interest In ~t~~al resmrce -tion will benefit 

fran the large wilderness acreage and low overall level of envircounental 

disturbance. Naticmal e"ic interests will not be mt, as seen by the 

large PNV reducta " and low re- to the Treasury. This alternative has 

the largest first decade average negative net cash flow. 

196 
alR - Current 1982 - No Action 

PNV = $954.2 million 

Fifth period Net Cash Flow = -$6.4 million 

The (XIR alternative portrays lorg-raqe managanent as limited by 1982 

funding. !chis alternative projects the 1-t pM7 of all alternatives studied 

in detail. This PNV drop is directly associated with the budget 

restcicticn. The shortage of fundjng primarily affects the recreaticn, 

range, and wildlife programs. 

ReCreatian Kograms will be managed at lay-standard leVelS, WC- the 

quality of the recxeatj.cn experience, the public benefits provided, and the 

PNV. !l'he range, fish, and wildlife programs will be unable to expand or 

intensify under current funding. 

Timber harvest will be maintained abwe emmnically efficient levels through 

the plamiq horizcn, with loss of potential downNll ski areas. costs 

associated with ndntainirg the current harvest level further reduce mW. 

l~ grcerps will gain by this alternative. Regional publics will find a low 

quality of mcreaticn and increased use and an-gesticn of concentrated 

mzeation areas. Local publics will find the same general OPJX&UN 'ties for 

jobs and incane as they presently do: the only bxeases will be associated 

with ski area growth. meSe factors add up to a large reducticn in PNV (43 

peroent belaw 5), the lowest return to the Treasury, and the lamst total 

wet of any alternative. 

197 
ECONOMIC The economic environment varies by alternative in term8 of the Forest budget, &rea employment, and Receipts ACk 

ENVIRONMENT Payments Average annual figures for budget and Receipts Act payments for the fifth decade are displayed below, 

employment figures are projected for the first decade 

Forest Budget Forest Budget Forest Budget 

12 5 million 10,O million 20 6 miUion 

Receipts Act Receipts Act Receipts Act Receipts Act 

pmts $1 8 MM pmts $Id1 MM pmts $3 3 MM pmts. $2,1 MM 

SOCIAL Generally benefits Benefits groups Benefits groups Benefits a11 

ENVIRONMENT all affected linked with linked with ~CQ- reereationlsts 

social. groups economic outputs, nOtrt1c outputs; 

reduces the reduces amenity 

PaeIIlty-rdated benefits to 

benefits to recreationists 

recreationists 

CULTURAL 

BESOUACES 

Forest budget 

15J million 

Receipts Act Receipts Act 

prats, $L4 pmts $Ip7 MM 

Employment Employment 

1,100 person- 1,100 persand 

years years 

Benefits preser- Bencf1ts most of 

vationisti3 and 

wilderness groups in the 

advocate 6 short term, mgthe affected 

atively affects 

economic outputs 

groups linked with 

in the long run 

Relative threat Relative threat 

factor moderate factor low 

Relative threat RelaLfve threat Relative threat Relative threat 

factor high factor moderate factor low factor low 

I 
RESOURCE 

PRP CUR RPA CEE Am 

FISH 

Stream acres 

Improved 470 

Stream acres 

Improved 205 

stream acres 

Improved 417 

Stream acres 

Improved 621 Improved 583 

H&b+ capability 

change from 

Hab capability Hab capability Hab capability Hab capability 

change from change from change from change from 

1982 +32x 1982 +15 1982 +31x 1982 +44x 1982 +39~ 

FURTHER 

PLANNING 

AREAS 

I 

Percent of total 

further planning 

acres by Rx type 

17% wilderness 

46% cm”dity 

37% amenity 

Percent of total 

further planning 

acres by Rx type 

0 wilderness 

15% amenity 

85% commodity 

Percent of total 

further planning 

acre3 by Rx type 

54% wilderness 

5% amen1ty 

41% commodity 

Percent of total. 

further planning 

acres by Rx type 

82% wilderness 

8% amenity 

0 commodity 

Percent of total 

further planning 

acres by Rx type 

28% wilderness 

52% amenity 

20% commodity 

MINERALS 
- 

Alternatives 

RESOURCE 

Acres of hi/modm 

mineral potential 

available for 

mineral activity 

214 600 

Acres of hi/mod+ 

mineral potential minsra1 potential 

available for available for 

mineral. activity mineral activity: 

Acres of hi/mdd Acres of hi/mod+ 

mineral potential 

available for 

mineral activity 

282 800 

ACF~S of hilmod 

mineral potential 

available for 

mineral activity 

314 p 400 

Acres of hilmod 

mineral potential 

available for 

mineral activity+ 

284 200 135 1500 

Mineral opportunity high Mineral opportunfty high nity highest 

PROTECTION 

Total wildfire Total wildfire Total wildfire Total wildfire 

acres 54,520 

Total wildfire 

acres: 48 150 

Total wildfire 

acres: 52 870 acre6 53,190 acr)e~ 51 390 

I 

RANGE 

41 4 M AUMs 

total outputs 

46 5 M AUMs 

total outputs 

39 1. M AUMs 55 6 M AUMs 35 1 hi AUMB 39 4 M AUMa 

total outputs tom1 outputs total outputs 

No increase 6% reduction 

from 1982 

34% increase 12% reduction 

from 1982 

l5# reduction 

from 1982 

5X reduction 

from 1982 from 1982 from 1982 

Range condition Range condition 

improved on improved on 

66 6 M acres 73 8 M acres; 

stable to declining elsewhere clining d3GWhme 

stable to deRange condition 

improved on 

98 5 M acresc 

stable to declining elsewhere 

Range condition 

improved on 

95 6 M acres 

stable to declining elsewhere 

Range condition 

improved on 

69 i M acres 

stable to declining elsewhere 

Range condition 

in gradual 

decline 

I 
Table 25 (continued) 

consequences 

RESOURCE 

PRP CUR RPA CEE AMB 

RECREATION 

Developed site 

quality high 

Developed dte 

quality law 

Developed site 

quality high 

Developed site 

quality high 

Developed site 

quality high quality high 

Dispersed recreation quality law 

Dispersed recreaction quality 

moderate 

Dispersed recreat ion quality 

moderate 

Dispersed recreation quality 

high 

Dispersed recreation quality 

high moderate 

Emphasis on 

developed sites 

high, on alpine 

skiing moderate, 

on wilderness 

moderate, on 

dhpersed recreation moderate 

Emphasis on 

developed sites 

lows *n alpine 

skiing moderate, 

on wilderness 

moderateb on 

dispersed remeation high 

Emphasis on 

developed sites 

high, on alpine 

skiing high, 

on wilderness 

high moderate, on 

dispersed F~CFEation moderate 

Emphasis an 

developed sites 

lowv on alpine 

skiing low, 

bn wilderness 

high, on 

dispersed recreation low 

Emphasis on 

developed sites 

mod On alpine 

skiing moderate: 

on wilderness 

high moderate, on 

dispersed recreation moderate 

TIMBER 

Total timber 

product ion 

89,100 acres 

Total timber 

production 

99,200 acres 

Total timber 

Production 

97,600 acres 

Total timber 

production 

61,800 acres 

Total timber 

production 

69,900 acres 

Clearcut 

harvest 

3+617 acres 

Regene rat ion 

harvest 

8p570 acres 

Regeneration 

harvest 

Regeneration 

harvest 

Uneven-aged 

mgmt harvest 

14,100 acres 3,320 acres 4,210 acres 
RESOURCE 

PRP CUR RPA nMN AMB 

Intermediate Intermediate 

harvest 

18,600 acres 

Intermediate 

harvest 

17hOO acres 

Intermediate 

harvest 

21,600 acres 

VISUAL 

RESOURCES 

Improved visual Improved vieual 

condition 2 4X 

Improved visual 

condition 0 3% 

Improved visual 

condition 2 QX 

Improved visual Improved visual 

condition 3 3% condition 6 9% condition 4 7% 

Reduced visual 

condition 0 9% 

Reduced visual 

cmdltfon 1 2% 

Reduced visual 

condition 2 1% 

Reduced visual Reduced visual 

condition 1 8% condSt1.m 0 8% 

Net change in Net change in 

condition +l 2% 

Net change in Net change in Net change in Net change in 

condition +2+2% condition +O 2% condition +6 3% condition +3 9% 

WATERSHED The COnsequences of alternatives on mil GtabiPity and water quality vary by the amount of land disturbed for other 

ree~rce management and by the amaunt of watershed restoration scheduled The relative potential for adverse 

effects on 30iI and water are 3hown by alternative below 

1QW moderat e high moderat e low low 

I 
A1 t e rnat Aves 

RESOURCE 

PRF CUR RPA CEE AMM Am 

- ... . I 

WILDERNESS The consequences of alternatives on wilderness are measured primarily in terms of actes of new wilderness. 

WILDLIFE 

222,700 

new wilderness 

Mule deer 

habitat -2% 

Existing old 

growth in 

tentatively 

base -27% 

8ui tab1 e thbe r 

Mule deer 

habitat -4% 

Exhting old 

growth in 

tentatively 

suitable timber 

base -91% 

Mule deer 

habitat -47X 

Existing old 

growth in 

tentatively 

suitable timber 

base -92% 

Mule deer 

habitat -14% 

Existing old 

growth in 

suitable timber 

tentatively 

base -86% 

Mule deer 

habitat +20X 

Existing old 

growth in 

tentatively 

suitable timber 

base -38% 

Mule deer 

habitat +18% 

Existing old 

growth in 

suitable t imaber 

tentatively 

base -59% 
Table 25 {cmthued) 

Comparison of Key Environmental Consequences 

PRf CUR RPA CEB 

Snags 0 Snags 0 Snags 0 Snags 0 snags t30x Snags +30% 

Wet meadows 0 wet meadowe -58X Wet meadawa -35% Wet meadows 0 Wet meadows 0 Wet meadows 0 

I 
- - b 

Alternatgves 

RESOURCE 

- ._ -. . -_ - .._ . 

ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 

How does the management of the G~~rally benefits Benefits groups Benefits groups Benefits all Benefits pmser- Benefits mcmt 

Inyo National Pore3t influence 

the local eocial environment and social groups economic outputs: nomic outputs p wilderness group8 in the 

a11 affected linkad with lhktd with ~CO- recreationists vatianista and the affected 

N lifestyle? reduces facilities reduces amenititB advbcatCE; short term, neg- a 

m far recreationists for recreatianiste atively affect6 

economic outputs 

in the long run 

AIR QUALITY 

What can the Forest do to 

influence air quality? 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

How should the Forest manage 

cultural resources and provide 

for the use of Forest land by 

American Indians for 

traditional practices 

Inventory and Inventory and Inventory and Inventory and Inventory and ~nvcnt~ry and 

C'vahmte 45 M evaluate 12 M evaluate 180 M evaluate 12 M evaluate 45 M evaluate 45 M 

acres per year acres per year acres per year acres per year acres per year acres per year 

Emphasize Emphasize USG both project- EmphaGize Emphasize Emphasize 

balanced program project-related related and formal project-related forma1 survey formal survey 

of protection and survey work survey work to survey work program and program and 

mte rpretat ion meet RPA goal interpretation in t; e rp r e t a t i on 
I 

TABLE 26 (continued) 

Campapi~on of Response to Issues and Concerns 

RESOURCE 

DIVERSITY 

What h a desirable level of 

do to maintain or achieve that 

level? 

10 percent or 

suitable timber 

managed for older 

seral stages 

(moderate) 

tentatively 

33 0 M acra 

existing ald 

growth in tent:&- 

tivcly suitable 

timber base by 

5th decade 

I1 5 M 8Cfm3 total, 

shrub treatment 

75% in oldest 

seral stage by 

5th decade 

0 percent of 

suitable timber 

managed far older 

tentatively 

sera1 stage6 

(fowl 

5.0 M ncrm 

exieting old 

growth in tentatively suitable 

timber base by 

5th decade 

80% in oldest 

seral stage by 

5th deeade 

4 2 M acres 

exfating old 

growth in tenthtively suftable 

timber base by 

5th decade 

74% in oldest 

seral stage by 

5th decade 

0 percent of 

tentatively 

suitable timber 

managed for older 

seral stages 

low) 

7 6 M acres 

exhthg old 

growth in tentatively suitable 

timber base by 

5th decade 

11'7 M acres total 

shrub treatment 

(hr4rt.r) 

73% in oldest 

seral stage by 

5th decade 

30 percent of 

tentatively 

suitable timber 

mangcd for older 

seral stages 

(very high) 

33 2 M acres 

existing old 

gmwtb in tent&& 

tively suitable 

timber bast by 

5th decade 

20 percent of 

tentatively 

~iritabh t€mbsr 

managed fop older 

seral stagets 

22 1 M acres 

existing old 

growth in tentatively suitable 

timber base by 

5th decade 

111 M total io9 M tomi 

shrub treatment shrub treatment 

(mode rat e 1 (moderate) 

76X in oldest 

seral stage by 

5th decade 

76% in oldest 

seral stage by 

5th decade 
TABLE 26 (continued) 

I 

I 

N 

RESOURCE 

ENERGY 

tion and maintenance is needed 

to support Forest management obj ectives? 

FISH 

How should fish habitat on the 

Inyo National Forest be managed? 

Totall trail 

construction 

in 5 decades 

535 miles 

Total road 

COn$truction 

in 5 deeades 

46 miles 

Total trail 

construction 

in 5 decades 

178 miles 

Total road 

construction 

in 5 decade8 

103 mile3 

Total trail 

construction 

in 5 decades 

Total road 

construetion 

In 5 decades 

65 mires 

Tots1 trail 

cons t ruc t ion 

in 5 decades, 

429 miles 

Total road 

eons truct ion 

in 5 decades 

38 mile3 

Total, trail 

construct im 

in 5 decades 

509 milea 
- FISH (con't) 1674 M pounds 1651 pounds 1673 M pounds 1689 H pound3 1679 M POU~US 1632 M pounds 

of fhh of fish of fish of fiab of fish Of fish 

23 acre8 for 23 acres for 23 for 23 acre8 far 40 rot 40 acreti far 

threatened trout threatened trout threatened trout threatened trout threatened trout threatened trout 

GEOLOGY 

LANDS 

Mobcrat~ demand by Noderate demand by Moderate demand by Moderate demand by Moderate demand by Moderate demand by 

U"lhith?& for communities for communities for commurrltiea for communities for cammunitlea for 

Forest Iand Pores t land Forest land Pores t land Porest land Porest land 
RESOURCE, 

Issue/Concern PRP CUR RPA CEE 

MINERALS 

214 6 M acres of 

moderate or high 

potential available for entry 

237 4 M acre8 of 

moderate or high 

potential available for entry 

282 8 M acres of 

moderate or high 

potential available for entry 

284 2 M acre6 of 

muderate or high 

potential available for entry 

314 4 M acres of 

modemte or high 

potential available for entry 

135 5 NI acres of 

moderate or high 

potential available for entry 

Mineral opportunnity moderate 

Mineral opportunity high ity high nity moderate 

PEST MANAGEMENT 

PROTECTION 

What is the appropriate fire Prevcnthh 17% 

management strategy for the Inyo? suppression 83% 

Staffing per 

Workforce Plan 

Prevention 17X 

suppression 33x 

1982 staffing 

Prevention 17% 

suppression 83% 

1982 staffing 

Prevention 17X 

suppression 83% 

1982 staffing 1982 staffing 

53 M ac wildfire 53 M ac wildfire 65 M ac wildfire 
TABLE 26 (continued) 

Corpnrison of Response to Issues and Concerns 

RESOURCE 

PRP CUR RPA CEE 

RANGE 

Directions for the integration of range management with other reeourcea ia found in the Forest-wide Standard8 and 

guidelines and the management preacrfpthns applied to all alternative^. Wild homes and burros 4~e maneged Under 

territory management plane in all alternatives, Fifth-decade grazing autputa and trade-offs between lhestmk and 

other resources differ by alternative 

HOW should the Inyo b4fance the 

need8 of the range program 

(domestic livestock and 

wild horses and burros] with the 

need to protect and/or produce 

other resource^ + 4L4 M AUMS 39.1 M AUM3 55B6 M AUMS 46 5 M AUMS 351 M AUMS 39 4 M AUMS 

Cattle decline in 

suitable timber 

Cattle decline in 

suitable timber 

Cattle decline in 

suitable timber 

Cattle decline Cattle decline in Cattle unchanged ih 

suitable timber suitable timber suitable timber 

Mule deer 

priority on key 

winter range 

Mule deer 

priority on key 

winter range 

Mule deer Cattle removed 

priority on key from key deer 

win t e P range winter range 

Cattle removed 

from key deer 

winter range 

RECREATION 

opportunity program for the fnyo 

other re~ource management and 

Dispersed use 

76~ of demand 

Dispersed use: 

76% of demand 

Dhpersed use, Dispersed use 

environmental pmtectim needs)? 77% of demand 54% of demand 

Developed summer,* 

81% of demand 

Developed summer 

50X of demand 

Developed summer Developed Summer Developed Summer 

81% of demand 53% of demand 74% or demand 

Alpine Skiing 

40Z of demand 

Alpine Skiing Alpine Skiing 

67% of demand 

Alpine Skiing 

80% of demand 

Alpine Skiing 

52% of demand kO% of demand 

I 
I 

RESOURCE 

PRP CUR RPA CEE mN 

RECREATJON ( CO~' t) 

RIPARIAN AREAS 

31,000 SAOT 

Mammoth g, Jun~ 

39,000 SAOT 

Mammoth b June, 

Sherwin, Summit, 

&/or Knolls: 

46,000 SAOT 

Mammoth, June, 

Sherwin & Summit 

61,000 $ADT 3iF0oo SAOT 

Mammoth, June, Mammoth & June 

$herw;Ln, Summit 

San Joaquin, White 

2 0 M ac watershed improvement 

9 9 M 8~ 

shed improvement 

Riparian enhance- Riparian enhance- Riparian enhancemmt node rat e "It low ment low 

tat improvement tat: improvement tat improvement 

23.5 M EW watershed improvement shed improvement 
Comparison of Response to Issue@ and Concerns 

RESOURCE 

CUR RPA CEE 

SENSITIVE PLANTS 

How should the Forest manage Directhm common to all alternatives calh for managing eensitive plant habitat to maintain population ~hbil;lty+ 

habitat for sensitive plant 

SPECIAL INTEREST AREAS 

No additional special interest areas are recommended in the PoreBt planl However, a lht of potential geofogh 

special interest areas ha8 been identified, thoee area6 will be evaluated, and recommendations for establishment 

special, interest areas? will be made by 1990 

TIMBER 

What ir3 the best balance between 

protection needs? Acres managed Acres managed Acres mameed+ Acre3 managed: 

97 fi 600 

Acres managed 

75 233 89,100 99 c mo 61,800 69 , 800 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

the ove~all resource manage- applies only to wilderness and research natural areas) and retention (maximum protection outside such 

be protected and enhanced? 

M acres 

Preservation 688 

Retentian 472 Retentian 333 

I 
TABLE 26 (continued) 

Comparison of Response to Issues and Concerns 

I 

RESOURCE 

VISUAL RESOURCES kon't'l 

Percent of Forest 

in P OF R 70x 

Percent of Forest Percent of Forest Percent of Porest 

in P or R 60% in F or R 47% in P or R 64~ 

WATERSHED 

Percent of PoreBt Percent of Forest 

in P or R 82% in P or R 77% 

How should the Forest respond to 

the needs for water quality, 

increased water yields, water 

right6 far Forest resource 

management, and hea2thy watershed 

condition? 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

- 

What recommmdations Bhou1.d the 

Forest make for management of the 

candidate wild and scenie river? 

WILDERNESS 

1s there a need for change fn the 

management of designated wilder- 

"3 on the Forest? 

179100 acres 

of restorat€on 

2,000 acres 

of restaratiml 

9,860 acres 

of restoration of restoration 

231500 acres 

of restoration of restoration 

Deer priority on 

key winter range 

Cattle priority on Deer priority on 

key deer winter key winter range 

range 

Cattle removed 

from key deer 

winter range 

CBttIt removed 

fmm key deer 

winter range 
TABLE 26 (continued) 

Comparison of Rcspofiec tu Issues and Concerns 

RESOURCE 

PRF CUR RPA AMB 

WILDLIFE (con't) 

Manage grazing 

to protect key 

fawning 0reas 

Manage grazing 

to protect key 

fawning areas 

No special 

management of 

fawning areas 

No special 

management of 

fawning areas 

Protect migration 

route6 

Does not address 

migration routes 

Does not address 

migration routes 

Doe~n't address 

migration 

Protect migration Protect migratian 

routes rout e6 

Peregrine falcon 

2 nesting pairs 

Peregrine falcon 

2 nesting pairs 

Peregrine falleon* Peregrine falcon: 

4 nesting pairs 4 ner3ting pair3 

15 goshawk 

territories in 

suitable timber 

1.5 goshawk 

territories in 

suitable timber 

9 goshawk 

territorhs in 

9 goshawk 

territories in 

suitable timber 

15 goshawk 

territories in 

suitable timbep 

15 gashawk 

territories in 

suitable timber suitable timber 

1 Sierra Nevada 

mountain sheep 

reintroduction 

0 Sierra Nevada 

mountain sheep 

reintroduction 

7 Sierra Nevada 

mountain sheep 

reintroduction 

7 Sierra Nevada 

mountain sheep 

reintroduction 

1 Nelson mountain 1 Ndsan mauntah 

sheep reintra- sheep reintroduc t ion duct ion 

I 
TABbE 26 (continued) 

Comparison af Response to Issuei3 and Concern8 

- -. 

Alternatives 

RESOURCE 

PRF CUR RPA CEE AUB 

WILDLIFE - (con't) 

See Vfversity+q 

for oId growth 

Mafntah/e reat e 

snags to meet 

40% of potenth$l 

74 NI acres total 

shrub treatmeat 

for wildlife 

65 M acres tote1 

shrub treatment 

for wildfife 

See Viver3 1. tymT 

for old growth 

Mahtain/erente 

snags to meet 

40% of potential 

48 M acre8 total 

shrub treatment 

for wildlife 

See "~iver~lty" 

for old growth 

Maint€&in/creatc 

snags to meet 

40% of potential 

shrub treatment 

far wildlife 

1oox of patenth1 100% of potential 

78 M acres total 162 M acre^ total 

shrub treatment shrub treatment 

for wildlife for wildlife 
111 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 
This chapter describes the current -tal and resource management 

characteristics of the Inyo National Forest. The description €niphasizes 

those factors most likely to he affected by various alt-iatives. The 

chapter begins with a gmal description of physical, biological, ecoxmic 

and social factors follawed by mxe specific infoIlllatiun far each resource. 

The content of this chapter is taken primarily fmn the Inyo National Forest 

Mysis of the Managenat Situatian (AMS). The AN3 analyzes the Forest's 

ability to supply gooaS and services in respmse to society's demands. Fran 

this information needed changes in management can be identified. The canplete 

set of AMS cbcumen.ts is available at the Ihyo National Forest Supervisor's 

office in Bi-. 

Additicmal infomtion has been added to this chapter fran the public's 

axmnts in rcspme to the Draft EIS. 

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE FOREST 

The Inyu National Forest mists of four Ranger Districts with offices in 

Lee. V-, Mammth Lakes, Bisbp, and Lone Pine. The Forest Supervisor's 

office is in Bishop. 

The Forest encarrpasses large parts of the Sierra Nevada, Glass, white, and 

Inyo Pbuntains. Pbst Forest lands drain into the lvbm Basin or Owens River: 

snaller @ms drab westward htn the San Joaqub or Kern Rivers, or 

eastward into the Great Basin. The For& is lorg and narnm, cd"g 165 

miles fmn north to south, and vazying in width fmn 4 to 60 miles. It 

straddles the lxxlndary between the sauti-" Sierra Nevada and southern Basin 

and Range Physicgraphic and Geologic prwinces. 

The M~IXEI~ ernriroamnent of the Inyo is mtmorthy for its ccoltrasts. 

Elevatims range fmn 3,680 feet near Gens Dry Lake to the peak of Mt. 

Whitney at 14,495 feet. Plant and arhal habitats include such mtrast=ing 

elmts as desert and wet meadow, forest and alpine tundra. Rugged, barren 

escarpnents stand above forested hills, sagebrush flats, and grassy plateaus. 

The Sierra Nevada is primarily canposed of igneous intrusive reek 70 to 180 

million years old, with the occasional remains of older sediments up to 400 

million years old. The White and Inyo Wtains in the Basin and Range 

prwince are canposed prharily of metamorphic sediments, sane older than 600 

gravel fill the thn Basin, Lorg Valley Caldera, and Cwens Valley. 

Tke climate an the Forest is as dim as its toppaphy. The higher 

elevaticms in the Sierra Nevada receive high levels of precipitation. 

Mammth Pass, for example, receives an average of 45 inches a year, imst of 

milliopl years. volcanic roc3rs (snle as y0uI-g as 500 years) and sand and 

216 
villi& falls as - between "ber and March. The eastem portions and 

lower elevaticm of the Farest are quite arid. The cc"i* of Bishop, 

located at 4.000 feet and about midway between the eastem and western Forest 

bolmdaries, recards an average of six inches of annual rahfall, most of 

which occurs during the winter "ths. 

natural fe&un3S are included Withill the Forest boundary: 

Mt. Whiiney is the higheqt peak in the 48 contiguo~~~ states. 

Tbe Ancient Bristleccne Pine Forest includes tnth the Methuselah tree 

(the world's oldest lavlwn living tcee) and the Patriarch (the largest 

lavlwn Bristlm pine). 

I4x-n Lake is a large inland sea that supports a unique biological 

ooormrnity jncluding brhe shrimp, brine flies, nesting California gulls, 

and several million migratmy birds. 

The I4x-n cratefs are "textbodc examples" of volcanic geology visited 

annually by students and scientists frm zrwnd the ~ti01-1. 

The I4x-n Cram and I4x-n Lake are mly two of the scenic features in the 

Moglo Bash National Forest Scenic Area designated by Ccmgress in 1984. 

The Devils Postpile NaticiW Monument, adninistered by the Naticmal Pxk 

service, is an outstam3q . WlCaniC feature. 

The Owens Valley is me of the deep=& valleys in the world. The flwr 

of the valley is about 4,000 feet in elevation; the mnmtain ranges on 

either side reach 14,000 feet in elevation. 

The Palisades Glacier is the scu- glacier in the northern 

i?adspheJ?a. 

The Jeffrey pine forest is the largest contiguous stand of pure Jeffrey 

pine in the world. 

White Wxmtain Peak (14,246 feet) is the highest peak in the Great Basin. 

There is a of the native range of *olden trout (the California 

State Fish) in the Golden Trout Wilderness. 

The White bmtain Research Station is the highest site in the U.S. that 

is cccupied year-m. 

The w=e.nic appeal and reu-eaticmal atkacticms provided by the natural 

enVirCmment and the p"iw of the Forest to urban Southern Califoda 

result in Mgh levels of rw=reatim use. Inyo Naticml Forest ranks 

seccpd in Califda. Ka"# Pkxntzin SM Area receives m skiwdays of 

use per year than any other ski area in the United States. The JohnMuir 

Wilderness is the nnst heavily used wil- in the nation. The Inyo ranks 

first in coldwater fishing and SeLXd in mal1 angling recreation anrmg the 

Naticmal Forests of California. Developed-site caqgomd use leads the 

fifth recreatiQl ViSitatiCXl Natimal ForestS in the naticol and 

217 
naticn. slmrnerarspersea camping, mule deer lwnthg, four-wheel drim 

recreatian, and nxdic swing are also popllar. 

SPHERE OF 

Ths lands adninilstered by the Inyo National Forest are lccated in seven 

camties and span the states of California and Nevada. 

Table 27 

IrryoNaticnalFarestLand 

bycountyandstate 

county m state Acses Percent of Farest 

811,049 

794,352 

186,165 

50,406 

25,256 

California i~tal 1,867,228 

Mineral 

49,884 

14,003 

42.0 

41.1 

9.7 

2.6 

1.3 

96.7 

2.6 

0.7 

Nevada total 63,887 3.3 

TllIlALNFsLANDs 1,931,115 100.0 

Nearly 85 percent of the Forest lies within Inyo and MXKI counties, both of 

which lie east of the Sierra Nevada, and mre than 95 percent of the Forest 

lies within the state of California. Ninety percent of Irryo County, the 

are administered by the federal garenmnent. Clxmntly, all timber harvesting 

and mxe than 90 percent of recreational activity on the Inyo National Forest 

take place in these two Counties. The Forest recreation program is closely 

linked with the exmmic base of the mties because it supports a large 

portim of the tourism the area enjoys and depends up for employment and 

inmme. 

In con.trast, Madera and FreslD Cmnties, which lie mtly on the west side of 

the Sierra Nevada, are mre urban (with a cunbined 1980 ppulation of 

823,880) and oriented toward the San Joaquh Valley. Mineral and Walda 

Cmnties in Nevada have only limited acreages on the Forest. The econaRic 

secod largest comty in the state, and mre than 75 percent of "3 County 

218 
amtxitnlticn of myJ Natialal Farest &vities to these two auntie5 is 

oversbadcwed by the of the Bureau of Land Management, the mi* 

The Farest has a relatively limited overall ecc~yllll 'C impact 

on ware, Madara, Fk-fxTo, Mineral, and Esneriilda Ccunties. This ecaarmic 

NatiuM. Forest, the military, and the agriculture and g- industcies of 

southem NEW&. 

situation is not expeded to charge in the fareseeable future. 

Residents of scplthem California, moing primrily fron the Ccunties of San 

Diw, Lcs Aqeles, Oraqe, Vmtura, Riverside, and San Be", make 

heavy use of Farest recreaticnal facilities and -, such as alpine ski 

qpxixmities by Southem Californians mly affects the entire Forest, as 

well as ih CommTnitieS near the Forest. The impact of the Inyo National 

Farest on South3n-1 California is, -, insignificant due to the area's 

large size, huge papulation, and diverse e"y. 

'c analysis and the follcwhg social analysis deal with Inyo and 

t mxt likely to be 

Theecayrru 

rbm Gzunties as the ecopMcLc and social ernrirchmen 

affected by Forest activities. Withh these counties, the r' .t 

=ies are tourisn, general services, retail trade, and go"mt. 

Forest-related activities and enployment a"nt for a major poruOn of 

private sedar enplqment in the two counties. 

areas, -, and wildernesses. The demand for remeaticmal. 

papulation growth in Inyo and rbm Ccunties has been substantial during the 

past tm decades. mty, for example, grew by rmre than 113 percent 

between 1970 and 1980 ranking the county secmd amg the fastest grmcirg 

counties in the state. This rapid PJPulaticm growth can be attributed 

pimarily to the recreatimal hprtame of the Mamnoth Lakes area. Between 

1960 and 1980, the I"nAh Lakes cc" 'ty graw fran a papulation of 390 (17 

percent of the -ty pplatim) to 4,117 (48 percent of the wnmty 

population) . Durw the same period, Irryo Gnmty grew 15 percent, a rate lawer than the 

state average of 18 percent. Pbst of this gmwth tcok place in and anxlnd 

theL?" 'ty of Bim, which serves as a service center for the entire 

tm-ccunty area. The major employers in the county are local, state, and 

fecaerdl g3Va"t.s. 

Table 28 

Projected Fqnilatia-~ 1980-2020 

1980 1990 ZOO0 2020 

~cau, mty (mj-) 17,900 8.W 11,600 14,200 19,200 

Inyo mty (avg. annual) 430 360 345 

1ny0 (mjected) 22,200 25,800 32,700 

mty (avy. annual) 300 260 255 

219 
EMPLOYMENT 

The ecc~l~ny of the Iq" County area refleds the imp3rtance of 

remeation, tourisn and the public sector. The thres employment categories 

of services, retail sales, and govenmmt together amted for nearly three 

guarters of the total wages and salary for workers in 1980. The employment 

base has grown by nearly 75 percent in the past decade. Ftan 1972 to 1979, 

the -age -al emplayment growth rate was 5.6 percent for the area 

(versus 4.2 percent: for the state). The services and retail sales categories 

have enjoyed healthy e"ent gains, while garemment emplayment levels 

have tapred off and recently recorded sone declines. 

found in the Inyo-Mam area. Rapid population grayth, a bn"q - of the 

The high urmployment rates COmDcaiLy found in tourist-orientd ecananies are 

work force, the seasmal nature of the tourist industry, and the lack of 

diversification in the wxunny have resulted in urmployment rates that are 

generally higher than tlae state -age. 

The Forest makes a direct mtrihtion to the area eamny through 

exp-dLixues in the pixrate sector, the gemration of job, recreaticmal 

oppx%mities, and dired payments into county rwenues. Forest expenditures 

for payroll and procurements in Fiscal Year 1982 were $8.55 millim. 

Payments into ccuntyp=venus c~llg two -: Payment in Lieu of Taxes 

and Receipts Act payments. Payment in Lieu of Taxes payments cunpensate 

counties for the loss of prqertjj tax rwenues represented by "taxable 

fdexal land within the county. In 1980, this payment to cxnmties by the 

Inyo National Forest was $165,180. 

Receipts Ad payments are based on fees collwted for use of Forest lands and 

resources. Twsnty-five percent of cbllars received by the federal treasury 

fmn such activities as timber sales, special-use permits, and campground 

fees are distributed through the Forest Service to the counties to assist 

with sckol and road Costs. Tutal Inyo National Forest Receipts Act payments 

for Fiscal Year 1980 a"ted to $385,003. 

The Forest also provides indirect 'c -fits to the public by 

SUPPwKl cartaln ' gooaS and services at prices below established or estimated 

market values. Ekanples include cutdoor recreatim use and the availability 

of Farest lads for cormercial enterprises such as livestock prcx%ctim, 

apiaries, miner al and energy esploratim and developnent, and water 

eon. 

220 
Category W?Q 1971 1.972 I973 I974 

Agriculture, Foreat, Fish 26 

97 l 

99 

45 

89 

14 

zi 6 

24 

15.8 

38 

30 4 

97 

61 

55 

1 .6 

22+6 

23 

19 cl 

45 

2747 

94 

41 

53 

15 

22 2 

26 

20~5 

a.7 

28 6 

08 

99 2 

11 

98 9 

78 

65 

62 

18 

39 

22 7 

49 

30 8 

213 I 

09 

99 1 

10 

99 0 

Source' State of Californh# Employment Development Department, Labor Market Newsletter, May 1982 

I 
Table 30 

Tbtal Eznploynient, 1970-1980 

Total Increaseover mtal IMeaseover unenploy- Stateof 

"berperoent merit Number Percent (Percent) (Percent) 

Prior Year -ICY- Prior Year mtRate Calif. L- Year Fcarce 

1970 8,100 

1971 9.300 

1972 10,050 

1973 10,100 

1974 10.700 

1975 11,600 

1976 11,425 

1977 11,975 

1978 13,300 

1979 14,050 

1980 14,700 

-- 

1,200 

750 

50 

603 

900 

925 

550 

1,675 

750 

650 

-- 

14.8 

8.1 

0.5 

5.6 

7.8 

8.0 

4.8 

14.0 

5.6 

4.6 

7,650 

8,W 

9,300 

9,200 

9,700 

10,150 

10,125 

10,750 

12,500 

13,175 

13,775 

-- 

950 

700 

-100 

500 

450 

-25 

625 

1,750 

675 

600 

-- 5.4 

12.4 7.5 

8.1 7.5 

-1.1 8.9 

5.4 9.3 

4.6 12.5 

-0.2 11.4 

6.2 10.3 

16.3 6.0 

5.4 6.2 

4.5 6.3 

7.3 

8.8 

7.6 

7.0 

7.3 

9.9 

9.2 

8.2 

7.1 

6.2 

6.8 

.%urc.e: State of California Enipl~t Developnent Department, May 1982. 

Avexage for the year. 

Department of ~inance, California statistid -act 1981. 

222 
- .- 

1975 73.3 

73 0 

86 2 

86 6 

50.7 

49*7 

79 6 

84A 
RlluRETREMxs 

Eccamnic growth in the area is expeded to cmtinue much as it did in the in 

the 1970s, increasirg overall, but with dips and Spurts. As econCmic growth 

continues, the resident ppulation and the pressure for more -ices will 

increase. Larger annunities, such as June Lake and Lone Pme, will be 

stimulated to consider incolporation. -re, it is expected that an 

increased local mation could stabilize the fluctuating tourist econany of 

the 1970s. However, unless the different CarmUnities actively seek econmic 

diversity by attracting "eation h3ustries to the area, little charge 

is foreseen. 

The ea"ic foundation of the area will remain closely tied to increased 

recreation use and tourisn. An increased demand for all Forest resources and 

services, especially those related to recreation, can be expected. The 

greatest inpacts on Forest managemnt are likely to to found in the area of 

landownershl. 'p acljustrnentS and land uses, scenic quality, and the Forest role 

in the providing a variety of recreational oppsrtunities. The demand for 

energy developnent and water yield am also likely to increase with increases 

in papulation, both locally and elsewhere in California. 

~~mFQRFSrpLANNING 

Natimal Forest land is public land, and its value accrues to the public. 

The value of Forest land and resources is of two kinds: proaucts with 

ecoKmic value an3 ttnse that do rot lend themselves to ecoIloRic 

quantification, such as a"ation and enjopent of our natural heritage. 

The need to manage Forest lands and resources in a way that will provide the 

greatest net public benefit, taking into cca7sideration both kinds of values, 

is bath a public issue and a management concern. 

Ecananic efficiency analysis de- the effect of different managemnt 

strategies on the ecory3mic values of Forest resources, using the measure of 

present Net Value (PNV). The laryest benefit capnents of PNV are the 

e"ic values associated with recreatron use (including wildlife and 

fish-related recreation), water, energy, timber, fueld, and grazing. The 

cost canponents of PNV include such eanxlnl 'c factors as Forest management 

expenditures, resource losses, and the oppunity cost of p?xducing amenity 

benefits (such as the value of potential timber and recreation outputs lost 

to maintain scenic quality). PNV plus rzm-priced benefits represent net 

public benefit. 

SPHERG OF "a 

Over the past twenty years, Pcqxllatim growth for Inyo and Mono Camties 

averaged about 630 people per year with net in-migration making up mre than 

30 percent of M population gains. 

224 
papulaticm gmwth has been closely associated with increases in recreational 

-ties and, in particular, increased alpine skiing. This growth rate 

is expectd to subside grackally. leveling out annmd the year 2020. The 

median age for the two-coun* area is 34.5 years, well We the 30.8 year 

median age for the state. This fact: is due in part to the nxxeatimal 

oppxhnities that awact retiring senior citizens. Pesonal inmne in the 

two CollIlties averages $14,300. The area is mxe than 90 percent White, 7.3 

percent American Indian, and 5.6 percent Hispanic; Black, Asian, and other 

races tcgethe.c make up less than 2 percent of the p3pulatim. 

papulation charaderistics, pattams of change, g-phic characteristics, 

and relatiaship with the Farest are omsiderably different for FYesm, 

Tulare, and Madera Counties. These three counties tcgethw ccmtajn less than 

14 percent of Forest lands, they are mre densely mated, and they are 

located primarily 081 the West side of the Sierra Nevada. The median age for 

this three-mty region is 29 years, and the per-capita average i"3 is 

well over $15,000. Mxe than 29 percent of the region is Hispanic, and otter 

ethnic gruups are well represented. This ethnic pattern is due in part to 

the ag~3cultural emghasis of the San JW Valley. Agriculture and tha 

West-sias! timber ilxbtry OVerShadOw any social benefits the Inyo National 

Forest may provide. 

The social benefits to Nevada counties derived fmn the Inyo National Forst 

are far ouMghed by tkss of the Toiyabe National Forest; the Bureau of 

Land Management; the U.S. military; and agricultural, mining, and gaming 

ir&stries in southern Nevada. 

Inyo and Mxn Counties serve as the primary zone of social influ- for the 

Irryo Na. Forest. Both counties lie east of the Sierra Nevada crest and 

togem ccntain 85 percent of Inyo Naticmal Forest lands. The lifestyles, 

quality of life, and social values of the hdividuals in this area are 

&pendent to varyjng aegreeS upm Forest resxlrces and facilities. 

Parz"t to the quality of life in the Eastern Sierra is the sense of open 

spaces, rugged- . , dramatic vistas, scenic quality, clean air and water, 

and abundant recreatianal opporturu 'ties which the Fos-t provides. These 

natural resowxe attxibtes are coupled with the attributes of ICW 

polailation density, slaw growth, simple lifestyles, snall ammnmities, 

limited sezvices, arid a prevailing feeling of self-reliance and 

Wvidualisn. 

As the primary zcne of influence, the *county area is expected to receive 

dired, identifiable, and "rable benefits and potentia impacts fran ~nyo 

Naticmal Forest management and plicies. Inyo and Ptxn Counties have 

prducticm, grazing, fuelwood supplies, fire protecticol, timber prcductim, 

and recreaticmal opprhmities. The recreation ~orogram has particular 

importance here, as it is has a major influence upan the local lifestyle, 

conrmnity stability, and polailaticm growth. 

important ties to the Forest thraugh 1- 'P w-ts, energy 

225 
Table 32 

Inpact Criteria and Data Used to Sdect 

Inyo and May, camties as tl.k= zone of Influare 

Ckunty size (sq. mi.)l 158,693 10,097 3,103 4,844 2,147 5,448 

Percent of county 20.0% 12.1% 58.3% 28.7% 30.2% 36.5% 

in National Forest 

Percent of qlrlty 1.8% 12.1% 39.1% 6.1% 3.8% * 

Percent 05 Inyo N.F. 96.7% 41.1% 42.0% 9.7% 2.6% 1.3% 

5n Inyo N.F. 

in county 

Population, 1980 23,669 17.9 8.6 245.7 63.1 514.6 

(M people) 

Pascms per square mile' 149.1 1.8 2.8 50.7 29.4 94.5 

Projq Population 28,508 25.8 14.2 338.7 78.3 696.1 

for 2000 (M people) 

Median age 30.8 34.6 34.5 28.3 29.5 28.5 

Age distrihtion, 1980: 

<18 Years of age (%) 27.0% 24.8% 20.8% 32.8% 32.6% 30.7% 

65 and older (%) 10.2% 13.2% 5.8% 10.0% 11.6% 9.2% 

18-64 years of age (%) 62.8% 62.0% 73.4% 57.2% 55.8% 60.1% 

Man w-3~ 16,961 14,448 14,000 14,600 15,308 15,645 

i"e, 1979 (dollars) 

Racial distribution 

white 77.0% 88.9% 93.2% 73.3% 79.4% 73.7% 

Hispanic origin 19.2% 6.1% 4.7% 29.8% 26.8% 29.3% 

American Indian 1.0% 9.0% 3.9% 1.0% 1.7% 0.9% 

Black 7.7% * * 1.4% 3.4% 4.9% 

Asian and Pacific Islands 5.5% * 0.5% 2.1% 0.9% 2.9% 

others 8.8% 1.5% 2.2% 22.2% 18.3% 17.6% 

*Less than one-fifth of one percent. 

(1) ?unual Re- of Financial Transactions &"ug ' Counties of California 

Fiscal Year 1980-81, State Contxoller Kenneth Cory. 

(2) papulation Projections for California cxnmties 1975-2020 with Age/Sex 

Detail to 2000, Series E-150, California DeLparbiait of Finance, December 

1977. 

(3) California Statistical Abstract, 1981, California Deparbnent of Finance. 

(4) Land Areas of the National Forest System, USDA, Forest Service, September 

30, 1980. 

(5) Residents of California Classified as "Black," University of California 

Cooperative Extension, Rural and Camnnu 'ty Developnent, September 1983. 

226 
sautharn California is a sxcda~~ zone of Social influence. The residents 

of San Diego, Los Angela, Oraqe, Ventura, Riverside, and San Ea" 

camties make heavy use of the Farest for reCn2atiala-l plIposes. The demand 

of southern Californians for recreatiDn StrOnrJly affects the Forest and 

social factors in many of the annumities in Inyo and MXrl Qxnties. The 

dal inpact of Farest activities cn Southem California, however, while 

perhaps- tto"l ' individuals or groups of individuals, is last in 

the large size, huge populaticn, and diverse social structure of that area. 

SocZALGRaJPs 

Manq€mllt directi cn and resource mtputs of the Irryo National Forest affect 

sevaral 1- social gmqxs, each of which places different demands and 

values cn Farest w. Six major social group within the primary zone 

of influerce were identified through literature review, prsonal inMews, 

and research of available data sources. These groups are: long-time 

residents, regimal recxeatimists, seasmal employees, special use 

permittees, American Indians, and retirees. 

social groups are categories of people based on shared activities, interests 

and c"s: uley am not mtually exclusive, as an individual may belag to 

mxe than one group. Mcwever, the consquences of Forest manag-t and 

policies are similar for Mviduals within a group and sawwhat dissimilar 

between groups. Al- not expeded to describe all individuals within a 

given group, the follmirg group characteristics are iLssLrmed to apply in 

geceral tennS for the purpose of auating the Social inpacts of Forest 

Wsions in the Farest plw process. 

Lcng-time Residents 

Laq-tjme residents are a diverse group of people identified primarily as 

those livirg in the area for ten years or lcuqer. This larye group is fourxi 

wxking in every sectcn of the lm ecoiIlcmy including mining, retail sales, 

ranching, logging, remeati.cn, and swices. 

The lmg-time resident tends to be strcrgly self-reliant, believes in the 

importance of hard e, bids to traditimal values, and wants to live in a 

rural area. 

P=W=t=%J ' , offers mch grazing land, and provides mxe than five million 

visitor days of recceatiOn a~~~~ally, Forest policies potentially affect many 

of the lag-time residents in the primaq zcne of influence. 

Regianal Recceaticnists 

oriented lifestyle. This group includes s0cXmd-m owners and 

Because the Forest bids atnmdant e 'ties for mining and 

Regimal reCreatianists are attracted to the area to enjoy a recreationremeaticmists win enjoy the area for surmex vacations and weekend winter 

skiing. The latter group is paxticularly important to the ecc~smy of the 

area. 

227 
Recreaticnal visitors place great demands on the area and have high 

expxtaticms for their recreational pursuits. These individuals fuel a major 

portion of the win- tourist a"y and a substantial mion of the sumner 

ecw"y as well. While this social group is canlpsed of many subgroups, its 

members have sone ca"n values. They want to enjoy themselves, and -they 

attractions of the area. 

value the broad raqe of recreational opprhu 'ties and the scenr 'C 

Sd-kme owner^ doubled in be- 1970 and 1980. Increased 

speculation and real estate irnrestrnen ts drwe hDusing and renw costs up 

substantially during that time period. There has been a r-t slcwirag in 

seccold-hane ilwe&En ts. Hawler, as interest rates decline, as additional 

ski areas are clemloped, and as the c" over potential volcanic activity 

subsides, expansion will probably resume. 

employees win reside in the area are typically young individuals 

with a primary of pursuing an outclmr lifestyle. Eamirg a living is 

often a seamdaq goal. If they am mt able to obtain full-time employment, 

these people are de-t upn the large seasonal employment market in the 

area. 

There are currently 972 total special use mts on the Inyo National 

Forest, governing land uses on 34,960 acres of Forest land. special use 

permits are issued- for a variety of pnpxes, including agricultural, 

industrial, recreational, resear&, tramprtation, and water uses. special 

use permittees are especially important to cmmnmities such as Mammth and 

June Lake, both of which have alpine ski areas on Forest land under special 

use permit. In 1980, the 546 remeation special use permits alone brought 

over $1.29 millicm to the federal treasury, 25 percent of which was returned 

to lrxal county gom"ts. The Forest ranks first in the nation in 

rwenues received frun recreation special use permits. 

American Indians 

Nearly 2,000 Paiute-Shsbm Indians live on the following reservati- in 

Irryo county: Eentcn Paiute Reservation, JiWicIgeport Rancheria, Big Pine 

Resfzvation, Bi- Reservation, Ft. Independence Resenration, and Lane Pine 

Resfzvation. Other Indians live off the ressnrations in 1- cumnmities. 

These individuals face the cultural and racial biases often encountered by 

minority groups. The housing, educational, cultural, heal*, and social 

needs of those Indians on reservaticms are &ly met on the reservation. 

The a socio-ecaa7anic need mt a&quately pmvided for is emplayment. 

The Iradlan way of life, beliefs, arad values are intermven with nature, the 

ernrirownent, and the muntains of the area. Many Indian religious sites, 

spiritual areas, and traditional food gathering areas are located on National 

Forest land. This gnxp also relies to Varying aegreeS on the Forest for 

deer, rabbit, upland game birds, fish, berries, pinyon nuts, other foods and 

materials, and employmeut. The Indian typically favors protection of the 

Forest; however, because of their 1- history of residence in the area, they 

228 
Scmetimes feel that their rights derived fion Mticilal uses smuld allow 

them to be free fm CeItaln ' regulations. ~pressure(HIFOE& 

rescRllces will continue to bring about manag€iw.nt limitations and potential 

conflicts with traditional uses of the American Indian. 

Retirees 

Senior citizens, a sqgnent of the population W nmb~~~ are increasing, 

are aihxcted to the area because of its -ti& cqprtunities, relaxed 

pace of life, and rural envirckment. Many retirees come to the area frun 

southern California. 

Marry retirees moving into the area are affluent and able to afford the high 

costs of hxsing and living which typify tourist and resort areas. However, 

a full 10 percent of the mre than 2,700 people over 65 years of age is below 

the pnrerty level ac"g ' to the 1980 census. These people are sensitive 

to any rises in costs or taxes and lcwk to the Forest for employment. 

Because retirees cans to the area and stay because of its rural and natural 

and recreatirmal opprtum 'ties, this group supports pIvtection of many 

of the r-axeaticilal and visual resources. !"IaPq retirees do, l-sxwer, want 

vehicle access to the Forest and are anly selectively supportive of issues 

such as wilderness -ti.cns; they are often cancemed abut policies 

such as length-of-stay limitations in aeVelopd -. Retirees enjoy 

wing, fishing, hunting, visitor services, and nature activities on 

the Forest. Because their inCane is not clasely tied to market cutputs, 

they are less likely to have a strrslg interest in timber or grazing 

pl-cductim unless ?xc!n?atilmal or visual resources are directly affected. 

Qle exc&ptim, lxwever, may be fuel-, which is used by the majority of 

people in the area to defray high energy costs for lnm heating durjng the 

winter mths. 

AIRm 

Issues, ccncerns. and- 'ties 

The Vuea areas of pxima~~ management amcezn regarding air quality are 

dust, regional haze, and me. Dust in the area is generated by traffic on 

unsurfacd roads and the expxure of soil by vegetation manipdatim, 

lakes, and the abandckmeut: of croplands. Regia haze is an infrequent 

problem "irg when atrnwpharic dticm allow haze frun the Centxal 

Valley to nuve UPrJard and eastward across Imja National Forest lands. We 

can be caused by wildfire, prescribed burnirg, or heating with wwd in local 

cn"ities. 

(xlrrent directi 'm calls for the Forest to e" . te with federal, state, and 

local agaies to minimize the deterioratbn of air qyality and to maintain 

dent air quality standards. These ends are achieved by applying Best 

Available ocntrol Techniques and by rwiewing mtim of Significant 

livestock grazirg, mi.Ilhg, grmmdwaw pumping, the dewatering of aucaline 

229 
Deterioratim pennitS when approlpiate. Activities initiated off-Forest that 

ccniid affect air quality over the Forest are handled in amperation with the 

local agencies respclnsible for regulating the activity. 

Activities cm National Forest land that have the potential to affect air 

quality are slnke management, vegetaticm manag-t, geottmmal developst, 

and mining. Landownership adjustment wuld have an indirect effect if the 

new landowner develqed the land in such a way that air quality was 

affeded. Samke and ged3wmal Caevelopsts are handled by applying Best 

Available oontrol Techniques and Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

permits. The effects of 1-'p adjustment, however, are difficult to 

mitigate. Once land is excharged into private ownershl 'p, the activities on 

that land fall outside Forest Se?xice cimtrol. Such land is typically used 

for ccmnunity growth, with a resulting irmease in wood heating and vehicle - emissions. 

The Inyo National Forest lies in the Great Basin and Central Valley 

ai.Eh&s. Theca?=atBasinairsbed wvers the 1,685,ooO acres of Forest larad 

on the east side of the Sierra NeMda d. Of these lands, 268,430 acres 

are wilderness managed under Class I (the highest level) air quality 

pocotediapl. Theremainder is managed uxkr Class I1 (moderate) protection. 

Prevailing air "ents are fmu west to east with occasional stz-cmg 

northerly or southerly winds associated with fmntal systems. 

The central Valley airshed covers the 262,650 acres of the Forest that lie on 

the west side of the Sierra Nevada crest. These lands include portions of 

the Kern Plateau at the south end of the Forest and the headwaters of the San 

Joa~pin River in the Reds Meadow-Devils Postpile area west of Mammth 

bbuntain. 

designated by the 1964 Wilderness Act receive Class I protection). 

prevailing air 

Air quality is managed under the regulations of the Clean Air Act in 

MordiMticBl with the State Air Resaurces Board and local Air Pollution 

Control District (APCD). Air quality on the Forest meets State air basin 

objectives nvre than 99 percent of the time. Exceptions are localized, 

temporary, and (for the most part) outside Forest Service control. 

Mmitoring stations operated by the AFUJ indicate airme particulate levels 

that exceed basin objectives on veq windy days €ran dust and on early 

nwmiqs in winter from wood heating mupled with atmspheric inversions. 

Air- ' the M"th Lakes cumnmity exceeded acceptable levels on 

nwre than 30 days in 1984. 

Dust is generated by any activity that exposes the soil to air "ents. 

There are several prhaxy sources of dust on and near the Inyo National 

Forest. 

Water divcxsions and exports €mu the valleys have resulted in the partial 

dewatering of Owens Lake and bh-a Lake and the abandonment of farmlands. 

These exposed lakebe& and farmlands lie in the Owens Valley and Mono Basin 

Ninety percent of Forest lands in the Central Valley airshed are 

wil-; 20 percent receive Class I pmtection. (only wildernesses 

are driven by the jet stream frun west to east. 

The most noteworthy of these are associated with dewatered areas. 

230 
between mollntain raqes encanpassed by Natimal Forest land. Wind-carried 

Visibility has been affected to the extent that Deparbnent of Defense test 

flights over the Owens Valley are harpxed or shut dcwn six to twelve times 

each year. The mty, the AFiD, the City of Los ikqeles, the Deparbnent of 

Defense, and the Farest service are nla?&q czon3na ' ted efforts to resolve 

this lxaxxxn. 

smoke mg-t is not a major Large wildfires of 

lag duration are una", air dispersion is generally excellent during the 

fire seascm, and Euescribed lnlming occurs U&?r the guidelines of BACPS, 

"iziq the effect cm air quality. srrake manag-t plans will, however, 

be &velopd in mj~cm with the Fire Management Action Plan scheduled 

for developnent wer the next ten years. smoke mg-t will also be an 

elenent of prescribed fire plarming and individual prescribed fire 

envirckmentalassessnents. 

Mining, livestock grazing, and traval on unsurfaced roads have left certain 

areas denuded or sparsely vegetated, allowing wind -ion to OCCUT and air 

quality to suffer. These problems are, howevar, localized. The Forest has 

thecp&" 'ty to resolvs these a"s by road watering, alternate salt 

block placement, better livestock dispersian, mining site rehabilitation, and 

irrigation. 

Ck"ity gmwth within the Forest bornndary (especially at Marmoth and June 

Lake) has the potential to affect air quality. Vehicle dssions and &e 

fmn wxd hea- are pin!a~~ air quality factors. Altbough the Forest 

service has little ccntrol over activities an private land, it indirectly 

affects cc"ity growth by makhg land available for exchange into the 

private sector and by allowing ski areas to expand, increasing recreatiml 

useoftheareaandsupgrhq ' a larger resident ccmnunity. 

Another factor that could influence air quality, both thrcugh direct 

emissim and ca"ity growth, is geothermal developnent. Steam plumes, 

sulfur dioxide and hydxgen sulfide, and other chemical contaminants could be 

emitted, depending on the type of developnent and the mitigation technology 

available. S-al acid rain and depition studies are currently being 

COnd~Cted in or near C1a.s~ I the Forest. Study results will 

identify the appropriate Air eUality Related Values (AWVs) to "itor for 

each area and the extent of impacts, if any, these areas have received. 

dust fmn expx€d lards in the valley aff& air quality over the Forest. 

on the Forest. 

Issues, cancerns, ind oppcahnu 'ties 

public issues relating to cultural resources focus on the need to inventory 

those resources and protect them from damage and destmction. A second issue 

is reflected in the high level of public interest in interpretive activities 

dealing with cultural resource subjects. A third issue of increasing 

importance is the desire of local American Indians to use Forest lands for 

traditicnal religious and cultural practices. As these activities are not 

necessarily associated with visible cultural remains, close coordination with 

Indian groups is needed when implementing Forest activities. 

231 
Manag-t concerns also address the need to inventory and ensure the 

protecticsl of cultural resources. In addition, managmt is concerned that 

cultural resource manag-t objectives (especially canpliance with legal 

requirawits for ‘ s which could affect cultural resources) be 

effectively intqraM with the managanent of other Forest resources and 

activities. Managemat also has the respansibility to - that there are 

m barriers to traditional American Indian religious and cultural land uses. 

The Forest has the cppxtum ‘ty through the use of its awn facilities and 

perso~el and through interfacing with 1- institutions (such as schools 

and muse-) to intwt OUT cultural heritage for the public. 

Background 

Current research indicates that Eastern California and Western Nevada have 

been occupied for at least the past 10,000 years. The most recent 

prehiskric residents and users of the area (including what iS llow National 

Forest system land) include the Northern Paiute, Shoshone, Miwok, wasb, 

Kawaiisu, Tubtulabal, Koso, and I%nache. Members of each of these groups 

still live in various parts of the western Great Basin and the west slope of 

the Sierra Nevada. Euro-American groups: entered the region in the early 

nineteenth century and have used the Forest primarily for timber harvest, 

“J, ranchiq, andrecreation. 

AS of o~tober 1, 1983, approximately 97,000 acres (5 percent) of the Forest 

had heen inventoried for cultural resources. Ninety percent of the total 

jnventory (in terms of gross acreage) has been conducted in preparation for 

timber sales and other Forest-initiated or authorized activities that could 

affect cultural values. The existing data base is, therefore, skewed by 

having been aollected only on a project basis and primarily in the Jeffrey 

pine forest on the rnrthem one-third of the Forest. More mtensive 

inventory is needed on the remaining 95 percent (approximately 1.9 million 

acres) Of the Forest. 

Appraximately 1,700 cultural properties have been recorded; 1,500 dating to 

the prehistoric perid and 200 to the historic period. Based on 

extraplation fran quantitatively-de5d predictive models and raw site 

data, it is estimated that the Forest includes mre than 35,000 prehistoric 

and historic cultural proprties. In addition, the density of sites per acre 

an the Inyo is substantially higher than on many other Forests in the 

Region. The hyo averages 1 site per 59 acres, in contrast with 1 per 105 

acres and 1 per 245 on the Argeles and Take National Forests respectively. 

Approximately 12,000 acres per year are currently bekg inventoried. RougNy 

prcgram. The rate of timber-oriented inventoq is vted to decline within 

the next ten years; however, all harvestable areas will have been examined. 

Copies of all site acd survey documentatian are currently supplied to the 

aPK0pria-b Infomation Centers of the California or Nevada Archaeologicel 

Inventories as part of project cwnsultaticn. 

After project-initiated hventories are canpleted, canpliance requirements 

for project inplgnentaticsl are met primarily by impact avoidance (pmtxkion) 

as agreed to by the a-iate California or Nevada State Historic 

Preservation Officer. In the case of timber managemnt activities, this 

95 percent of the Mal was in dired support of the timber managmt 

232 
approach relies primarily on the use of special over-the-- lcgging 

techiques. 

several years in consultatim with the California Office of Historic 

Presxvatim. The effect of stipulating over-the-5-c~ logging is to 

eliminate the need to reduce the land base available for timber harvest in 

order to plotect cultural values. C2nsultation with the State Historic 

Presematim Officer, Keeper of the National Register, and the Advisory 

Cburn5.1 m Historic -tim are canpleted in accordance with the 

requirements of 36 CFR 800. 

Site-by-site and project-by-project evaluation and mnpliance cannrltation 

mq. 

are extremely labor-intensive and geared primarily taward E;hort-tenn 

For this reascm, the Forest has initiated, through the efforts 

of in-ed reseaTchers and volunteers, developnent of a nmkr of 

efficient type-of-site and --of-project evaluation studies and 

cmpliance-related Memoranda of Agreement. These iraclude -the-- 

logging, as mted above and characterization of primary (quarry) and 

secrwdary obsidian ' camp (directed primarily to meeting 

cmpliance requirements relating to timber management activities where 

over-the-slow 1- stiplaticms are mt applicable). 

As of octoberr 1, 1983, Naticmal Register x" * tiom and/or eligibility 

criteria set forth in 36 CFR 60) and suhnitkd to the State Historic 

mtim Officer and Keeper of the Natimal Register. Of these 

properties, fourteen have beIl de- ' eligible and/or actually ncminated 

to the Register. These Sites are listed below by State kcinanial or by name. 

These techniques have been develop3 and tested wer the past 

determinations for 45 PIOperties had been mads (us- the process and 

MoBy3 OXIIty: C+PN3-11, -34, -446, -471 H, -529, -542, -584, -823,-1644, 

-1645; 

Inyo OXIIty: a-INY-1308, -2285, Lcm Chaney's Cabin, Tuttle creek Ashram. 

The Natimal Register Properties need to be maintained in such a way as to 

p"w their integrity. This can be done through a program of "arrested 

decay" to prevent further natural deterioratim. These properties also m*m- 'ties for cultural resource interpretation. Another 

element in proMm is -tim of vandalism. This can be approached 

thmugh effective msritoring and law enforcment measures and through public 

e"xwnt can be &xe in cnnjumtim with lccal schools and historical 

societies and tlucugh Forest visitor facilities. protedion through 

education wnuld -thus dovetail with cultural resource interpretation. In 

addition to the facilities and institutions listed above, there are many 

OpprtImities for m-sit0 interpretiv3 displays. 

ealcatim. Public ealcatim adJ3ESsiI-g the need to protect the cultural 

A FT&Mmric Overview was prepared for the Forest in 1978. Data colleCtian 

and analysis were &me frun a theoretical orientatim of human cultural 

ecology. There 

is IW Historical overview at this time. 

The F"ic Overview nop poses a hiermcal research design with threa 

stages. In 

cos0 regicn, sou- ad narthern Owens Valley, Glass Mmntain Ridga, and 

The ethnography of the area is touched on in the Overview. 

First, there is a need to &velop settlement/sutsistence models. 

CrdW to do this, additimal data are needed fm the fOllCwirg areas: the 

233 
the Mxn Basin. !Ibis data needs to be generated ohrough a probabilistic 

sanplirg strategy, nrrt derived solely fton project surveys. In the secrmd 

stage, the nudels need to be tested on a type-of-site basis. Thirdly, 

rnyo-wxn mgicm, such as trans-Sierran exchange, food pra3ucticm and 

irrigatim in the Owens Valley, an3 the developnent of -lex social 

organization. Implicit in all three stages is the need to refine existing 

regional chnrmologies. 

1q-m resBarch needs to be carried out m pmblems unique to the 

A EUnqmpMc Ovemiew, which includes the current ccolcerns of tbe 

American Indian “nmity, is needed. An Historical Overview fmn which to 

develop research questicms and to provide a context in which to evaluate 

significance is also needed. 

DIVERSITY 

Issues, ckncans, andogqo” ‘ties 

The public sees diversity as an issue cm all National Forest Systa lands and 

has asked that diversity be defined in terms of ecotypes within the entire 

ecosystem ra- than in m limited terms. In reality, diversity is mch 

m than the juxtapasiticm and typs of vegetation camnnu ‘ties. This is 

merely me asped. Diversity is a cunbination of physical and biological 

paEnanena that caprise habitats and the species that occupy these habitats: 

plant species, seral stages, cram closure, vegetation st~h, mags, dam 

logs, physiographic features and a myriad of other paraniem. 

Diversity is addmsed LIS&YJ nxpimmnts developed for: vegetation patterns; 

down logs: snags; threatened, endangered and sensitive species; species 

amsidered ecolcgical indicators; species of special interest; hanest 

species: aquatic/riparian ecosystems: sensitive plants; and several other 

criteria. The CCBlcept of diversity was developxl to ensure that the 

viability of all plant and animal species be maintained. 

In this sectiagl the eqhsis is on diversity of plant cmnmmitiffi. 

subjects are discussed elsewher%. 

Management is CaBlCerned with managing natural forces (such as insects, 

disease, and fire) to maintain diversity in the long term while minimizing 

the disruptive influences of those forces in the short term. Management is 

also COIlcemed with meeting the demand for land uses, such as hydrcelectric 

and geothermal developnenis, mad and utility Corridors, canpg-om, timber 

management, and mineral extraction, that threaten to reduce ecological 

diversity. 

(2”s with diversity focus primarily on riparian areas, “nercial timber 

areas, and shrub types. In those areas, hoth the potential for and threats 

to diversity are greatest. Pbst Forest managenient activities take place in 

and affect the a”t and dtion of riparian areas. Carmercial timber 

management reiuces the number and size of old growth stah% in particular, 

and Species and seral stage diversity in general. Lack of shrub rejwenation 

results in decadent Shrub carmunitiffi. 

The other 

234 
The best -ties on the Ir-lyo to inu€a9a vegetative diversity Wi+h3lt 

cxnflict=ing Wii3.I other resuIces are in the shrub and pinycsl-juniper 

vegetatim types. W is erywgh acmage in those types to develop a 

desiredmLr of species ana seral stages. 

For the nnst part, the specific mitat elements mti& below can easily 

bemaintainedmtheFbrest. Althuighth€m3thereth?=€?atstomofthese 

elements, manag-t should be able to prevent than fian beccming critical. 

The exception is dead and down woody vegetatim, as that is the material most 

often taken for pblic-use fuel&. 

There am m -ties to manage chaparral, as that vegetation type 

occurs mly as scattered imlusicms in other vegetation types at the 

southwest em3 of the Kern Plateau and totals an estimated 200 to 400 acres on 

the Forest. 

During the last 150 years, the location and species ccmposition of 

~1 the Forest have charged little, althnqh the seral stages, relative 

extent, and condition of those ecosystems have changed considerably. 

Diversity appears to be deaeasirg slowly Forest-wide. 

Decadence: Plantccmmnu ‘ties mJve naturally through a series of successicmal 

(or seral) stages toward a climax dtion, or final seral stage. This 

diseases, Bxtreme weather -ti-, or fire. When natural 

son is tplmed, the plant “mity is often retuned to an earlier 

seral stage, or rejuvenated. When exqstem progress Ward later seral 

stages, woody vegetaticm Such as trees and shrubs become mre daninant, and 

gr- and other herbaceaus (m-mcdy) vegetation am displaced. In 

additim, as woody vegetatim itself ages, its grcwth slows considerably, and 

the stand is said to beonne decadent. 

Natural fixes played an important role in ths ecosystem before European 

settlement of the westem United States. Fire maintained seral stage 

diversity by rejuvenation, pqetuatiq the types and patterns of vegetation 

needed for wildlife food and cover. In most coniferous forests, fires 

created openings and thinned the forest, allowing for the growth of herbs and 

shrubs. In semiarid climates, where fires were mre frequent, shrub and 

&fer growth was inhibited and limited to rocky outcrops and other sites 

with topographic features limiting the accumulation of fuels and spread of 

fires. 

With the advent of well organized fire suppression activities in the 1930s, 

vegetation advanced toward older seral stages witlyxlt the ~k&i 

rejuvenatiig effect of pericdic fires. Conifers and other wxdy plants 

disglaced the grasses and other herbaceous vegetation characteristic of 

earlier seral stages, and vegetative diversity declined. 

Riparian Areas: Riparian areas, including wet meadows, represent only two 

pnmt of total Inyo Natimal Forest lands. Riparian diversity on the 

Forest has declined due to heavy recreation use, especially developed cangirg 

in riparian areas: the dewatering of approximately fifty miles of stream for 

is interrupted frClll to by Mkal fOrceS Such aS anhlalS, 

235 
irrigation, danestic use, and hydrcelectric developnent; and the impacts of 

past grazing practices on 26,000 acres of wet ". In areas where erosion 

has lowaTed the water table, wet meadows have dried out and woody vegetation 

is in the process of replaciq grasses and other herbaceous types. Much of 

the wet meadow on the F-t is inside the Golden Trout Wilderness. As the 

use of prescribed fire specifically for the me of enhancing vegetative 

diversity is not an option in wildemess, and as prescribed fire for the 

purp3se of main- wilderness values has not been identified as a need, 

those meadows will continue to ~dogress toward older seral stages daninated 

by vegetation. Eventually the wet meadows themselves will be replaced 

by dryland shrub and forest carrrmnities. 

Forested Lands: Clmiferous forests tentatively suitable for cnrmercial 

harvest represent less than six percent of the total Forest land base. 

Diversity in the coniferous forest is affected primarily by timber 

management. Timber stands managed for aptir" wood production fall into the 

early-to-middle seral stages. Consequently, the forest acreage in older 

seral stages (old grcwth) declines as mre forested acreage is brought under 

management. &cause timber in wildemess c-t be managed either for wood 

prcduction or for vegetative diversity, and since fires in wilderness are 

suppressed, forested lands in wilderness are increasiqly &"ted by older 

seral stages. 

shrub and Pinyon -JdW Types : Bitterbrush, big sage, and pinyon-juniper 

typeS Cover 800,884 acres, or 42 percent of the Forest. Bitterbrush and 

sagebrush stands on the Forest are estimates to average forty to sixty years 

of age. Bitterbrush becanes decadent at abut seventy years of age. 

sagebrush may last iqer, but loses pxductivity at abt thirty years of 

age. 

Diversity in shrub ca"ities has been reduced primarily by fire managewmt 

and grazing. Wder natural amditions, shrub ecotypes mature until they 

reach the climax or subclimax stage. Wildfires pexidically reduce the 

eootype to an earlier seral stage. The rmsaic of fire-driven seral-stage 

diversity within the ecotype, in turn, fosters diversity of plant species. 

rorproVea fire prevention and suppressian have apparently interrupted this 

Mbd pXX%SS. 

Fire suppression and livestock grazing have contribute3 to the &n&nant shrub 

stands in these vegetative c%"ities. Both of these practices favor shrub 

invasion and reduca the herbaceci~~ anpzxmt within these stands. In 

addition, the xeric climatic cxmditions and precipitation patterns favor 

shrub ercroadment. In less than 150 years these vegetative ComrmnitieS went 

fran pr& ' tly shrub-steppe type with well-developed herbaceous 

udersbries to p=&" ' tly shrub-claninaw stands with little or M 

understary. 

Vegetation management to enhance wildlife or livestock forage prcduction on 

shrub lands cm the Inyo have not historically been conducted on the scale 

necessil~y to awntexact increasirag decadence. The major reason for this is 

the inability to predict results of habitat hp"n t. In favorable 

climatic years, desirable respsnses can be attained by remnring the shrub 

oversby. Hcwever, in unf~le climatic years, treated areas can be 

irnmded by undesirable shrub species and annual exotics. As a result, shrub 

236 
annumities sbow a cckitinuing trend toward older, less proauctive seral 

stages. On the Inyo, an estimated 6,800 acres of bitterbrush and big 

sagebrush would have to be rejWenatea annually in order to maintain a 

"m of 20 percent of shrub lands in the oldest seral stage. 

Grazing, a mjor activity CUI the Farest, has probably prolqed divasity for 

sum ecatypes by ext- the duration of given seral stages. For example, 

bitterbrush is tkught to be m vigorclus and lasting if mxlerately grazed 

than if not grazed at all. Graziq managewnt has also probably increased 

diversity outside of riparian areas by developing water sources that are 

available for water-demt plant gmwth, as well as for livestock. 

Pinycm-juniper cxnnwnities have increased substantially in the WeSteLn u. s., 

including the Inyo, as a result of fire suppmssian efforts. These spcies 

are aggressive i" in the absence of fire. mical pinyon-juniper 

stands have tmsh -ies with a ply-developed herbaceous cmpnent. 

Specific Habitat Elements: Managing the full raqe of seral stages in mjor 

plant annumities would -tribute greatly to maintainiq overall eoolcgical 

diwity. Howevar, many plant and animal species de- an specific habitat 

elements, as well as (or instead of) ge"l vegetation types. These 

elements include: standirg dead trees (snags), dead and down logs, 

narlti-storied forest "pies, rock outcrops, cliffs, caves, water bodies, 

and isolated ecotypes, such as aspen groves. 

Forest Servica policy and direction for the management of timber, range, 

fish, wildlife, riparian areas, water quality, energy, minerals, fire, 

recreation, and visual quality all have an effect on vegetative diversity. 

The major driving force behind the maintenance of dimity is the mian 

to maintain viable papulations of all vertebrate species native to the Forest 

and to establish management indicator species for all vegetation types. seral 

stages, and special habitat elements affected by Forest Service manag-t 

activities. 

JmERG!cGE"w&(sesMineral s: Leasable) 

Is-, CaEenlS, and 9, .- 'ties 

A "nber of public issues and management MC~C~ZT~S have been raised in 

relatim to the dsvelopnent of new mlectric facilities in Inyo and bm 

mties. These issues and (2"s address potential ~licts between 

diverting water fm st" for pawer g-atian and leaving water in place 

tonlairltaininstream values and water-dependent resources. The generatim of 

additicplal energy cceild rduca the anwunt and wnditian of aquatic and 

riparian wildlife habitats, scenic quality, and water-based recreation. 

Hydroelectric licenses are issued by tbe Federal hergy Regulatory Carmission 

(FERC), the lead agency in gueparing an envirornnental docsument for each 

mjed. The Farest sarvice reviews FERC applicatims and proposes cmditicms of developnent (related to the land and resources potentially 

237 
affected) to be included as stiprlaticns of the FERC license. Chce a license 

is issued, the Farest Service issuas a special-use permit for cmstrucidcm 

and opsration of the project facilities. Project fees are paid to FERC, 

except for the few projects exelqhd by mc. 

!Ria Forest has the qJprhmityin the Forest pl~procass toanalyze the 

potential envFramental impacts of water diversicm on other resources and to 

set specific dtions that neLst be met when hydmslectrjrc projects are 

developed. Such directicm warld improve the amsistenCy of treatment from 

cma applicatim to another and facilitate the evaluation of cumulative 

impacts. 

Small hydrcelectric pwsx projects are defined as tkse that generate five 

megawatts or less. Small hydroelectric potential on the Inyo is high because 

many streams on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada and west slope of the 

whitec.kuntainsan3~ .al and drop rapidly in elevaticm. There is little 

existing laevelopent alcq the streanr;, and nnst of the valuable lands are 

available because ifmy are publicly awned. Southem California, which is 

presently served by major fossil fuel plants with high operatkg costs, 

represents an attractive market for electricity from mall hycimelectric 

projects. 

Six hyclroslectric projects are currently operating, and applicaticns have 

been suhni- for fifteen additional projeds 081 fifteen streams. Existing 

and propased SMll hydrcelectric projects on Forest lands are 

nm-of-the-river types, ccmsisting of a mall diversion impounamen t, 

penstock, and pwsx Plant. Tr- . ‘on lines are rsquired to feed the 

generated power into the apprcpiate public utility system. It is necessary 

w. 

to divert mJst of the water in an affected stream in order to ”ize energy 

Major hydroelectric p3wer projects generate mre than five megawatts of 

electricity. The following major hydroelectric facilities on the II-FJCJ 

generate a total of 52,000 megawatts: 

- Southern California Fdim #1388 - Lee Vining creek 

- Southern California Fdim #1389 - Rush c3reek 

- Southern California Edim #1390 - Lundy Oxek 

- Southern California Edim #1394 - Bishop CYeek. 

The demand for hydrcelectric pmr has increased in recent years as a result 

of the ~ti- desire for energy self-sufficiency and the search for an 

inexpnsive, mnw1lutJsq enezgy sou~ce. There is, hazrever, sane question 

whether the -1 hydruelectric CCBlcept will pmve cost-effective when all 

resourcesareddesed. 

238 
“tx: SaLAR 

Issues, -, ad cippmhd ties 

The plbliC has raised the issue of explaring solar energy cgprtml ‘tie cn 

the Forest. 

few -1 solar installatia-s have been Fnoposed. 

There are m manqewnt a” with this subject, as cmly a 

!5BsE.9 

A few solar voltaic mi- have heen bstalled to power g-akrs at 

e1ecbxa-u ‘c sites; all of these are low-pawer lnstal1aticu-s. 

“tx: wnm 

Issues, -, and c”i ties 

Tha plbliC has &sed the issue of explariq wind energy opprhnu ‘ties on the 

Forest. There are saveral management amcenls with the wind farm colacept. 

Wind farms ccmflict with Visual mality Objectives if they are visible fmn 

heavily used areas. It is difficult to meet Visual mity Objectives due to 

scale, density, Nsnber, supporting road networks, nvxrement and blade colors 

that CXmM with the sln“%q elwhmmat. 

Backgrald 

The suitability of Iqo Naticmal Forest land for wind pawer is not well 

k”. H3wever, wind patterns cm the Forest are rnt xw thought to be 

advantagems far energ$ generaticm. A wind farm application has, 

nevertheless, ken xeceived for a site in the Sherwin Grade area, and 

representatives estimate that the Forest could have the potential 

for as many as two additional sites, Wbly at high elevations in the white 

or ~Molmtains. 

The deMnd for enargy is wall established and expected to increase, but the 

demand for wind as an eriergy source is just beginning to emerge. It is 

difficult to predict a futura trend at this time. 

FACILITIES: -TIVESITES 

Issues, caxenx3, and Opp” .ties 

There are M major public issues reganling Forest adbninistrative sites. The 

primary management caxerns are to eliminate a bacMog of building and 

utility rehabilitatim and mintemma in order to meet: health and safety 

wdes and to provide a visitor center for the newly designated ”o Bash 

National Forest Scenic Area. Managemnt is also concerned with the need for 

the Supenrisor’s Office to mve out of leased space into gwenvnentawned 

space239 
The Inyo Naticslaz Forest has eighty-sjx buildings at seven achinistrative 

locations. Of these, all but one are feaerally awned. Fifty of the 

bUi1dix-g~ are in gxd condition, twenty-three are in fair condition, and 

thirteen are in pr condition. Utility maintenance and rehabilitabon wxk 

are needed on many of the buildiqp in fair or 

Except for the Scenic Area visitor Center, present administrative sites are 

wte for current and pmjectea workloads. There is no foreseeable need 

for major expansion or additim of facilities. 

conditim. 

Issues, carerns, aIlfi- ‘ties 

There are no major planning issues, c”~, or L- ’ ‘ties related to 

and heliports. 

Five airstrips are located m Inyo National Forest land. One helipOa 

located on c”ty land is operated by the Forest Senrice; four other 

facilities located in the Sate area are available for Forest S&ce 

use. The Forest Service uses airstrips and heliprts for transportation 

related to fire protection and g-al administration. Airstrips on Forest 

land are operated under permit and are used by private parties, the public, 

or the military. 

FTCILITIEs: DAES 

Issues, t2”S. andOpporhnu ‘ties 

There are TY3 major issues, ccBIceLI1s, or oppmturu ’ties related to dams on the 

Forest. Issues and CCBLC.BIIIS related to hydrcelectxic developnent are 

a!zmsedundertheheadingofenergy. 

There are eighteen dams on Inyo Nati-1 Farest land. Of these, three are 

owned by the Forest Smce, four by the City of Los Angeles, and eleven by 

southern Califomia Edism. All of these dams provide water storage and 

regulaticm; fifteen are also used for llydroelectric pier; and eleven include 

major j” ts with “eatilmal use. 

The dams owned by the Forest Service are in gcd ccdition and receive 

regular maintenance by the Forest service. Present managanent direcb ‘on is 

aciquat€3 for the management of these dams. The dams owned by Edim and the 

Los Argeles Deparbnent of Water and power (Dwp) are in very gccd conditim 
and do mt pzse any a#ministxative or Mth and safe* problems far the 

Forest Service. 

The damn3 for water &rage and regulation, hydmelectric developnent, and 

watix-bas& remeation will amtjnue to grow. Hcwever, IYJ additional major 

dam sites have been ickntified on the Forest. 

FlIcIIsmEs: Fc"r€JIQ3wAYs 

Issues, concerns, and @Po?=h- 'ties 

There am no planning issues, cc"s, or cppxhmities associated with - Forest Highways. 

All Forest Highways will conply with secticol 202 of the Surface 

Trxaprbtion Ass&hra Act. Forest Highways are listed in the Analysis of 

the Management Situation. All Forest Highways are tm-lane paved cam* 

roads varying in ccx-ditia fron new to extremely pr. 

FlLcILITIEs: Mz4ssTRANsLT 

Issues, concerns, and@Po?=h- 'ties 

There is a management c€" that mass transit be encaraged an the Forest. 

TheForesthasanoppxtum 'ty to establish guidelines for use in evaluating 

potential locatica-ls for mass tral-sprhtion facilities. 

!!&E?!& 

The Inyo Natid Forest cixsir%rs mass transit an option in situations where 

mad capacity is limited or whem c"txated vehicle use threatens to 

damage resources. 

In 1980, the Farest lntxduced a mandatory flll~ner shuttle bus system between 

MarmDth Wuntain Ski Area and the Re& Meaday-Denrils Postpile area. Both 

traffic safety and resouna pmtecticm were matters of concern. In addition 

to the mandatcny bus service, sevaral private bus operatars serve variaus 

points cm the Farest. Bus kce to Mimmoth Mmntain Ski Area fnm the 

ta"~ Lakes annnmity is available during the ski season. smaller scale 

shuttle services have aeVelOpea t~ se" Mhrs in several txailhead areas 

alq the Eastern Sierra. 

The Farest requires the use of the Reds Meadow-Devils Postpile shuttle bus 

and enccurages mass transit 

area expansion plans that do mt imlude major growth of private vehicle 

parking facilities at the ski area itself. Smaller, hiker-oriented shuttle 

services are rut specifically emaxaged by Forest Service managemnt; 

hcwever, the limited a"t of overnight parking at many tr2Xheads tends to 

faster their use. 

to "mth murkah Ski Area by approving *ski 

241 
FACILITIES: RI(.xrs-OF-WiY (m LANDS: RIQ?IS-OF-WAY) 

"he public has raised a variety of issues related to Forest Service roads: in 

rmst cases, both sides of an issue ware raised. Sam parties want to sea 

access to the FmeSt for mtional activities: Others Want to 

see less access in order to reduce e"ental damage. A few issues were 

less lxn-al, such as ccilskuctirk3 roads my WkXe -tal 

damage can be minimized. 

Ma"fnt is concerned that agreements between the Forest and Inyo and MZXI 

-ties need to be exmind regularly to establish mspmsibility for 

maintaxme of roads that cone utxh both juridicti-. 

!!iesEe 

Roads on the Inyo National Forest are used prjmarily for aaministxation, fire 

pmtection, public recreation access, and cormercial W transprt. The 

Forest has 32 miles of arterial mads, 201 miles of collector roads, and 741 

miles of local roads. 

Arterial roads ccme under state or mty juridction. The arterial road 

system is adequate for present use and for increasss projected for the next 

fifty years. Colle&mr roads cone under -ty or Forest Smce 

jurisdiction. 

App"te1y six miles of timber-mlated colledor road "stzuction would 

be needed if all unroaded suitable timber lands were scheduled for harvest. 

Six miles of road wmld be needed to aocess the San Joaquin Ridge and 

Glass thmtains areas on the north end of the Forest. Due to the 

!Rrase roads also meet current and mt proj&ed needs. 

extensive existing network of primitive roads an timbered parts of the 

FOreSt, and &e to the Forest's p&Ce Of Winter lam With 0Ver-the-m 

ski-, rn new 1- mads are pjected. 

If developed nxxeation site capacity increased , associated roads would also 

increase. Nl developnent of potential Sites would require approxlma ' tely 90 

miles of new road for developed site access. 

Access routes for appruved geoulermal activities in Lease Blocks I and I1 

would call for an estimated twelve miles of new roads: those roads would be 

CcBlstrUcted and maintained by the developer, and would probably not be open 

for public use. Mjning roads are develop3 by miners in respanse to specific 

opprhmities: the and location of those roads is difficult to 

predict. 

Forest Service roads are assigned maintenance levels based on Road Managemnt 

Objedives and amnmt of use, and are reconstructed on a progrananed basis. 

current ,xmsb&2 'on and remnstmction amunts to about twenty miles per 

year: with full timber and recreation developnent, cons.hruction and 

recc"ction would munt to amtely 20.9 miles per year. 

242 
-: TIULIIS 

Issues, conxms. andOpporknu 'ties 

The public has raised a nunhr of issues relative to trails. In most cases, 

these issues expxss a desire for mre ixails and/or better maintenance of 

existing trails. The plblic has expmsed a specific interest in more trails 

for dc skiing, hiking, OBNs, and the handicappd. An additicmal issue is 

the design, canstruction, and lccatim of trails to provide the desired 

-ti- exparienca while "izing resomca damage. 

Management is axxam2d with the aevelopnent of new trails to enhance the 

recxeatic.mal eXpdf3rn=3, as well as trail maintenance and the relocatim of 

trails Cxrrenty affecting ecologically sensitive areas. 

The 

and lnrdic 

need to 

ski 

develop 

areas. 

new bails is greatest in concen.trated recreaticol - 

The Iqa Natid Forast trail system, encanpass- 1,236 miles of trail, 

@des hiker and equestrian access into the Hwver, Ansel Adams, John Muir, 

-ia Natid Park backmtry areas; and large "aded parts of the 

White Pbmtains and the sauthern Sierra Nevada near Mmache Meadows. 

The nm"d John Muir Trail and 53 miles of the Pacific Crast National 

Scenic Trail trmrerse Forest lands. 'Pie Discovery Wail (1.0 miles) and 

Whim portal Trail (4.1 miles) are National Raxeatim Trails. 

Appmximtely 705 miles of trails are located within wilderness, including 

wildernass designated by the California Wilderness Act of 1984. Thirteen 

miles of potential trail within existkg wilderness have been identified. In 

additicn, Planruing Areas m the Fod have considerable potential 

for new trail cmstmct-icm and for uwrading and maintaining existing 

user-g-ated trails if any is recQrmended for wilderness. 

Cbncenhted recreatim areas am currently served by a limited nmkx of 

constructed trails and many additicmal miles of "fishermen" trails. There is 

potential for at least 180 miles of additional trail in those areas to 

enhance reaeatimal. 'ties, disperse use, and protect resources. 

CcSEcentrated recreation areas include 'ties for hiXer/eqUestrian, 

angler, handicapped, bicycle, and inteqretive trails. 

There are also cpprtunities for app"ately twenty miles of additional 

m-motorized sumner use trails on open National Forest lands (outside of 

wilderness and ccmentxated recreation areas). 

Off-highway vehicle routes txails in the Monache Meadows, Coyote Plateau, and 

Pizona-Excelsior areas and selected porticas of the Inyo and White Nxntain 

Golden Trout, and south sierra wildernesses; the Y&te, Kirgs canyon, and 

243 
rarges are mar with recxeationists. There is potential to develop 

additional vehicle routes or to reconstruct and maintain existing 

uscx-generated routes. 

wrdic ski trails and gxxmsd track trails are generally maintained and 

operated by private parties under special use permit. Some trails are marked 

by the Forest Service, but little track is groaned. Marked mrdic trails on 

the Inyo currently total abut 175 miles. There is potential for as many as 

400 additional miles. 

The mr-wilderness trail system consists primarily of stnck access routes or 

off-highway vehicle routes that have evolved fran grazing access, mhiq 

access, or intense rexeaticmal use over the years. Pbst have not been 

designed or located to protect sensitive resources. New trails continue to 

be created by illegal velmcle use off established mutes. This process is 

especially c~my~l in CoIZcentrated recreation areas. 

hail planning and operation for special interests such as OW, mrdic ski, 

argler, equestrian, or bicycle use will be based on the Forest Plan and 

subsequent rexeati.cn canposite plans. Manag-t of the trail system is 

guided by the Forest transprkaticm management program. 

The Forest currently azsxsw or recanstructs app"tely ten miles of 

trails per year. In order to meet public demand, the total wuld easily 

reach forty to seventy miles of annual cons+x" and reconstruction. 

FISH 

Issues, -, and clpporhau .ties 

Major public issues related to fish habitat on the Forest are: protecting 

stream habitat fran grazing, recreation develapnent, and water diversions: 

assuring the viability of all resident species; meeting the increasirg demand 

for fishing; and classifying appnpriate streams and lakes as wild trout 

watars . 

The @n?ary n!anagamnt c!a" cm the Forest are hpmvirg habitat quality 

for resident stream trout and assessing and mitigating the impact of 

hydrceleotric developllent on fish. 

Another is the manag-t of habitat for the mery of threatened 

and endangered fishes. Lakntan and Paiute cutthroat trout, although not 

native to the Forest, rely on Forest habitats for species recovery. A 

re"ry plan for the Laksltan has been developed. The Owens tui chub was 

classified as mered in 1985. Habitat for that species is mt currently 

a Forest management c". Al- kwm critical hi chub habitat lies 

within the Forest bmdary, it is on private land. Recovery plans for the 

Omns tui chub and Paiute cutthroat trout need to be written. 

Timbar management activities are mt a fish habitat wncem on the Inyo, as 

nnst timber is harvested over the snm ("izing the risk of 

sedhmtaticm), and few fish-bearing Streams are located in atable timber. 

244 
The Farest has the -ty to establish dirda ‘on that would assure 

viable populatims of all fish species on the Forest. Implementation of Best 

mitigaticm of other resxme ”agemerit activities, and resbratim of 

damaged habitat wxld ensure viability for most fish species. mre direct 

p”es are necessary for threatened species if they are to meet recwery 

levels. 

The Farest and the California Department of Fish and Game sbould establish a 

standard for viable populations. The tolerable level of depletion set by the 

Forest must at least meet #s standard for population viability, but can 

exceed that standard if desired. 

Management Practices for water quality, retenticn of instream flaw, 

The Forest has ab0U.t: 1,100 miles of Stresrms and several hundred lakes. 

Streams are typically less than twenty feet wide, and most lakes are smaller 

than 100 acres. Nxe than 90 percent of resident trout on the Forest reside 

located in wilderness and other madless areas in the Sierra Nevada. 

Fish habitat quality in most sbeaw is rated medium or high. Those st” 

with medium or low ratings ei- lack fish habitat due to inheren t physical 

qualities such as steep g~adients, or they have been damaged by livesixck, 

excessiVe recreation use, and/or water diversion. Stceam habitat quality is 

a manag-t ccexexn both because of past and potential damage by human 

activities and because there are -ties to restore or enhance stream 

habitat. Hot Creek and Cottcklwood (Ireek are the only state-classified wild 

.trout fisheries on the Forest. Table 33 displays the miles of trout-bearing 

Streamcn the Forest in terms of the resident trout they Support. 

Habitat quality in most lakes and resBLvoirs is cimsidered high. 

detailed stu!3ies of lake habitat have not been made, most lakes are in 

wilderness and are subject to my 

Few Streams and lakes on the Forest supported fish prior to the arrival of 

Europeans. my six fish species are native to the area: (xuens tui chub, 

“3 ppfish, (xyens dacs, cW3s sucker, western sucker, rainbow trout (Kem 

River only), and golden traut. The golden tmut, mens su&er, and western 

sucker are limited in distribution, but where found. The (hens tui 

chub is an endangered species. Rwm critical habitat occurs on private land 

within the Forest bornadary. It is also possible that Chiens tui chub resides 

in Silver Lake on the June Lake Loop. The Vniversty of Michigan is studying 

fish in that lake to determine whether they represent a pura strain of Chiens 

tui chub. 

neighbxhg BIM and/or city of ke Angeles lads, but have not yet been fd 

within the Farest kamdaq. The gzMen trout is a state-designated special 

interest species. 

In- species include the tnown, bro3k, rainbow (Outside the Kern 

River), Paiute cutthroat, Latxmtan cutthroat, and BlOradO cutthroat trout. 

RepxciWng * taaun, brook, and rainbcw tmut populations are a”. Color& 

Paiute and Lakpltan cutthroat trout are federally listed as threatened. 

in lakes; the remainder are stream trout. mst trout-bearing waters are 

Although 

impacts fran human activities. 

The Owens ppfish (Classified endalqfxed) and cwens daw OCCUT cn 

lxult is limited .tO a few sbeaw in wilderness an the Forest. 

245 
Warmwater pan fish such as bluegills, black bass, and catfish are found in 

waters near (tart ncrt generally within) the Farest and are not subject to 

Farest. 

Management nxiicator Species (MIS) include Laksltan and PaLute cutthroat 

trout, andrainbau , brook, Isrown, and plden trout. No single species was 

selected as a MIS for all tmut habitat tecause cmly a few trout s.treams have 

reprducing poplatias of mxe than me species. Where there are mra than 

me species in a given strean, the most sensitive of those species is 

ccn3ider%3 the MIS. 

The greatest impacts cm fish habitat have historically come fran livestock 

grazing and water diversion for damestic use and energy pmiuction. Present 

cxulditim can, in most cases, be traced to events of those types that 

occurred fifty or nvre years ago. 

Livestock grazing man in the area about 130 years ago, and the number of 

animals (over 100,ooO sheep and cattle) nz"& ' high until the 1930s. 'Ihe 

stceaniand- * damage to fish habitat quality. Livestock nmkrs 

havebeen~ar~tically. App"a * tely 23,OOO sheep and 12,000 cattle 

m graze Forest lands. Although livestock grazing is better managed ry~w 

than in earlier times, cattle still tend to overutilize scnu? riparian areas 

and to damage associated fish habitat. Imprwea management should be able to 

mitigate that damage withxt overall rduction in grazing use. 

Water divarsfcpl for danestic use, irrigation, and energy generation 

eliminatas fish habitat by remnring water frun streams and piping it to 

coll&on sites. Diversion pmjeds in Inyo and Mnm Counties began in 

earnest arTnn?d the turn of the century. virtually every stream that flows 

into the Mnm Basin and the Owens Valley is Cantroll4 either by the Los 

Angeles Department of Water and Power or the Wthwm California Edison 

Canpany. Marry of the diversicm structures lie at least partially within the 

--. 

Forest managenent activities. There are K) aMdramw fisheries on the 

heavy graziq denuded meadavs and streambanks, caLlsing sedimentation of 

An estimated 88 percent (466 miles) of the total stream mileage (529 miles) 

in the @ens River and Wan Basin watershe& have been affected. "wsnty 

percent (106 miles) have been totally dewatered. About 140 of the affected 

miles, including fifty of the totally dewatered miles, lie within the 

Natimal Forest bormdary. 

It was colce ohought that all ecannically feasible hydrcelectric sites on the 

Forest had been develqped. Ilowever, recent legislation and the international 

oil situation have encouraged the recmsideration of developnent on stream 

reaches fo-ly thought uneconanical. VMly every permu .al stream cm 

the Forest has at least me application for hydroelectric developnent. Sane 

applications prqcee diversion of 90 percent of the available water. The 

number of permits that will finally be grant4 and hydroelectric projects 

built is mknam. The resultiq impact on fisheries is, therefore, difficult 

to predict. That impact, whatever its magnitude, is of considerable ccolcern 

to the Eastern Sierra tourist industry. 

246 
Other managanent activities, such as road -011 and recrsatianal 

developlwts, can aaversely impact fish habitat. In many cases, the direct 

impacts of “ildixq can be mitigated. However, as access for fishing is 

inpmved, resident fish POpiLaticms drop as mre resident tsout are taken and 

as habitat quality declines with inaeadq usa. 

In 1982 the Forest “3ed 340,ooO f1sJ-h-g Wildlife and Fish User Days 

(WlDs), and the California Lkparbmt of Fish and Game stoc3red m than 

2,500,000 +xa.rt in Forest wam. lvbst fish caught by anglers on the Forest 

are hatchery stock. The Forest ranks seccx-d in coldwater fishing am=q 

Natimal Forests naticmwide (first in California), and sixth in total anglirq 

recreatiol (s€ccmd in California). Fishirg ranks thcrd behind canping and 

skiing in total number of visitor days cm the Forest. 

The value of spcort fisheries to the local eccanny is miderable. A fishing 

WFUD has an assigned value of $12.00. Overall fishing demand in 1982 was 

340,ooO WRlDs valued at $4,080,000. The ability of the Forest to proauCe 

current levels of fishing depends on maintainiq gccd fish habitat, 

Inaintajning wqqmmes, and the maintenance by mFG of the current stock.ing 

-a. 

The demand for fishing is expeded to j.xmxBe in p;roportian to Overazl 

increases in developed and dispersed rexeatia, approximately 32 percent 

over the next fifty years. As the Farest does mt have the capability to 

increase resident trout habitat capaciw 32 percent, the a”t of fishing 

proviaSaby the Forest Canrot meet that dpmand. 

Of the 1,100 miles of stream 081 the Forest, atcut 343 key miles of prerm ‘al 

st” are suitable for j”nt. Of these, 200 miles are located in 

native golden trout waters m the Kern Plateau; 88 miles are located in 

oxcentrated “eaticm areas; 40 miles represent potential threatened trmt 

habitat; and 15 miles could be rewatered thrcugh the hydroelectric 

relicensing pocess. Although arnther 125 miles of stream have been 

partially M totally dewatered, there are no cw”t opprtunities for 

m-jng them. 

The primary habitat problems 011 the Kern Plateau and in streams suitable for 

threatened .trouts are eroded streambanks and excessive sediment loads. 

Conditions in such habitat could be inpmved by oontrolling souTces of 

erosiaa7. and lnotecting streambanks. 

St” in concmtrated recreation areas are typically in fair to gcd 

dtion. The major problems in tbDse areas are weakened stream banks and 

low pl quality. Habitat improvement wuld consist of strengthening 

streambanks by increasing yetation and upgrafting pool quality with instream 

structures. The latter are usually only a short-term solution and are costly 

to mnsi2alct and maintain. 

FpForaximatly 140 miles of Stream on the Forest have been partly or totally 

dewatered for agricultural isrigation, danestic use, or energy generation 

with a resulting reductim or total loss of fish habitat. The ability of the 

Forest to mater these sheam is 6ependent on legal, social, plitical, and 

econanic factors. 

247 
If all cpprbnities for stream habitat inpr0v-t were implement&, the 

Forest could provide 16,820 ad&iticmal WFUDs of resident trout fishing. Much 

of that increase would come frcm rewatering streams, the most difficult 

objective to achieve. 

Table 33 

Potential for Increasing Fish 

Habitat Capability 

Stream Habitat 

suitable for Inprovemen t Miles Acses M Lbs MWFODS 

Golden 'prout Wilderness 

Fish Habitat Inm"snt 31 56 3.9 0.8 

Watershed Res&aticm 169 304 21.3 4.4 

GmcentraW Recreaticm ?reas 88 211 29.6 6.1 

Rewater* of streams 

RelicensinS 15 27 2.7 0.6 

other (ID iegal mechanr 'Ens 

currently available) 125 225 22.5 4.7 

Totals 428 823 80.0 16.6 

Table 34 

Estimated Extent of Reproduclns * rroUt Populaticsls 

on the Inyo mtid Forest 

Miles Acn?? 

Golden trout 300 360.0 

Paiute cutthroat trout 3 3.6 

Latc&an cutthroat trout 1 1.2 

Colorado cutthroat trout 7 8.4 

Rainbow mt* 25 30.0 

Eastsrnbrmktrout 538 645.6 

Brown trout 176 212.2 

Mixed trout 50 60.0 

* Many nKue miles of stream have hatch3J.y-stocked rainbays , but do not 

supprt reprw3uchg populaticns. 

~PLANNINGARPIS 

Issues, cax2ems, and 'ties 

public issues regarding the evaluatim of Ftutinx P1armi.q Areas for their 

wilderness potential represent a wide range of opinicm. S~E parties support 

wilderness designatim for all Further Planning Areas cm the Forest. Others 

oppase any ad&iticmal wilderness. Yet others have addressed the wilderness 

248 
charactaristics or m-wilderness resource developnent: potential of specific 

. areas. 

The Califonria Wilderness Act of 1984 designate3 certain areas wilderness, 

made other areas available for m-wilderness uses, and named yet other areas 

for further planning. This planning process deals only with the wildemess 

potential of Further Planning Areas. The public has, however, expressed a 

Act. Sane xce that the Forest Service will imnediately build roads 

into all m-wilderness areas; m the other end of the spectrum, there is 

c" that the Forest Service will manage m-wilderness areas as "de 

facto" wilderness. 

Managenent concerns focus cm the need to make well-omsidered nxnmedations 

Both the suitability of each area for wilderness and the opprbnities 

associated with other resources and activities mu& be considered. 

Managanent is also a"ed with the need for coordtna ' tion hetween Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management wilderness recannendatians for 

adjohiq public lands. The Forest has the lead role in evaluating one 

Bureau of Land Manag-t Wilderness Study Area in conjunction with the 

adj0inj.g Naticmal Farest Rrrvler Planning Area. 

The Forest rrmSt establish a management -is. either wilderness or 

m-wilderness, for all Further Planning Areas. No lands are to remain in 

keen in- in the management of non-wilderness areas resulting fm that 

for the management (wilderness or nw-wilderness) of Further Platlning Areas. 

the Fbrther Planning category Ollce the Plan is ilnp1-ted. 

It is importan t to note that any wilderness Jxx"s&tici-ls made in the Plan 

are preliminary adninistrative reccmnendations that will receive further 

review, and passible modificatim, by the Chlef of the Forest Service, the 

secretary of Agricultute, and the h-esident of the united States. Final 

decisions on wildsxness designations are made by Coqmss. 

Backsrand 

The RARE I1 (Roadless Area Review am3 Ehluatim) study identified 39 areas 

m the Inyo Naticml Forest, enccmpassw 1,008,282 acres, as roadless and 

subject to evaluatim for potential wilderness designation. Of these areas, 

all or parts of three (46,146 am) were designated wilderness by the 

California Wilderness Act of 1984. All or parts of twenty-cole (338,319 

acres) were made available by that Act for rrn-wilderness uses. All or part 

of seventeen areas (576,517 acres) were placed in the Further Planning 

ciurhg the Farest plannjrg prmess. 

In addition to the lands acldmsd by the California Wilderness Act, 47,300 

acres of RARE I1 inventoried roadless lands in three areas lie in Nevada. Of 

the three areas, the Excelsior area was recarmended for wilderness by the 

RARE 11 Final US. That recamdaticm was scheduled for mevaluation by the 

secretary of Agricdture in 1982. The Toiyabe National Forest has the lead 

role in reevaluatirg the area in cxmjuctim with adjoining Toiyab madless 

category and are to be amsidexed for m wilderness and mn-WildeInesS uses 

latXi5 and for making recQrmendatixxls in C"tim with the Inyo in its 

Plan. The susarloaf and 28,541 acres of the 251,868-m white 

249 
bkuntahs Area were placed in Fb-tbr Planniq by RARE 11. All of the 

roadless lands described above are treated as Further Plandng Areas for 

Forest PI- -- 

Further Planning Areas are located throughout the Forest. of the areas 

in the Sierra Nevada adjoin existirg wilderness. Areas in the White and Inyo 

bkuntains, the Benb Range, and the Excelsior Mxmtains represent the 

roadless pcntions of those raqes, - of which as yet cc&ains wilderness 

acreage. 

The Inyo Naticmal Forest r& high in Regicm 5 in both the of Further 

planning rea as and total acreage in that category. This fact reflects both 

the rugged tcpqm@y of the Forest and the relatively low level of resxxca 

opp~rhmities which would have triggered roadbuildhq over tha years. 

Table 35 lists the Further Planning Areas on the Forest, ShCWing both 

National Forest Sqs" acreage and acres in other Gwnershl 'p for each area. 

Lands placed in Further Planning by the California Wilderness Act are 

distinguished fran Nevada acres subject to additional evaulation because of 

a&inistxative decisions. 

The demand for wilderness nxxeaticm cm the Forest is very high. Fxisting 

wildernesses are managed mder a trailhead quota system so that use does rot 

exceed established wilderness capacity limits. Guotas are essentially full 

dur- the sumner peak use seascm. The denwid for wilderness designatim on 

the Inyo as a means of pmtechq ' unique and sensitive ecosystems is also 

present. The latter type of demand focuses on the desirability of wilderness 

in the white and Ii-lyo mtains. 

"here is also a demand for rum-wilderness uses in Further Planning Areas. 

Sane of the existing and potential uses that would conflict with wilderness 

are: CBN and fm-wheal drive dispersed recreation, road access for mineral 

exploraticm and developnent, vegetation manipulation for livestmk grazing 

and wildlife habitat iq"mt, timber harvest, and new hydroelectric 

developnent. 

The Irryo National Forest has the lead role in evaluating a two-parcel Bureau 

of Land Manag-t Wilderness Study Area djacent to the E~~~IR-I Range Further 

Plaruring Area. The Plan will analyze altwmatives and make a coordinated 

-tion for the wildemess/non-wilds managemat of both Bureau of 

Land Manag-t and National Forest lands in that area. 

250 
5033 

5035 

5038 

5040 

5045 

5049 

5050 

5051 

5052 

5056** 

505- 

5059 

5060 

5061 

5063 

506411&8 

5296 

5989 

55,588 ( 410 1 

4,138 

854 (300) 

16,229 

9,090 (80) 

5,580 

920 

5,209 

17,093 

10,451 

223,326 

16,348 

32,705 

34.804 

13,619 

130,563 

576,517 (1490) 

10,720 (120) 

(35) 

47,300 (155) 

8,039 

*For a detailed descripticm of each Further Plannjrg F;rea, see pppendyr C. 

**Studied jointly with Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Area 

#CR-010-077 (4,052 acres). 

It is impaaant to remenber that xme of the areas made available by the 

California Wilderness Act far m-wilderness uses will be considered for 

wilderness Wing this ten-year planning perid. They can, however, be 

considered for wilderness again in future planning pericds if they still meet 

thellhi” criteria for wilderness. 

Gmx4JGY 

Issues, ccncerns, and oppxtmu .ties 

The public has not raised any mjor plannjrg issues related to geology. 

There are, hawever, several management concems about geologic resources and 

services. Qae is the potential demand for groundwater as a danestic water 

source for Mammth Lakes. An associated collcern is the need to assess 

gnxlndwater resources on a Forest-wide basis. A third concern is the need to 

nxzgnize and make allowance for the risk to planned Forest projects ped by 

geologic pnxeses such as landslides, earthquakes, and volcanic events. The 

fourth co~lcern is the need to protect outstanding geologic features which am 

vulnerable to damage or destructian. 

251 
The Forest has the oppxhmity to establish manag-t dire5501-1 for geologic 

resources and SeLviCes, Diredion that should be established in response to 

national and regional plannirg requiremen ts include: guidelines for 

groundwater inventmy and manag-t and guidelines for assessing the risk to 

Forest projects p3sed by geolcgic m. The establishment of geologic 

Special Interest Areas and/or Research Natural Areas should also be 

wnsidered. 

Geology involves both resources and senrices. Resources include groundwater, 

mineral materials, and outstanding geologic features. Geologic features are 

also a lpimary oanpsnent of the Forest’s visual resourCe. Geological 

dces entail the assesgnent of the risk to Forest projects p3sed by 

geologic such as landslides, earthquakes and volcanic events. 

Gmxmdwater is used by the Forest Service for recreation sites, 

ac3ninistrative facilities, fire managaient units, and grazing and wildlife 

needs. 

and facilities is 105 acre-feet. The maxi“ projected demand 1s for 247 

acre-feet with full recreation developnent m five decades. Cbxent Forest 

Service dir€&l ‘on is to ccanrert surface water sources to groundwater sources 

wherever feasible. Altbough the potential of individual sites has been 

assessed, the extent and quality of the groundwater resource has not been 

inventorie3 Forest-wide. 

SW areas on the Forest use 300 a-:feet per year and project a need for 300 

additional acre-feet to meet azqnt needs. Additional ski area developnent 

could imrease the demand for water by as mch as 300 percent. 

The public demand for groundwater is expected to increase in the Mammth area 

as the CCmrmnity grms and its needs exceed the supply of available surface 

water. The Tawn of Mammth currently plans to wnvert 1,480 acre-feet of 

surface water scurces to groundwater snwxxs and to develop an additia 

1,480 acre-feet of grwnciwater to meet existing needs. Projected ozmmi-u ‘tu 

developlwt Scenarios could bcrease ca”ity needs by as mch as 300 

percent. 

The total current gL”ter volume used to support Forest programs 

The developlwt of geothermal resxmes could also place a demand on 

g”ter supplies and, dependjng on developnent location, could Wte 

with municipal needs for the available groundwater. The overall demand for 

groundwater for geothermal developnent is unbmn because the extent of the 

geo- resource is unk”. It is estimated that .two acre-feet of 

groundwater would be used cm th6 average for each deep exploration well. 

The Irryo National Forest is located in an area whera geologic processes are 

actively shaping the land. Sanetimes acting alone, sanetimes actirg in 

ccmcart, seismic 7, slope instability processes (such as landslides), 

and volcanic p~ocesses represent an attracticm as well as a risk. 

The exiskirg Forest-Wide geologic resume inventory classifies land in term 

of high, medium or low risk of impads fmn geologic processes. =; tely 453,600 acres on the Forest are classified as high risk fm 

37,600 acres as high risk during an eartkpake fm gmmd 

’ 

252 
shaking: 48,ooO acres as high risk d~~jng an earthquake fran surface rupture: 

373,000 acres as high risk during a volcanic emption €ran lava flows; and 

631,400 acres as high risk durjng a volcanic emptims fiom airbme 

matenlal. 

Slope instability prcesss (includirg tbase triggered by ead3quake.s) are 

the mxt important geologic events on the Forest in terms of risk, primarily 

becauss of thair relative frequency. Volcanic events are the least inpxtant 

due to their low frequency, despite the magnitude of their potential inpacts. 

Seisnic activity on the Forest has been notemrthy in recent times. 

Earthpkes with Richtex-scale magnitudes of up to 6.0 have been recorded and 

are tbught to have been caused by volcanic forces as well as earth 

nwements. Altlmugh there has been sum damage to structures in the Mammth 

area, the anKnmt of serious damage has been minimal . Thelrpstsignificant 

inpact of recent seismic activtty has been widespread media coverage 

resulting in sporadic mducticms in visitation, with * negative 

effads on the lccal e"y. 

Lamislides have been nost mhm33-1~ during pricds of intense seisnic 

activity. Rockfalls and avalanches have been rated as a result of mDst larye 

(magnitude 5 and abwe). Alth3Ugh sane lccal damage has resulted 

fran seiSnical1y iduced landslidfs, few structures are currently located in 

high risk areas. Landslides resulting frcm road mnstructian are mt a 

cc" pmbl6n an the Inyo becausa few Forest roads are corsizucted in 

high-risk areas. 

The atpndanoe of relatively yamg volcanic features in the area inclicata that 

volcanic processes have been active in the recent past. Erupticms in the 

form of tephra falls, @matic explasims, and lava flows have all occured 

within the past five hunckd years. There are strollg indications that 

volcanic farces have caused grcurd swellirg and strong seisnic activity as 

recently as 1980. Professional geolcgists believe that further volcanic 

activity can be expcted. (xrrrent infonnation and -ling techniques do 

not, however, allow for the accurate prediction of the timirq and location of 

volcanic events. 

ou- ' geologic features are addressed under the headjngs of Research 

Natural Areas and Special Interest Areas. 

LANDs:BouMlARyADJEm" 

Issues, tk"S, and- 'ties 

There are many management c"s related to propxed boundary djushmts 

Managmt). These c"s will be addressed apart fmn the arrent 

planning effort. 

between the FareSt Sarvice ard the Bureau Of Land Management (Bureau Of Land 

The California Wilderness Ad of 1984 transferred cert=un . landsinthenew 

MXD Basin National Forest Scenic Area fran Bureau of Land Management to 

253 
Fore& service adnMsh-atccpI. Plq far the scenic Area is being 

, omdwted Separately fran the Farest pl- process. 

~n additicm, the sscretary of the Interim and the Seaetasy of Agriculm 

in ~anuary 1985 a naticm-wide administrative int"ge of lands 

bstween the Bureau of Land MaMg"t and the Forest sendice. various 

prcpxals fm legislative ccdirmaticm of the are mtly being 

amsidered in ccqress. The Plan will be srmended as needed upcm passage of 

cmfirdq legislaticm and ccmequmt transfer of lands. 

Issues, -, ad c)pw&ud ties 

mere are rn mjar issues, c"s, or -*ties related to these 

subjects cn the Forest. 

E!eEEEd 

The Forest has surveyed 31 miles of proprty line and postea it to standard: 

1,150 miles remain "nmyed. Al- there is little need for lardline 

SUN~F to supp3rt the Forest resouz'ce pr", there is a steady demand for 

interior bmndary surveys to help -1ve occupancies. The present Forest 

target of six miles of survey per year related to such cases is adequate. 

The Forest currently resolves an average of five c"y .trespass cases per 

year. There are an estimated fifty unresolved occupancies Forest-wide. Many 

of the Forest's "y sihaticms are 1- standing and can be handled 

a&inistxatively by special-use parmit or resolved via the Small hacts Act. 

Issues, carerns, andQpJ?=hm 'ties 

There are sone serious management "s in the 1- 'p mjustrnent 

 nog gram. he w" a&&eses the availability of Naticmal Forest 1- 

adjacent to gmwing com~u~ll 'ties (thrcugh exchange) for private develapneut 

m-. 

The high per-acre value of National Forest lands adjacent to lccal 

"mities gives the Forest an opportunity to acquire large tracts of 

privately owned lands of lower per-acre value within National Forest 

tmmdaries, either 081 the Inyu or cm another Natimal Forest. However, the 

federal acquisition of private land is viewed with distaste by local 

government, as private land is subject to Koperty taxes while federal land 

is not. This issue is especially sensitive where land entering the private 

sector is in one county and land entering the federal sector is in arothex. 

It is imperative that a mutual ' develop between Forest 

Service and lccal garernment as to what mnstitutes legitimate ca"ity 

expansion. TheForesthastheopprhnu "ky to &lop directicol in the Forest 

254 
Tb Inyo Naticnal Farsst ahinistrative bolndary encloses 2,046,346 acres, of 

which 116,591 are in m-f- OWneryNp. In Inyo and m -ties, which 

cantain lrnst of the Naticmal Forest lands, less than seven peroent of the 

land withh the Naticnal M bmmdary is in other ownershl 'p ("3 than 50 

percent of that acxeage balm to th State of California or the City of Los 

mles and lies within the recently legislated Wun Basin Natimal Forest 

scenic Area). 

The Inyo Natimal Forest carries cn a vigcucms land adjusbnent prcr3ram, 

especially h the Mamuoth Lakes area. Since 1960, alm& 1,ooO acres have 

entered the private sector in exchaqp far mxe than 15,Mx) acres which have 

becane Natimal Forest lands. (The differeme in acreage refleds the high 

per-- "etary value of Naticmal Forest lands relative to that of the 

private lands obtained. ) 

The of land ex&ange is to achieve a sensible and prcductive private 

sedar-public sectcor relatiaxship, especially within and adjacent to existjng 

their support far an adjustment program that provides for conrmnity 

expansicm. Present Forest Service directicm is to reduce the existing and 

potential impacts of private land uses cm Natimal Forest lands by w0rkh-g 

closely with lccal govwmmt. In additicm, the Irryo strongly supports the 

principle that private land be aevelopea under lmal land-use Plans. 

cc"ities. Both Inyo and m oorrnty g5"hg boards am outspaken in 

Issues, wn;.erns, and opparhnu 'ties 

There am rm major issues, "erns, or opportunities related to 

rights-of-way cm the Fo~-??st. 

The Inyo Naticmal Forest has little need to acquire rights-of-way for 

resource "Mt because of the landownership pattern. mst areas with 

resaurce "ent opprhmities ate already roaded, and areas in which 

roads are still needed are accessible across National Forest land. 

LANDS: SPECIALUSES 

Issues, caxe?ms, and qllporhllll 'ties 

k he major o" reg- special uses m the myu is that, as the Wth 

~akes and ~une Lake cnnnunities expand, there is an increasing demand to 

kcate "nnrity service facilities cn pvblic land. 

255 
TlleForeSthasthe~ 'ty to establish guidelines in the Forest plan for 

approving ' special use applications 081 the Forest. 

Back& 

A wide variety of activities and facilities are permitted undex special use 

permit cm National Forest land. These land uses meet the needs of 

irniividuals, qanizatia, canpanies, oolporatians, or government txdies. 

FxistIng special uses cm the Inyo are sumnarized below: 

Table 36 

Activities M special Use Permit 

Type Acres Miles 

Agricultural 

-ty 

Ikiustrial 

public Infomatim 

ReCZeZltilXl 

Research, S~U@? 

Ransportation 

Utilities & Camanu 'cation 

Water Uses 

26 

13 

31 

3 

546 

32 

127 

90 

109 

2,544 2 

100 0 

906 0 

1 0 

3,980 9 

16,983 0 

4,818 617 

3,627 1,250 

2,001 33 

1 911 I TOTAL 977 34,960 

TheForestServicehastherespns~ 'bility of managing the National Forests 

for public use. private parties are therefore enmuraged to locate their 

developnents cm private lands wherwex such lands are available and logically 

situated to accnmrdate the developnent. Public land can be made available 

for private uses cmly when thase uses are anpatible with the established 

multiple-use dbjedives for the National Forest land irnrolved and when they 

canrot reasmably be located m private land. take priority over 

tkse of a semi-public nature, which in turn take priority over individual 

public 

uses. 

Sane local gcnmnwnt entities assume that Inyo Natimal Forest land is, arad 

should be, available for ccnnnmity facilities. The situation is mre 

Fdcayxlnced m the Inyu than cm other Naticml Forests because so little of 

the land jn Inyo and Wxm Counties is privately amed. Schools, cxmnmity 

buildings, firs staticms, airports , and the like have historically been built 

on Naticml Forest land under special use mt. As land values have 

escalated, so have special use fees, to the pint that fees have bectme 

prahibitively expe.nsive in the eyes of permittees. Strong pressure has been 

exerted cm the Forest service to transfer lands enclrmbered by onnnmity 

SeTVice facilities into the private or cu"~ 'ty sector. 

-ti- Special Uses discussed under the headhg Of Recreation. 

256 
Lwcs: mTIm AND mm CORRmaRs 

Issues, C4"s. andcpporhm 'ties 

Electric energy cognreyors have raised an issue regarding a potential utility 

corridar. A mute paralleling the existing rnrth-south Pacific Dc Intertie 

.transnissicn line (in the Pizam-Exa?lsior area of the mxtksst camex of 

the ores st) has been identified by public utility interests as a potential 

designated COITidoT. "he op, i 'ty for corridor designation would 

materialize if applicatims m made far additimal utility rights-of-way 

slag the Pacific M3 Intertie rate. 

Backgrand 

There are 1,239 miles of utility lines crossing Naticmal Forest lard mder 

special use permit or easement. Of these lines, the Pacific Dc Intertie line 

is the rmst significant. This line is a major intertie facility for southezll 

California. 

Altkqh there are m designated utility corridors on the Forest, 

rights-of-way are mlidated where feasible to "ize the effects of 

roads and pcx+ier lines on athe,r T~SERITC~S. These uses are appropriate der 

current managanent djrectl 'w. 

It is operated under permit to southern California Edison. 

m: 

Issues, 

- 

ckncems, andopprhJm 'ties 

There are m major issues or cc"s related to withdrawals on the Forest. 

There is a need, howenrer, to mi- the effects of Forest decisians (such 

as wilderness "datim) on opgorhmities for mineral exploration and 

dsvelopnent. 

!s%EE!z 

A withdrawal limits the activities that can occur on a specific parcel of 

land. The purp3se of a withdrawal is to ptect specific aphasized resource 

values fran the potential inipacts of other activities, primarily mining. 

Marry withdrawn lands are closed to any l"l exploratim or developnent. 

Wilderness lands are closed to new mining claims, but not to the developnent 

of Wisting valid claim. Pwer and water withdrawals can result in 

restricticms on activities Faroposed for withdrawn lands if those activities 

would ccmflict with water use or power pIoauctim. 

Withdrawals on the Inyo Naticmal Forest total 758.876 acres, reprsentiq 

agencies. The follcwiq is a list of withdrawals by land use category or 

special area desipatim. (Sam of these witkdrawals averlap cme another). 

actions jntiated by the Forest Senrice, by CtqEss, OT by Other federal 

257 
Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest (Farest semi-) 

Wan Basin Natimal Forest Scenic Area (GmgreSS) 

Developed rwxeation sites (Forest Semi-) 

kkinistrative sites (Forest Service) 

Research Natural Areas (Farest semi-) 

Watershed and irrigation (varicus entities) 

power Pmjects 

Pawer site resemes (FERC) 

Wilderness (-) 

28,887 

45, m 

5,363 

1,136 

8,946 

26,921 

46,420 

31,061 

565,142 

TOTAG 758,876 

Section 204 of public Law 94-579 (Forest Land Policy and Management Act) 

requires the Secretary of Interior to review all withdrawals by October 1, 

1991, and to de- whether they should be extended, rrpdified, or 

revoked. The Inyo Natimal Forest will assist in this review by analyzing 

those withdrawals that have been initiated by the Forest Senrice. The Forest 

S&ce will also cooperate with other f&al agencies as they review the 

withdrawals they have intiated (primarLly water and/or power-relatea). 

Restoration to “ral entry will be recQrmended if existiq or potential 

T~SOUTCB conflicts can be mitigated under the provisim of the Surface Use 

Regulatims (36 CFR 228). Tkse regulaticm provide the Forest Service with 

mxe wnt-ml over mining qeratim than was available when many mineral 

withdrawals were originally established. 

MINERAL: GmERALa 

The Forest manages for mineral rescerrces is to integrate the exploration and 

viable developnent for minexals within the National Forest consistent with 

reclamaticm of those lands where mining activity is taking place or has taken 

place. 

the use and protecticm of other resource values, and to -de for the 

The prcepecting, locaw, and dewlaping of mineral resmnxs within 

National Forests is authorized by the Organic Act of June 4, 1897. The Act 

also all” the Secretary of Agriculture to establish rules and regulations 

inrxmnech ‘on with operations authorized by “g law. meSe regulatiuns, 

which “l ‘ze impacts on the resources or define procectures, can be fcund in 

36 CFR 228 (locatable minerals subpart C--disposal of mineral materials), and 

293.14 (“ral leases and permits in wilderness). The review and approval 

of proposed “g activities as tky relate to access and surface 

di- is authorized by these regulatim. 

The other principal statutes auulorizing the disposition of fedexal minerals 

resources are the Gmeral Mining Law of 1872 as amended (17 Stat. 91), the 

Mineral Leasing Act of 192 as amended (41 Stat. 437), the Mineral Leasing Act 

258 
for AcquFred Lands of 1947 as irmeaded (61 Stat. 681), the Multiple 

Use Act of 1955 as amended (68 Stat. 708). the Mining and Mineral Policy Act 

of 1970, the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 end the 1980 Naticmal Materials 

Policy, Research and Ihvelqmmt Act. other laws ~wern the responsibility 

that land managenent agencies have for IBsyx1TcB ll"t in general and, 

therefare, MlUenCe hay decisicns are Mde with resped to mineral 

disposition. Specific exanplas are: The Naticmal ' tal Policy Act as 

amended (83 stat. 852), the Clean Air end Water Act, and the Ekx3aqez-d 

specres Act. 

Gewally, the authcnity to manage locatable and leasable mineral resources 

is retained by the secretary of the Intsxior. ?g"mts, embodied in 

Interior which share varicus kc& processes are farad in Forest Service 

Manual (FSM) 1500, External Relati-. The autharity for the management and 

aspeal of mineral materials (including but mt limited to cc" varieties 

of sand, sbm, gravel, prmice, pmicite, cindars. and clay) is with the 

Farest service. 

The Fatest service has taken a positive attiixde toward the mineral SKCgrarrrs 

Office to the field offices to consider mineral SrF=w=="eqUalpar 

with all prcgrams, such as timber, grazing, recreatiosl, and watershed. This 

Merroranda of U' ling between the secretaries of Agriculture and 

"=.by- an fmn the Rqicml Office and the Washiqtm 

direction has been included in the Plan and will help in the acccmplidnnmt 

of the Forest managment for mineral resmms. 

The detailed authorities and dFrection for locatable minerals, mineral 

leasing, and mineral sales are found in Forest Service Manual 2800, Minerals 

Mineral withdrawals are discussed under the headjq of Lands: Withdrawals. 

and Geology. 

There are sevaral major public issues and management amcerns regarding the 

darelcpwmt and operation of geothaml power plants on the Inyo National 

Forest. One issue is the availability of land to explore and develop the 

resource. Another issue addresses the effects geothermal activities would 

have on the -t or an the recreaticmal attractiolzs &ch supp3rt the 

local eccnmy. Yet other issues involve the long-term effects of remnring 

geothermal fluids, includim~ potential impah on surface resc)urces, risks 

associated with geologic precesses, and water (both surface and groundwater). 

The pS.sib1e effeds of g€ubfma develOpnent an other resources ha. been 

estimatedin- tal -ts dealiq with ~arop3sals to leasa Forest 

land for ged&mnal exploration. It is, however, difficult to analyze 

potential impacts until mre is k" about the size, location, and nature of 

theYxsoUm0. 

When geothermal resxmxs are located an Naticml Forest lands, they come 

mdsr a dual management ccslcept. The DeLpaxtmmt of Interior (Bureau of Land 

259 
Management) has the responsibility for leasing geothermal resoucces, while 

the ores st service “ages the surface resources affected by exploration and 

dfwelopent. The Forest Sezvice has an opportunity to influence the course 

of geothermal dwelopnent by &plating requirements deemed necessary to 

protect tbse surface resources. 

Geothermal energy is a potential resource on the Inyo National Forest. About 

260,000 acres of the 460,000-acre Wm-Lcq Valley KM>wn Geothermal Resource 

Area (KGRA) are 081 Natimal Forest lands. The KGRA is located in the 

northern porticm of the Forest near the ca”ities of Mamnoth and June 

Lake. than 80,000 acres of Natimal Forest land have been offered for 

geothermal leasing in two separate lease blocks in the KGRA. Six cmpanies 

have leased aPp”ate1y 28,000 acres in Lease Block I, and two cmpanies 

have leased a-tely 12,900 acres in Lease Block 11. ’ tely 

13,500 acres of Lease Block I1 remain to be leased. E”mntal 

Assessnents addressing geothermal activities in Lease Blocks I and I1 were 

prepared batween 1980 and 1985. These assessments were tiered to a 1973 

programnatic - tal Impact Statement on geothermal leasing in the 

KGRA. 

Although shallow subsurface testhg has occurred, no deep exploratory wells 

have yet been drilled on these lease holdings. Mowever, a seven megawatt 

geothermal power plant is operathy on Fivate land in the Casa Diablo area, 

and a similar pject is planned for a site on land ained by the City of Los 

lugel- near the Hot. Creek Fish Hatchery. These relatively snall pswar 

plants draw from a shallow reservoir that is expected to be cooler than the 

deeper resavoir currently bekg explored. mer plants utilizing deep 

resavoirs are expated to have a generating capaci-Q of 25 megawatts or 

mre. No developnent scenario was provided for the envirmnental analysis 

for Leasa Block I. It is estimated that a sufficient geothermal resource 

exists within the lease area to smpprt at least two anall pmer plants. The 

developnent scenario for Lease Block I1 suggests that a sufficient geothermal 

resource eKists to support fcur 50 “tt power Plants. 

Appmxhately 20,000 acres of land in the mche Meadows area of the Kern 

Plateau have been amsidered for leasing to cme canparry. We 1985 

R-n&”tal Assesanent of geoulermal leasing in that area p1~3~ced a

no-leasing decisim. Appmxma ’ tely 3,200 acres are being considered for 

lease to cux3 canpany in the nartheast corner of the white WnJntainS: that 

prop3sal is currently being assessed, but no decision has yet been made. 

Leasing decisicns for any other areas outside the KGRA will be made on the 

basis of a6ditimal site-specific -tal analyses. 

Issues, concerns, andopporhu .ties 

‘I“ primary public issue related to locatable minerals on the Forest coxerns 

the limitaticns cm ntine~~ activity represented by the reccmnendation of 

a6ditimal wildamess on the Forest. 

260 

Management relaw to locatable "rals exploration and 

deve1-t include the -is on amenity resources such as visual quality, 

wildlife, and -tion; and ather resource cc" such as water quality, 

soil productivity, and vegetation pxotedion could limit mineral developnent. 

!%&?E%@ 

The Inyo Naticmal Farest has a lq, active history of minirg. The Eureau of 

Mines lists the follaving "pdities in 513 prwpects within the 

Forest kmxky. 

mercury gYPmarble 

wrrolywenum Zinc 

lead block pumice al" 

uranium flm.rite liJW.StOlle 

talc calcite cobalt 

Eleven mineral waticns cm the Forest are currently proaUcing. The most 

significant of these are the Umtco Pine cceek Mjne in Pine Creek and the 

U.S. F4nnice block pimcrce mine in the Mxn eaters. The latter prc&ces more 

than 10,000 tcms of block pmica each year. 

More than 3,000 mining, mill site, and tunnel site claims are recorded for 

Forest lards and appmximately forty new mining claims are filed each year. 

discoveries irnrolve mitical minerals. Cbtalt is the only critical 

"xal that has been found on the Forest. 

The -al potential of =-wilderness lands the FO-t has been 

estimated an the basis of geologic formations and past minirg activity. The 

565,142 acres of designated wilderness has rot been rated for mineral 

potential. A mineral potential rating of "high" has been applied to 133,860 

m-wilderness acres of the Forest: a rating of "medium" has been applied to 

209,021 acres; the ranahkg 1,020,732 acres have been rated "low". The 

largest acreage in the high and medium mineral potential categories is found 

in the Inyo mtains and the 1- elevations of the White muntains. 

Smaller pockets are f& in the Sierra Nwada west of Bishop, south of 

Manoth Lakes, and on the 1- slopes of the Escarpnent between Big Pine and 

Lav2 Pine. An additional met is found in the Benton Range. 

Issues, c"s, OFprhnU *ties 

There are M public issues related to mineral materials on the Forest. 

Management is "ed cnly with the need to develop a materials managmt 

and developnent plan. 

Mineral mateials are used by counties, private parties, 0th- federal 

agencies, and the Forest Sdce for cmns+xuct.ion projects. The mst com~lon 

use is for road work. 

Of the fifty material SOUCCeS inventoried in the area, 28 are on National 

Materials sources come under a variety of ownershi PS . 

262 
Forest lands; the I'emainder are loCated QI wlreau Of Land ManagelWIlt, Of 

Los Angales, ar private lard. The estimated supply of materials fron la*lwn 

resaves is 1.98 millim tons. 

current Farest service denland far road crmstnlctian and reCOIlStruCtion 

averages 40,oOO tcpls per year. Estimated a"ts of material in la*lwn 

mserves are large eKJugh to supply the pmjected demand for road wcajc alme 

under current management for a supply life of approximately 43 years. That 

supply life would shmten if new roads were cc"cted. 

Mineral materials are also needed far recreation site cmdxuch 'on, ski area 

developnent, c5"i* develapnent, and state and COLlllty use. The almunt 

needed for these plrposes would further sl" the projected supply life 

based on road WXk ala. 

Issues, c4ncerns, and 'ties 

There are many public issues and management a"s related to managewnt of 

the Wx-n Basin Naticmal Forest Scenic Area. These issues and ccolcerns will 

be in separate plarnhg for Scenic Area manag-t, not in the 

Forest plw picocess. The Scenic Area Management Plan will tier to the 

Forest Plan. 

The Mcsu, Basin Naticmal Forest Scenic Area was designated by the California 

Wi~derness Act of 1984. "tie Scenic Area includes a total of app"bly 

116,000 acres. Of this acreage, approximately 21,402 were National Forest 

acres before Scenic Area designation. Ccqress transferred approximately 

24,430 additimal acres fran Eureau of Lard Manag-t adninistratian to the 

Natid Forest. The ' "-federal land includes the lake surface 

itself and som relicted lands (lakeslnre exposed durirg the past forty years 

because of water diversim) administered by the State of California. The 

federal govenment owns appr"a ' tely 60 percent of the relicted lands, arad 

the state owns appraximately 40 percent of these lands. 

Ccqress has legislated a plaming ~JXXXSS for the Scenic Area which includes 

ccmstxuction of a visitor center and pmvisions for protection, 

interpmtatian, and public enjoyment of the area. That planning prwess 

includes the involvemnt of a public advisory board with "bershl 'P 

stipulated in the legislatian. The Scenic Area is being managed under an 

Interim Managment Plan until the carrprehensive Managemnt Plan is 

cmpleted. 

The Scenic Area is not likely to conflict seriously with activities on 

adjacent Forest lands, as mre than half of the boundaTy adjoins Eureau of 

Land Management lands. The southern boundary of the area adjoins suitable 

timber lands. Public wwdcutting is the timber-related activity mst likely 

to affect the Scenic Area. As that activity is allowed within the Scenic 

Area, there is little likelihood of ccmflict. The visual impacts of timber 

hamest as seen frm within the Scenic Area would be minimal due to 

263 
topographic screening and gentle terrain. The southwest boundary adjoins 

rangelands managed for domestic livestock grazing. If grazing continues to 

be permitted within the Scenic Area, there would be rn potential for 

conflict. If it is not permitted, there could be sone conflict if livestock 

drifted across the Scenic Area kamdaq. Lands adjoining the western 

boundary are suitable for ccmcentrated recreation use and primitive 

rereaticm use. Neither type of use represents a conflict with Scenic Area 

management priorities. 

Issues, ccncmns, andcppcrhm 'ties 

The primary public issue for pest management is the desirability of usirg 

cultural, biological, ern" 'cal ccgltrols instead of chemical pesticides. 

There have been ry3 recent widespread pest-related pro?~len~~ on the Inyo 

Natimal Forest and there are currently rn mjor management concerns abut 

pests. There are, irxevw, scme potentially important localized pest 

problems, particularly in areas with a recreatim management -is. The 

 ores st will continue to implement an Integrated Pest Managemat (IPM) 

approach to reduce and/or maintain pest damage at acceptable levels. 

This IPM approach calls for the intqratim of pest management activities 

(Wtion, surveillance, detection, evaluation, suppression, and 

nrmitoriq) into management planning and decision mkirg. Pest 

infon~tim will be considered, for exanple, in the developnent and 

iniplementatim of silvicultural prescriptions. 

The goal of IFM is to prevent and/or reduce pest-related damage considered 

unacceptable due to its impad m human activities or resource manag-t 

objectives. In the selectim of a-iate pest management methods, all 

techniques are midered on a case-by-case, project level basis. The 

preferred methods are selected CBI the basis of site-specific analyses of 

biological effediveness, casts, and effects on human health and the 

-t. 

Under the EM approach, the level or intensity of pest manag-t practiced 

will vary in to the resource management emphasis and targeted 

cutputs of each alhmative. For example, alternatives that involve high 

levels of vegetative management, haeasd recreation use, and expanded 

recreatim site CcBlstrUdicHl would call for the implementation of high 

intensity IFM. 

High intensity IFM ad, in turn, involve frequent surveillance and 

detectim activities and reporting, a high level of pest management training 

for F& &"el directly involved in resource management, an increased 

"nber of site-specific biological evaluations, and an increased likelihmd 

of the need for dired mtz-01 against pests. In addition, the timely 

utilizatim of new methodologies and effective ccordination with pest 

management research would have increased importance . The need for high 

intensity IPM would also mean increased opportuIll 'ties to integrate pest 

management considerations into rscurce management decision-making and to 

264 
implement preventive actims, particularly through vegetation management, 

which should &ca the need for direct ccsl.trol in the fuh. 

The Forest has an ety to pment and/or reduce pt-related problems 

by applying sourd silvicultural practices that emphasize the health and vigor 

of timbsr stands. Such practices are apprapriate rot my on ar”5al 

timber lands, but also an farested lands whem other resaurces (such as 

developed recreaticm) are eirghsized. 

Insects, diseases, animals, and aq33tjng vegetatian can damage tress and 

other veptatim. Such dam6ge can, in tum, prwent the Forest fran meetirg 

its management goals and objectives by reducing the quality and/or quantity 

of CQrmOdl ’ties and amenities produces, or by cleating hazardous dtiorLs. 

When goals and objectives carn.3 be mat, the agent responsible for the damage 

is amsidexed a “pest. ” 

Pest damage can vary fran year to year and place to place within the Forest 

and is f?=equatly the result of - pests and/or envirarnnen tal factors 

actjq together as a -lex, rather than the result of action by a sirgle 

pest. pest cauplexes (HI the Forest involve interacticms between dwarf 

mistletoe, bark beetles, and root diseases. The damage caused by Such pest 

canp1eXe.s is often aggravated by site and stand cnlditions, ilE1Udil-g 

(parasites and -tors) are a part of the e”nt and have beccme 

adapted to exploit certain ecological niches or conditions which OCCUT wing 

the developneut of the Forest. 

There are several organism cm the Inyo Natim Forest that have the 

potential to cause unacceptable rescplrce damage. The nnst important disease 

cm the Forest is an~y3sus root disease, which decays the loots of dfers. 

The Forest kea- the surface of freshly cut cymifer stmp with borax to 

prevent the aerial sguead of this disease. Dwarf mistletoe, a plant pasite 

that causes growth lass, affects nmt Ccnifsrous species an the Forest and is 

a problem in lccalized areas. Both anmsus roat disease and dwarf mistletoe 

maken trees and help predispse them to bark beetle attack. Such 

interacticns can be particularly hprtant in developed mtian areas. 

mtential inseci: pests cm the InyD Naticnal Forest include bark beetles and 

defoliatcas. The Jeffrey pine bark beetle, mtain pine beetle and pine 

ergrawx beetles iqpically caw scattered nmtality of individual trees and 

SMll groups of .bees thmugkut the Farest. mch of this mortality is 

salvaged and used for fFrewood . Tm defoliatars, the panaOra moth an Jeffrey 

pine and the westem tent caterpillar cm bi-, have caused noticeable 

defoliation in several areas an the Forest. 

pocket gophers periodically causa mlems with regenemtian by clippirg and 

xcx3ent.s SQnetimeS damage structures in CQnwrOllnds and other develop3 sites 

plague. The Inyo Naticmal Forest cooparates with the apprqziate state and 

overstocking. In general, these m, with their M~IXIJ. €?Il&eS 

gFrcuing the roots and stens of seedlings. Ground squirrels and om 

tluwgh thair Che?Lhq and digging behavior; uley can also carry bubmic 

local plbliC health agencies in mnitoriq, re.Fmtirg, and cmhlling plague 

pdJleIts. czmlxol of anpeeing vegetaticm is discussed undertheheadingof 

Timber. 

265 
Issues, Qncezns, and t" 'ties 

The my public issue related to fim prokcticxi cm the Farsst a&&eses the 

desirability of all- natural fires to l", where amate, to allow 

fire to play its M~LII-F~ role in maintaining vegetative diversity. 

The &nlary management ccrxezn cm the Inyo is to determine the Imst 

cost-effective fire oqanizaticn for the Inyo Naticmal Forest. This 

detenninaticn will aepena largely on the an!binati.cm of wildfire suppressl 'on 

plicies that are hplmented. 

arrent "st fire management practices includes amtrul (sate, 

little or M on-the-grornd acllon), and cantairment (limFted line 

-m), or ccmtz-01 where iagpropriate. The amfinenent or ccpltairmen t 

SupFneSsicm strategies are probably agprcpriate for much of the Inyo Naticmal 

Farest. The Forest's Fire Management ACizi.cn Plan will establish the fire 

suppression Strategies that will be used m all exeas of the Forest. 

Mamgemnt also sees a need to mrk cl-ly with other respmsible entities 

to mitigate the fire risk associated with urban gmwth. 

full-scale S-Sim) &hSWJlt (utili- MtlZal tBTdll barriers; 

Fire management cm the Inyo Natimal Forest includes the following 

cmpxemts: planning, preventim, detectim, SupFrreSsicm, fuels managanat, 

and cxmrdhation with the management of other resources, including the use of 

prescribed fire as a management tool. 

prescribed fire is a resource managmsnt tool ccmmnly used to prepam the 

far livestock or wildlife bmwse, to reduce fuels for wildfire, or to abate 

weeds aroLlnd recreatiopl facilities. prescribed fire is carefully applied 

with coOsiderat5.m for Ml, weam, and topsgrapbical dticns. 

Fuels management activities efy the a"t, size, and placement of living 

and dead canbustible vegetatim. Fuels resultiq fran timber sales (limbs 

and cull logs) are mt a major problem m the Inyo, due to the public demand 

for such material as fuel- and the ease of access to timber sale amas for 

fuel- gather-. 

E" 1972 to 1982, the Inyo expciemed 491 man-caused fires, burning a total 

of 5,616 acres; and 715 lightning-caused fires, burning 2,496 acres. The 

Inyu is typical of National Forests in California, having many snall fires 

with an occasional large, damagirq fire. 

As the Forest is expected to receive increas ing visitaticn due to ppulation 

grmvth (both outside the area and in local cxmnunities), the n- and size 

of wildfires is also expected to increase with m"&q . pressureanthe 

fire organization. While the &inemen t or Ccsltairnnent suppression 

gr0n-d for reforestation PlantiIg, to prarpte new bNsh and grass sprmtiq 

266 
skategies ad reduce that for sane areas, thDse reductlcns wculd 

be offset by increased use of lands, especially near am”l ’ties. 

supEnession staff itxluded seven dishsld SuparviSoIy staff, seven fire 

In 1982 the Farest had tepl fFre preventicn unit.% hre-suppressicn ad 

ergine nrx&iles (each wil5 a crw of three tn five firefighters), me 

helim with initial attack crew, me lookc&, and cne fixed-- 

aircraft. Baclaq? farces to suppl-t initial :suppresicm efforts ate drawn 

fran Forest Service -1, qimal specialized fire crews, mpatiq 

agencies, and pmtrained and certified mntractcus. 

Ihe Inyo Natimal Forest is a member of the Owns Valley Interagency ct“3 

center. This center cuxdlna ‘ tes the wildfire SupFrreSsion efforts for all 

wildlands, regardless of jurisdicticm, fran Topaz Lake to the Kern Plateau 

and fran Death valley to the Sierra NeMda crest. The “closest a-iate 

rasaurce“ omcept is applied in “dhg to fires. Because of this 

mpt, IMOBIUUS rfsames are available to the Forest. 

An analysis of fire management prcgram opticms indicates that the most 

* cost-effective p~ogram would reduce the base year staff- level and increase 

the mphasis cm suppression relative to prevention. Howsver, the base year 

1982 staffing level, with an hxeased mphasis on suppression, is only 

slightly less cost-effective than reduced staff- and offers an increased 

maryin of safety for high-value hpo”ts in rx”ities adjacent to 

Natimal Forest lads. 

The current Farest suppassim policy calls for Mate ccoltrol of all 

wildfires cm the Forest BxcBpt far areas in the Wildernesses, White Pburtajns 

and Irryo Mxmtains. The interhn Irryo Fire Management Plan @des for the 

use of cxmtah”t or Ccplfinement where these strategies are mre appmpriate 

than mtrol. Many additicnal lands cm the Inyo are well-suited to 

canfinement or mtainmnt strategies. 

The Forest %mice fire management strategy is wildland fire protection. The 

Forest will reqxxkd to a Structure fire only in an emergency situation where 

local fire agencies ate unable to handle such a fire. When local 

firefightas have arrived in sufficient force., Forest Sexvice units will 

wittdraw frun the structure fire and focus 081 protection of adjacent 

wildlands. 

Issues, c3”. and oppor” ‘ties 

Ths public has raised several issues related to dcrwsh ’c livestock grazing on 

the Inyo Natimal Forest. These issues include: 

1. A Perception that cattle wergraze riparian areas and key wildlife 

wintering and fawning areas, resulting in increased erosion and loss of 

vegetation for forage and cover. Grazing in developed recreation sites 

is not an issue m the Inyo, as livestock are excluded fran such sites. 

267 
2. A fear by the livestock industry that the grazing program could be 

r&~& or prevented fmn increasing as a result of the issues listed 

above. 

3. A perception that fire suppmsion ccsltributes to declining range forage 

outputs. 

Another set of issues relates to the management of wild horses and burms cm 

the Forest. The "nber of animals CCBlsidered appropriate for a managemnt 

territoly has becane an a"l public issue Mti-de. The issue 

revolves around the question of appxticnhg the range resou~ce quitably to 

wild horses and burros, native wildlife such as deer, and danestic livestmk 

081 a given territory. 

There are many factors limiting irmeases in range forage on the Inyo. Those 

factors include dec&eme of the rqe due, in part, to fire suppression and 

a lack of prescribed rqe treatment: canpetition with timber and 

me deer habitat needs: and statutoq limitations and physical land 

characteristics. 

The Forest has the 'ty to address the issues and cxmcerns cited 

above. The interacticns anrq those issues and cancems are, however, 

canpleX. 

sound allotment a&niniskaticm and rqe management practices can prevent 

emsicm and the over-utilization of forage. Vegetation treabnent can 

maintain, or even .incEse , forage 'on by rejuvenation or type 

marversicm. Riparian habitat, deer winter range, and fawning habitat can be 

by fencing, bettar livestock distribution, mre intensive 

management, or substantial reductl '081 in livestock nmhrs. Wild horse and 

burro pcrpulaticm can be managed with an emphasis cn those species. Land 

suitable for both timber and graziq can be manage3 for bth types of 

These factors are discussed in mre detail below. 

outputs. 

The canplexity of interacticns is seen when a vitive respmse to the issue 

of prot€&q ' or increasing wildlife habitat would entail a negative response 

to the issue of increasing livestock grazing, or when the maintenance of 

current grazing in suitable timber would cmflict with the t.imber issue of 

increasing timber prcducticm. 

The major opprtumity to -1ve range issues and cancems is to clearly 

identify the overall management emphasis of the Inyo National Forest, the 

primary mghasis to be applied on subpaas of the Forest and the management 

direzticm reeded to supprt those €y@mses. 

Ths range forage ~apgram on the Iny~ tiaticmal Forest currently ranks fifth 

mung Forests in California, dl31 41,400 AT&% (Animal Unit Mmths) of use in 

1982. The grazing seasm typically extends fmn late June to late September. 

In 1984, there ware sixty grazing allo~ts: thirty-nine for cattle (24,479 

AIMS), - far sheep (13,152 AIMS), and four for brses (563 AUMs). All 

allotments are available for dcmestic livestock pennits except for the Pi268 
allotment, which has been deferred since 1973 to accormodate wild horses. In 

addition to the allatrnents, there are fifteen special use brse pastures (431 

AIIMS) associated with carmercial remeation stcck pack stations. other 

remeaticm stock utilize about 132 

Range allotments cwer 886,103 acres, of which 399,296 acres are actually 

suitable for grazing. Included in the suitable grazing land are 10,448 acres 

of waived mvate land. An ad&timal 6,600 a- of suitable range 

presently lies cutsj.de of allotments, These acres are isolated and lack 

water sources but could be made available for grazing. 

In most areas, range rxmdition is pxr to fair by Region 5 standards, and the 

trend is static to iqmvhg. Meadavs arid riparian areas are considered pmr 

but hprwing in tarms of range po3mtic.m. Vegetation types on the Inyu 

are, however, mxe similar to those found elsewhem in the Great Basin than 

to thoss found elsewbm in California. Rangelands on the Inyo would rate 

highat by Regian 4 standards, which are based specifically on Great Basin 

qetation typs amparable to those found in the Eastern Sierra. 

Bitbrbmsh (115,409 acres), big sagebrush (160,000 acres) and wet meadows 

(26,000 acres) am the “tay of the range resource. They account for an 

estimated 80 percent of the Forest’s grazing outputs. Bitterbrush lases 

praiwtivity rapidly after seventy years of age. In the absence of wildfire 

or prescribed vegetaticn Wbnsnt, it may remain in a decadent conditicn 

indefinitely. Likauise, meadows are invaded by .iuoody species when vegetative 

succession proceds without the intenxpticn of M~W& fires or other 

rejuvenatirg or Wbnsnts. By the end of the next fifty years, 

virtually all of the bitterbrush and big sagebrush cn the Forest will be 

caecadent mder current treatment schedules. 

Thecostofextensl ‘vely applyiq such practices as prescribed burning, 

“xical manipA.aticm, or sprayhg would be very high. App”a tely 3,900 

acres of suitable range brush would need to be rejuvenated each year to 

maintain crurrent grazirg mtpts (27,000 AWs) fnm brush types over the next 

fifty years. FTescxl ’bed bumirg would be the t”nt method favored, due 

to public ccsltrwersy over herbicide use and the fact that burnjng is mxe 

effective than “n ‘cal maniplaticm in stimulatiq hcxesed forage 

pxduction. Actual decisians about the methods used wmld be based on 

per year. 

site-specific analysis. 

Timber managenent cm lands suitable for both grazirg and timber prcducticn is 

another factor lid- the size of the grazing program. Abut 37,000 acres 

of the suitable khbx base presently @de 3,700 AUMS of annual grazing. 

If timbex outputs Cm these acres were “ized, wer 2,700 annual Am of 

grazing would be lost by the end of fifty years. Sum of the loss could 

probably be regained by grazing stands of m-camnercial or unsuitable timber 

All suitable ratgelands are rm amsidered permanent range except for thDse 

“gelands in suitable tinber. These range-* lands are capable of 

prakchg permanent forage and have traditionally been counted in the 

suitable range base. They have also, ik”?, been SChdLiLed for 

refarestation. As rsforestation is implgnentea, these lands may eventually 

be reTwBd ftomthe suitable base. 

grazing does mt yet OCCUT. 

269 
It is unlikely that tinbr lands on the mycl can be Utilized as transitlny 

me because the primary forage species-is bi-. The biwould be as part of the sib preparatim process and is unlikely to 

regenerate uder a timber caxpy cclver -tar than30percent. 

The habitat needs of mle deer may ccglflid with cattle grazing in two 

areas: When cattle graze in deer fawning 

areas early in the seasan, protecuve cover for y0Ul-g fawns is le. There 

may also be ccplflicts arisiq fran interacticms between livestxk and does. 

Canpetitdm between pregnant dDes and livestock for forage on winter range 

may be limitirg for deer where cattle are present early in the season durbg "green-*. 

Riparian area-aepenaent IF3souTces may ccmfict with grazing because of 

livestock behaviar. Livestock tend to use riparian areas a disproprticmate 

anKnmt of the time. Tharefore, even if the range is managed within its 

overall capacity to suppcnt g-raziq, associated riparian zcms may be 

damaged. Riman vegetatim can be trampled, &"&ank denuded, and 

streams subjected to iMeased sedimentatiopl. The effects of livestock cm 

riparian areas can be mitigated by "giq livestock h=havior (e.g., by 

herding, sal-, fencing, dwelcpbg water sources away fran riparian areas, 

famhg habitat and winter range. 

or deferrirg grazing). 

Increases in forage are ultimawy limited by physical, biological and 

statukzy factors. Most of the rangeland 081 the Farest is arid (receiving an 

average of nine to fifteen i"es of precipitaticn per year) and high in 

elevaticm (much of it at" 7,000 feat) with a grmxhq season of three to 

four mcslths. Mzst soils are derived fran granitic or volcanic parent rock 

and have low water-holding capacity. Lack of water and a short growing 

seaxm limit the grcwth of forage plants. Finally, much of the highest 

quality wet meadowland is in the Golden Trout Wilderness. Grazing in 

wildemess is restricted to levels that are CarpMtible with wildemess 

Values. 

The demand for graziq 081 the Inyo is expected to continue at or abve 

present levels, since Natimal Forest "er range is essential for lccal 

ranch opraticns. The Forest ass~rmes that if additional Am were made 

available, they would be utilized by present ptmnittees. 

Thedanestzl 'c livestock pqram is currently managed at a nrxlerate level of 

intensity. M3st rara~e allotmmts have some improvements (such as fences or 

vegetation treatments) but the imprwements are not sufficient to optimize 

livestock utilizaticn of forage. 

Specific range management needs are documented in Allotment Managemnt plans 

and Annual Cprating Plans. The raqe gymnittee is usually respnsible for 

the annual "ne of structural imprwementS, while the Forest pruvides 

materials for new cyx-&zuctim. The useful life of stxuctural inpmvexents 

varies frun twenty to forty years. They are replaced at an average rate of 

-everYthirtyyears.- ' tely one ~lew stmctural iqnmvexent is 

added each year. Then? are an estimatd 150 miles of fence, 39 miles of 

water pipeline, 145 water smrces (txmghs, wells, springs), and 50 

miscellaneous stxuctures (such as cattle guards, gates, and corrals) on the 

Forest. 

270 
Ncn-- hqp"nts (vegetation treatments) are typically handled by 

the Forest service. The useful life of vqetatirn treabnmts varies: big 

sage type unvw'da-s are effective far fifteen years. Bitterbrush 

rejuvenaticn is effeztive far seventy years. An average of 200 acres of 

vegetatirn have been treatad each year aver the past five years to benefit 

domestic livesb3ck. An estimated 3,900 acres of range tmsh would need to be 

treated each year to offset decadence and maintain cufient AW wer fifty 

years. 

ThB White P4mntaiI-I Wild Horse l"ito~~ (70 harses) and the Saline Valley 

and Lee Flat Burro Tarritcny (112 burros) are managed under approved 

managenent plans, and current popllatirns are at established management 

levels. 

"he Mdgmery Pass Wild Horse Territary does not have a management plan, and 

We rosnber of ho?xes cwrently axoeeds the capacity of the range. A 

management plan is baing written far this herd. ThB Inyo National Forest, 

through a Marorandran of Und-m, carries the lead role in developing 

area as a Wild Horse =itmy, designate the area as a Wild Horse Range, or 

abolish the mi-. The Forest planning process will not address these 

that "nt Plan. Alternatives to be ccnsidered include maintain the 

altarnaties, ht t3-q will be addresssd in detail by the herd management 

pcooess. 

ThB Forest also has adninistrative autlnrity for both the m~-~tganeq pass and 

White P4xmtaiI-I herds while the Bureau of Land Management has achninstxative 

authority for the Saline valley herd. Two Bureau of Land Managment 

Districts and the Toiyabe National Forest also have jurisdictional 

The public d"Y3 far wild horse and burro pro~m is s3nx-g. 

respmsibilities for the mtgunery herd. 

REmEATIm G"AL 

nm"tl 'on 

Recreatian is the most significant rsource on the Inyo National Forest and 

is expet& to ccsltinue in that role into the foreseeable future. The Inyo 

has Cmsistently ranked within the tap five National Forests nationwide in 

terms of total recreation use. 

The eccadc stability of all Eastarn Sierra "unities rests heavily on 

remeaticm-based i". Local businesses describe times as "hard" or 

"prcsparous" in terns of the number of recreation visitors to the area. 

The Fastem Sierra and the Inyo National Forest have many attractions that 

bring -le to the area frun thrcughxt the state, the nation, and other 

countries. These attractions include mre than a half million acres of 

designated wilderness; hundreds of lakes and miles of stream with excellent 

trout fishing; 3,000-4.000 developsd campsites, both private and public; and 

a long ski season. 

271 
~n addition to these ~t~~al attractions, programs sp3nsored by local 

chambers of Carmerce and Outdmr-oriented organizations bring even mre 

visitors. 

A broad Spectrum Of -tion OppZhIU ‘ties geared to identified demands is 

needed to ensure the viability of the 1- eccolcmy and lifestyle. The 

demand for different kinds of recreation has shifted in the past and will 

mtinue to do so. ow ever, the overall recreation enphasis, the increase in 

visitation, and the need for a variety of recreatimal options have grown 

over the past fifty years and am -ted to continue into the future. 

The recreation resoufce on the Inyo National Forest will be discussed below 

under the f0llcming SLlbheAiqs: 

1. Developed Recreation - developed facilities, both public and private, c~1 

National Forest lands. These facilities include overnight, day-use, and 

inteqretive facilities, but not alpine ski areas. 

Dispersed Recreation - all those recreational activities on the Forest 

that are not clirectly tied to developed sites. Does not include 

wilderness recreation (see Wilderness). 

2. 

3. Alpine skiing - this Qic is handled separately in order to fully 

identify the major land managmt q, ‘ ‘ties and impacts it 

represents. 

Sane important relatiaxships between these categories should be mentioned 

before each category. is discussed separately. 

sumner vs. win* Developed Reszreation: Most develop3 sites have 

historically been used aiiy in sumner. Emever, the recent dramatic increase 

in alpine skiing has generated an ixxease in many other wintw activities as 

well (e.g., dc skiing, win- cam~ing, and organized - play). These 

activities, in turn, gemrate potential year-round use of develop@ 

facilities. Developed sites can no 1cnger be opened only in the peak “er 

seasm and closed for the rest of the year if the Forest is to rem to 

public needs. 

Year-mud use of developd sites is still limited and has generally occurred 

only where the hve&nent has come fm the private sector. Recent func3i.q 

levels have resulted in si-“q . , not 1- ’ , the operating seasonof 

public sites. Uaiever, the demand for year-rcund use of recreation sites 

will mtinua to grow and will eventually affezt the “gmt of public 

facilities, as well as private cries. 

Dispersed vs. Developea Recreation: The current trend in Forest Service 

recxeaticn management is to BIyxxLTage more dispersed use rather than 

cxxlstmct Imre aevelopea sites. This-trend has &lved because developea 

sites are costly. However, the anKnmt of dispersed recreaticBl use on the 

Inyo National Forest is closely associated with the anrnmt of overnight 

capacity available on both private and public lands in the area. Because the 

Eastern Si- is located at least four or five hours by car fran any major 

mation center, & Forest visitors require wernight accarmodations. 

272 
Dispersed rexeatim generated by lccal residents represents a very small 

part of total use. 

If aeVelOpea recreaticm on the Inyo were demphasized, dispersed recreation 

would be accordingly. If all developd sites were closed, the 

dispersed use would anvunt to cmly 15 to 20 percent of the current 

level. The cmly way to increase dispersed use would be to increase overm 'ght 

developed site capacity, both OPI and off the Forest. 

Wilderness and N=sl-wilderness Dispersed use: In recent years, limits have 

been placed an wilcaernesS use. Qle might expect that these limits would 

result in m demand for m-mtorized prhitive recreation in 

non-wilw areas cm the Forest. This has not, hawever, been the case. 

Other areas cb mt have the same attractim, especially water, that are 

fcnmd in exisllng wilderness. Wilderness visitors wb are unable to obtain a 

wilde.mess permit because quotas are full will prcbably seek another area 

with canparable attractias, rather than using ncsl-wildemess lands on the 

Inyo. 

has been to increase visitatim by hcxeasirg the attraction of an area. 

However, mDst of the effort to attract m visitation is autside the ccoltrol 

of the Farest Servic!%. For example, Contsols special land 

designaid-. such as wild en^^^ or the l4x-n Basin National Forest Scenic 

Area; Umnbers of Qrmerce spmsor or exourage activities in local 

ca"ities; and the state ~tzols the fish stocking prcgram and constructs 

andmaintainsmostof the roads within and leading tothe area. 

Irmeasing Rmtiollal Attractims: The trend in -tion-&& ecollcmie~ 

REXXWV": DEvEulpED 

Issues, cay-zms, and- 'ties 

Many public issues have been raised with regard to develop3 recreation. 

range of qinim spans the spct" of an issue. 

public qinicm 

The 

Followirq is a sumnary of 

&drg the Forest pl- pxess: 

- -tian developlwt is of ccrmcern b3 many people and of vital COIlcem 

to som8, especially to 1- ansa residents. 

a=. 

- The public is collectively interest& in the entire raqe of developnent 

- The resou~c~ values that attract -ticmists to this area are 

- The public is dissatisfied with the reduced use seasons and 

Management shares the public's a" with many of the issues listed above. 

The Forest is also concerned with the fact that the supply of overnight 

facilities is falling behird demand, the fact that day-use facilities such as 

trails and inteqXetiw3 sites are insufficient to meet needs, and the 

potential fm major cctlflids between recrsaticmal aevelopnents and other 

extremely impartant and should rarely be canpranised. 

&-tin3 facilities uey have in recent years. 

273 
and activities. -ti& -ties add canflict with 

snall hydra3leCtriC developnent, g€o- developnent, and timber 

management in old gmwth red fir stands. 

small hydroelectric projects, as propoed, could reduca stream flows and 

affect riparian zcnes to the pint that mDst of the recreatimal atbackion 

along aff& reaches of stream wxld be lost. The affected Streams could 

include Lea vining (seek, Mct Cteek, Msea creek, Rock (Ireek, Bishop 

creek, and Big Pine eceek, all of which are KIW heavily developed and used 

for recreation. 

If the geothermal energy TBSOUTCB in the r%Xk3-- Valley KmvL were fully 

recreation areas. The greatest potential for additicslal sumner recreation 

geotbermaz developmlt. 

Many snaller streams could also be affected. 

developed, a major industLl 'al canplex would be intzcd~~ced into an area of 

heavy recreation use between the Mammth and June Lake Loop cancentrated 

site developnent on the Farest lies in the area being considered for 

M red fir stands CpI the Farest have & yet been logged, as timber 

management has historically focused attention on the Jeffrey pine forest. 

The red fir stands between Marmrsth and Juris Lake offer sane unique 

r%ax?ational oppcaturu 'ties, and the area could easily becane a 

---bated recreation area. Recreational developnent would, 

however, ccnflict with full timker pnxbztion in this area. 

Amther management is centered on the ability of the Forest to meet 

the public demand for "aticmal facilities. There is m program of new 

major recmaticn sits ccnstructim on the Forest. The last major 

combxddcn pxgcam occurred in the 1950s and 1960s. Private developnent in 

local cc"ities meets part of the total demand for overnight 

accunmdaticms. Such developnents do &, however, meet the demand for 

campgrounds located near recreational attradians such as lakes and streams. 

certain recxeational residence tracts have been identified for gradual 

elimination to @de high quality land for public uses, such as 

campgrounds. 

Finally, managaent is CDOlcerned that the developnent of new recreation sites 

will becane less cost-effective as the less attractive sites are built. Few 

visitors would be will- to camp in the unshaded sagebrush witbut a major 

recreational attraction located nearby. 

The Forest has the oppz~rtunity in this plamiq process to identify 

ocslflids, analyze trade-offs, and establish mnagemsnt miphases and 

direction regarding many of these issues and cx"s. 

The developed recxeation resaurce on the Inyo National Forest includes all 

public and private recreation facilities on National Forest lands. These 

facilities are oriented toward ommight acmrmodation, day-use, and 

inteqretation. The Inyo is already me of the most recreatimally developea 

National ForestS MtiOIWids, and there are many 'ties for additiw 

developnent. 

274 
wtely 98 perwnt of pblic and privata aeVelOpea sites are located in 

acses, or two percent of the Forest land base. Becam Mopd sites are 

ccrroentrated in these areas, 65 perosnt Of the IXXI-~~~~~KIESS direcreation 011 the Forest takes place an the same acres. 

A Of fn ath-acts mtblktS these areas: outstanding 

oarosntcated recxeaticn areas. lllese areas cfxpzke apFaroximately 47.000 

scenary, the “tain eanrFrament and cml Weathx, lakes and streams with 

supert, imxt fisheries, a wide variety of -ti& qprturu ‘ties, and 

ease of access an high-- paved roads. 

libst recreaticn aceas are water oriented. Nary parallel the 

maFn streams flowing frun the Sierra Nevada crest, while others SwIOund 

major lakes. Of the follw coocentrated recreab ‘m areas, only tha Inyo 

Craters-Deer Wxmtain, Shady Rest, and Cedar Flat-schulman (;rove - are 

located away fran water. All areas are located in the Sierra Nevadas with 

the exception of Hot Creek and Cedar Flat-Sch- Grove. The Sierra Nevada 

areas are listed in arCaer fmn north to south. 

Mct creek-ccanrict Lake 

RockcYeek 

Bishp c3reek 

Big Pine &%=k 

IndeperadenceLCiX3Pitaecceek 

Hotcreek 

Cedar Flat-Sch- Grove 

Following is a sumnazy of existirq -tian and intaprative site 

aeVelopnentS by type, with their 1982 capacity in PAOTs (Persm.~ At One The) 

and 1982 use in RVDs (Recreatimal Visitor Days). Family “&grounds and 

resort lcx%ges, tcge-, ac”t for the majority of capacity (57%) and use 

(7f3). 

The average ann& rate for ulyo Natimal Forest developed 

campgrollnds thearetically repesents about 29 percent of Forest-Wide capacity 

if all caqg-rourds were “aged for a 168-day open season. The actual 

“~~IEY rates are pmbably higher. Open seasons for s~ne sites have been 

shortened ovex the past five to seven years to as few as 100 to 110 days, 

opening just before -rial Day and closing the week after Labor Day. If an 

average Forest-wida use seasm of 130 days is assumed, the occupancy rate in 

1982 would be about 37 percent. A rate of 35 to 40 percent is considered 

aptirnUm for Naticmal Forests in this Region. UMSer this guideline, the Inyo 

is operating at optir” levels during the peak sumner season. 

If the dmand for recceaticBl sites increases as projected, however, new 

&arelop3 site capacity will sam be needed for the s” season. The 

potential for expansion or new developnent of recreational facilities varies 

with the type of facility. Approximately 43 percent of the identified 

potential capgrmM dts are already developed. Of thme sites still 

undeveloped, 62 pment are lccated in existing cancen.trated recreation 

areas, while the other 38 percent are scatter& elsewhere on the Forest. 

275 
Table 33 

Public ax3 Priwte Developed Sites 

Cwxent Capacity and Use 

1982 Capacity 1982 Use 

Sites (#) (PAoTs) (-SI 

Developed 

Acres 

Observation Sites 11 5 158 4.5 

slrmungm 26 2 745 7.8 

Campsrounds (family) 755 69 11,945 1,142.7 

39 14 958 35.3 

Picnic Grwmis 39 12 445 27.4 

camwrounas (group) 

Interpretive Sites-Major 17 2 490 12.2 

Interpretive Sites-Minor 68 15 2,255 29.4 

Interpretive Sites-Achin. 3 3 130 3.2 

Infomticm Sites 10 9 272 3.4 

Playgmmd-Parks 12 1 50 2.4 

Soating Sites 5 4 150 13.1 

IVl>telS, ICd$ngs, Resorts 137 23 3,623 273.1 

organization Canp 21 5 560 31.6 

Ccmcessi- 102 26 1,500 57.8 

Remeation Residences 180 27 2,198 209.6 

.. 

Alpine ski Areas 

Trailheads 

(see Alpine skiing) - - - - 

(see Wilderness) - - - - 

TOEAI. 1,425 246 25,479 1,848.5 

The -loped potential sites are not as desirable for the user 

as existing units, because they are not as clase to water or other desirable 

attractionS. For these 

“s the use of many potential cmpgmmd sites is expected to be lower 

than that of existirag sites. 

The potential for additirmal day-usa facilities varies with the kind of 

facility. The potential for additional swimirg, boating, and 

playg”3-park facilities is veq limited. Only Want Lake in the June Lake 

Loop has sone additirmal potential for wa*-oriented sites. mere are mre 

potential picnic sites, but amsidering the large N4nber of campsites and the 

SMll “her of lccal remeatidsts, picnic areas are in little demand. The 

potantial for additicmal interpretive sites is virtual ly unlimited; many of 

these aralmt even includedinthe current irnrentory. 

The mtial for privata resorts and cancessicns is fully develop3 with 

little cgprhm~ ‘ty for - facilities of the traditional types. The 

excepticn is in the area of FW parks, especially where they could operate 

year-d. The potential for RV park developnent as part of a resort is 

included in the following table in “family -‘I. 

There are 25 recreation residence tracts on the Forest. The lots in nine 

tracts are cm tenure. cabins were remnred in ttae past to provide land for 

higher plblic uses, including public access to mar streamside zones. 

Many also lack vegetation for shade and screening. 

276 
Many additicmal tracts occupy sites or zcms alq lakes or streams that are 

suitable for inpuved access or mm public use. Decisims abmt such uses 

in 

tum, be amiucbd when pnnits are reviewed for renewal. There is IM 

opprhmity to increase recreation residences, and XI additional land will be 

allocated for "aticmal residences. 

will be made through the process of future use det-tim, which will, 

Table 39 

Public and Primte DevelOpea Sites 

potential capacity and use 

Additid capacity Addirianal use 

(-) (-) 

Gbse?xaticm sites 230 18.4 

200 8.0 

15,875 1,331.6 swirmcingc=w%m=- (-) 360 3.0 

picnic Grounds 1,030 33.8 

Interpretive Sites-Majar -- -- 

Interpretive sites-Minca 295 7.0 

Interpretie sites-Acinin. -- -- 

Informatian sites 130 11.2 

Playg"%-Parks 150 10.0 

e0atjl-g sites 100 18.5 

mkls. Loagings. - 150 11.0 

Organization cirmps 

ctnEssi- 35 0.2 

Remeation Residences -- -- 

lwrAL 18,555 1,483.7 

(family) 

-- -- 

The total annmt of sunnier aevelopea lecreatiosl use 011 the Inyo has chargd 

very little in the last ten to fiftesn years. Remeatim use mly increases 

significantly wfien capacity is added. Developea site capacity on the Forest 

has, in fact, because of adninistxatie and design ccsltmls intended 

tocuJ.-bresarrcedirmage. 

REcRFATI(lN: ALPmsKIm 

Issues, cancerns, andoppo?Am 'ties 

No new major public issues wera raised during public involvement for the 

Chmty's "unity developnent plan for Marnmth (the Ms") in 1979, had 

Forest plan, aS the mth-m Unit Plan, develm cooperatively with WUXJ 

addressed the key issues of the extent and location of futwe alpine ski area 

developnent. 

Those issues hare, ixxevs, arisen again with the County's up&ti.rg of the 

mm (since renamed the Town of ManDth Lakes Gener;ll Plan with the 

ixoqaaticm of Marmpth). The Final General Plan has expressed the 

desire far nore ski area deve1-t than was projectea by the original 

277 
PJr" and Ma"th-" vnit Plan, and has indicatsd the priority in which 

the ccunty and tcwn would like to see p3tential ski areas evaluated for 

dsvelqment. 

An €"mtal analysis amside?=ing potantial ski area aevelopnent in tha 

Sherwin Bowl area is axmntly baing arduchd outside this Forest p1arml.q 

process. 

Ma"t is ccmmmed with the need to rsspcnd to the demand for more 

skiing. There are also sevaral COIICBIILS: related to the impads of ski areas 

on visual quality, wildlife, soil stability, watar quality and quantity, the 

local cn"ity, transprbtion patterns, safety, and the need for an 

expndiq private land base. The Forest is, finally, that 

ccnnumity gravth in "sg to increasing winter -tion use cciiid 

negatively affect sumner rwxeaticm sites on Forest land near gmming 

WmmnritiB. 

TheForeSthasthe- 'ty in the Plan to identify potential SM areas, 

to establish priorities for devalopnent, and to mderate the management of 

other resources wl-" the mtenticm of ski area potakial is ccmsidered 

desirable. There is also an oppcatunity to establish directi on addressirg 

the impacts of ski area developnent on other resmxes and activities. 

Tm alw ski areas currently operate cm the Forest. Manmoth Mnmtain Ski 

Area operates 31 lifts cm a pmit area of 3,200 acres, has a current design 

capacity of 19,000 Skiers At Qne Time (SAOT), and attracted nearly 1.5 skier 

visits durm the 1981-82 seasc~1. June Wnmtain Ski Area Operates six lifts 

on a 1,440-aae parmit area, has a design capacity of 3,000 SAOT, and has 

Tutal dsvelopnent for June "ntain could expand the area to 1,500 acres and 

capacity to 7,000 SAOT. The appeoved Mammth Mnmtain developnent plan would 

increase the area to 3,600 acres and 24,000 SAOT. The two areas ate exp=ted 

to build out to 31,000 SAOT capacity by 1990. 

Mamroth Wnmtain Ski Area ranks first ~ti@n~ide in the number of mual 

ski- visits and provides m than fifty prcent of the skiing oppsrtunities 

on National Forest lands in Region 5. The quality of skiing on the Inyo is 

excellent due to the 1- season--- through May, or longer--- 

depth, and range of difficulty of ski terrain. 

bbst visitors (83 percent) to both ski areas cone frun Southern California 

and use ommight aaxmudaticns In the Mammth or June Lake areas. Alpine 

L&e Village is mre evenly divided between scmmer and winter use. 

'Ihe five sites listed belay, all in the Marmoth area, are considered suitable 

for ski a?sa developnent. Wght other potential sites have been identified 

and eliminated in the past due to wilderness designation, cxmflicts with 

other resources, or ecoMRic factors. 

averaged 100,m annual skier visits over the past few years. 

ski- represents the primry econaRic base for'the .zQ"ity Of Mammth 

Lakes, with Sumnar mtiCXl- impOrtanCe. The ecOnany of June 

278 
Sherwin Bawl 2,400 acres 8,000 SADT 

Mjnarat sumnit 1,300 acres 3,200 SAOT 

Marrmoth -11s 3,800 acres 3,200 SAOT 

Sa JW 3,500 acres 14,000 SAOT 

mite wing 1,500 acres 3,000 SAOT 

Theccmhined estimated alpina ski capacity of the tw~ operatirg and five 

potential ski areas on the Farest is 62,400 SAOP on 17,600 acres. The SADT 

estimates are based on the best available data. They could change as further 

studies are ampleted. 

ski area use m the Farest has imreasd by a-klY 12 percent per year for the past ten years. The demand for skiing by scuthem califo?mians 

appears to increase in direct proporticPl to increasing lift capacity. The 

deMnd for SkFirg cn the Inyo is influenced by the limited capacity of ski 

areas in soutbem California to expand. Marmpth Wnmtain currently attracts 

50 percent of all Southern California ski use. That percentage is likely to 

increase as ski areas in Southem California reach capacity. 

The recent 12 pment per year gmwth of alpine skiing is not likely to 

CcpICirnse. Skiareaandcumunu. 'ty Clevelcpent will probably Slow down, and 

capacities will eventually be established. Maxi" ski area developat will 

ultimataly depena on which factors emerge as the Limiting cmes. Ljmitiq 

fa- in the past have bean camunity related. Sanitation, water supplies, 

and 913w rmnval capability have been major pmblms. As those problems are 

resolved, others may take their place. It is quite Wsible that social, 

eccBlonic, and political factors in the base cc"i.,~s will prove mxe 

llmiting to ski area developnent in the loq run than the inherent capability 

of the land to provide skiing. 

The Eastem Sierra, including the Inyo Natimal Forest, is a region in which 

visual quality, soil stability, watw quality, and water availability am 

extremely sensitive issues. Ski area developnent typically entails the 

lerrrnml of vegetatim over large land areas and massive earth-mming efforts 

in the prcce=s of shaping ski funs. If ski area developnent proceeds on a 

large scale, major !inpacts can be exp=&ed. These inpacts can be offset 

sanmht, but rot entirely, by mitigation measures and careful planning well 

in advance of aeVelopnent wii3-1 miou awareness of the costs and 

lqistical challqes involved. 

The impads created by ca"l 'ty growth can also be major. Such impacts are 

outside of Forest Senrice mtrol, though many of the impacts are felt on 

National Forest lands. Effects on Forest lands mltiply as the populatim 

grows. There is, for example, an increasing demand for public land, both for 

279 
exchange into the private sector and for use urdw pennit for facilities such 

as parks, -is, m storage, water bx?atme.nt, 1uii-i.n" -ing, 

golf courses. 

Issues, CxncemS, andoppomnu 'ties 

The range of public opinion cancerning dispersed recreation is as varied as 

the range of activities. Each dispersed activity has its advccates. Scm 

activities have oppnents. Sane issues arise fran conflicts between users 

such as c~oss-camtry skiers vs. 4y3wm3bilers, hikers vs. equestrians, 

cyclists vs. mbrists. 

There is -titicm between wilderness recreation and other dispersed 

activities for sane of the Further Planning Areas on the Forest, as certain 

lands mw used for four-wheel drive and off-highway vehicle ((XN) remeation 

are being considered for wilderness designation. The term OHV refers to 

vehicles that are capable of izmling off ha-wheel drive roads. These 

include four-wheel drive vehicles, three- and fcur-wheel all terrain vehicles 

vehicles). 

The public would like to see more .trails outside wilderness for day hiking, 

horseback rim9, WS, and handicapped use. The public desire for bicycle 

paths in Mly ysd areas such as the Marmpth Lakes Basin, the Shady 

Rest-Sherwin Qleek area, and the June Lake Imp is expeded to ircmase as 

cycling in prrpularity. 

The wed for dispersed wintex ntim facilities is another public issue. 

The last five years have seen a dramatic increase in mrdic ski-, and 

demand is expcted to increase at an accelezated rate in oaning yeazs. The 

a"t of rnrdic skiing in the Marmoth area is closely tied to alpine 

ski-. As alphe capacity is reached, skiers are forced to explore other 

winter sports options. The developnent of more mrdic skiing facilities 

would anstitute an additicnal attracticsl. The public also has an interest 

inadditianalmrk€dslxmKhl ' e trails. 

Managgnent is c"& that facilities needed to accomDdate dispersed 

day-use activities &xld receive hi- priority than they have in the 

past. Nm-wilderness trailheads and pazkirg areas, bicycle paths, and 

*line trail maintenance to acmnmdate heavy foot kavel are very 

expmsive, but have m econrmic return. The expectation has always been that 

disperses recmaticm can hxeasa at very little cost. Haem, because such 

use an the Inyo is CDPlcentrated in the nnst desirable and sensitive areas, resour~e damage is occuzring and will cmtinue to OCCUT unless apprqriate 

facilities are developed. 

TheForesthasthe- 'ty in the pl- pncess to analyze the range 

of disperses re€xeaticm cption.3 and to establish management direcb 'm in the 

Plan that enmuragas and enhances dispersed use. 

(AWS) and dXddkeS. S"biles are ??Sferred to as Oms (Over-sruXU 

280 
The Inyu National Forest has a wida and varied range of dispersed activities 

that attract millim of Southern Californians to the Eastem Sierra. 

~isp?Jsed reu-eaticm includes all -ti& activities that cccur outside 

of devaloped sites: hikjng, fishing, public wood gather-, hunting, 

four-wheel driving, sightseeing, and ncordio skiiq ar8 examples. Wilrecreaticm is discussed separately under the hadiq of Wilderness; fishing andhuntingarediscussed under the headings of Fish and Wildlife 

respectively. Dispersed reCreatian Use figures fOr 1982, inClUding tbase 

categories, are listed below. (FWD = Recreation Visitor Day; WFUI = Wildlife 

and Fish USer Day). 

Table 41 

1982 Dispersed Recreatian Use 

Wilderness use 540,ooo RVDs 

"-wildarness fishing 340,ooo ms 

Dispersed other than wildlerness 

m-wildarness big-garm htirg 25,200 ms 

Other wildlife-related "atim 25,800 RVDs 

and wildlife 

nYrAL 1,935,000 RVDs and WNDs 

1,004,ooo RVDS 

The Inyo Naticmal Forest has, for analysis pu1p3ses, divided lands on the 

Farest into thres categories based m the intensity of refxeaticn us8: 

"ntrated recreatiQl areas, open Natimal Farest (other Wed lands), and 

unroaded lands. 

Gmcenlxated remeation areas wntain most of the developea remeation 

sites. These areas (x~er 47,060 acres of very attractive, water-oriented 

lands, mxt of them located alcx-g the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada. 

These areas are listed above wder the headitg of Developd Re". High 

levels of disparsea use such as hildng, water play, and drivirg for pleasure 

ganeate appnxhately 12.4 RVDs par acre par year in these areas, and 

the two peroent of the total land base fard in cancentrated ncreatim 

Open Naticmal Farest lands are roaded lands outside of cmcmtxated 

recrsaticn areas. Major sumner activities in the open National Forest are 

primitive camping, driving for pleasure, wood gathering, hmting, and 

m>torhike use. Win* activitiss include s-mambiling and nordic skiing. 

Total reczeaticm use in this category is about half of that generated in 

amcentrated recreatiCn areas, ipuxIllting to 1.3 RVDs per acre an 322,612 

acres fm a total of 408,410 RVDs. Huntirg and fishing represent 0.1 WFUDs 

par am-0 cn tbase lands. Little fishing takes Place m these lands, as water 

isverylhlited. The mostpopllar areas in this category are the forested 

fisM.rg represents 5.7 WNDS par acre. sixty-three percent of cufient 

disperses rrm-Wildarness use a the Farest (including WFUDs) takes place QI 

areas. 

281 
lands rortheast of Mammth Lakes, the 6uttennilk area west of Bishop. the 

area east of Lake (Imwley, and the Ioaded parts of the white and Irryo 

"tains. 

unroaded lands include all --wilderness lands CPI the Forest that are & 

accessible by ccmstructed and maintained plblic mads. M are accessible 

only by foot, harseback, or f- drive vehicle. Lands in this catesoIy 

provide 13,373 RMS cm 1,008,548 ames at a rate of only 0.01 FlVDs per acre 

per year. Huntirg accamts for an additimalO.03 WNDS per acre. other 

uses include hikilg, backpacking, fishing, sightseeing, and ow use. This 

category includes most of tbs mta and Inyo r.mntainS, "ache "s, 

prtims of the Coyote Plateau, and rmst of the Glass and Excelsior 

muntains. Little water is available, and -ti& attractions are low 

on msst of these lam3s. 

The present level of dispersed rea-eati.cn is 1,oo4,oO0 ms. Inrreases in 

dispezsed recreatian use are tied directly to the availability of overnight 

accamdaticms, both an the Forest and in neighboring ccnnnmities. If 

managwent cm the Inyo were to "iza dispersed recreation opP3rtunities. 

the Forest could provia 3,389,000 RVDS (excluding wilderness use) by tha 

fifth decade. 

The FareSt is capable of &&ling dkprsed use in omcentrated recreatim 

areas. In the open Naticmal Forest and cn unroaded lands, the potential 

(land capability) for dim use exceeds the current demand for use in 

those land categories. The attradm of mded lands is especially low 

due to the scarcity of water for recreaticmal activities or personal use. 

Rereaticmal access for vehicle-based dispersed recreation use is gocd 

overall. The Forest mad system is ly canplete, and mxt mads could 

accamdatemre use than they do at present. 

'Ihere is, however, a major shcntage of trails in ancentrated recreatim 

areas. "rails are nseded to accormodate existkg use and any increases in 

Rws. Wn-ccmstmcted fishennen's paths are eraiirg the soil and affect the 

vegetaticn in sensitive streamside zcnes. Hikhg, equestrian, bicycle, 

interpretive, and handicap@ trails should be addressed in future detailed 

planning for collcentrated recreaticBl areas. rqp"a ' tely 180 miles of trail 

ad be needed to meet the projected demand for ra-xeation in those areas. 

The Forest is a participant in the California State-wide OW Trails Plan. 

This plan is a proposed Off-highway Vehicle Recreatianal Trails Plan to 

provide a "ive linear system of trail corridors, stag- areas, and 

access pints. Stata-wide off-higtway vehicle trail oorridors are canceptual 

in nature and have been located by analyzing the general relatimship between 

Calif-a's natural resources, the recreation needs of off-highway vehicle 

l~sers and accessibility to resxme opprtum 'ties. The precise trail 

alignment withjn a corricbr will be determined in coordination with 

appropriate federal and local agencies and interest CJ-L-OU~S as each 

incremental seg"t is selected for implementatian. 

282 
Trails m.300 43,365 55 32,034 38 5,901 7 

Lakes 27,235 25,328 93 545 2 1,362 5 

Resarvoirs 10,164 10,164 loo --- --- 

Rivers and 

SW 12,201 6,710 55 5,491 45 -- 

General 

urx%Veloped 323,900 193,050 59.6 124,640 30.5 640 1.9 

TOTAL 1.004,OOO 582.027 50 408.410 40.7 13.373 1.3 

olrtside 1,395,000 898,600 63.2 471,700 33.8 41,900 3 

Wilderness 

Ihe Inyo Naticmal Farest is in the pnxess of analyziq a segment of the 

California State-wids OW Trails Plan called CBN Route #5. This study is 

fum2ed under a State (seen Sticker Grant, and will be accanplished in 

amjuncticn with the Bureau of Land Management and the City of IOS Angeles 

whem tbat route might cross their lands. The study route starts near 

Olancha proceeding north cm either the west or east side of the Owen‘s Valley 

to a pint below Ime Pine. It then proceeds neath through the Inyo and 

White Pbmtajns, cmssing the Valley north of Bishop through the Casa Diablo 

area and east of Mxw Lake to a stag- area near Larkin Lake. This mute is 

mly mptual at this time, and an e”ntal analysis, with public 

involvment, will determine the selected route locatim. 

unroaded lands have great physical capacity for increased use. Existing 

trails (many of them old minjrg roads) serve mst areas. Hmever, mast of 

these lands lack -ti- attractims; water supplies are scarce, terrain 

is steep, and the sparse, shrubby vegetatim provides little shade. For 

these reasns, little increased use can actually be expected. Existing 

primitive roads and trails am adequate for projected increases in use. 

Nordic skiim~ is the fastest-groWirg dispersed use on the Forest, with 

127,000 FWDs in 1982. The potential to impmVe public sector support 

facilities for mrdic skiing such as ski trails and cleared par- areas is 

limited by a traditicmal lack of management aphasis m dispersed winter 

use. The private sector has expres& amsiderable interest in develop283 
lvxdic ski facilities on Forest land. Such facilities, especially if 

developed mrth of Mammth in pdty to alpine ski areas, could go a 1- 

way tawards meting demand. 

Mxt OHV use is generated by local residents. The demand for OHV activities 

and ~rtmities will contjnue to grow as the ca"ities p. This denad 

and related impads will be greatest around the Mammth ccmunity, where the 

resident papulatim is recreationally oriented. The nature of OHV use will 

also change. An entire generation of young people has grown up participatiq 

in OHV activities that their parents never experienced. When these people 

establish families of their am, OHV use will tecum3 mre of a family 

activity. 

Mxst "er OHV use on the Forest is restrided to roads and trails. only 

97,000 acres of useable CBN t is designated opn and available for 

off-road travel. Veq little of this open acreage receives public use, as it 

is generally -te fmn ppulation centers and low in recreational appeal. 

Altlnugh them are 'ties to expand the OHV travel system and open 

acreage, thDse areas with the greatest potential (lowest level of conflict 

with other resource uses and values) are likewise unattractive to OW users. 

More than a half-million acres on the Forest are currently open to OSV 

(-ile) use. Such use is currently limited only by wilderness 

designation, alpine or mrdic ski-, mule deer or mxlntain sheep winter 

range, and areas with little or 1y3 9y;1w. In general, the amount of 

ax"bile use on the Forest is W. 

Sal1 hydxrelectxic projects, if develOpea as prqxsd, would severely reduce 

instream flaw on 38.miles of stream. Streams are key attractions for the 

recreaticmal visitor, especially in the otherwise arid environment of the 

Eastern Sierra. The proposed flows would be so law that rrost recreational 

values would be lost or reduced to a level that would drastically reduce the 

associated nxmaticmal use. Intakes, penstocks, p3wer plants, and 

pawerlines would water-influence z.cmes that are ~y3w totally oriented 

toward "ation and wildlife. 

Geathermal developnent is a serious Faaspect in an area bounded by the Cwens 

River on the east, M"th Lakes cm the south and west, and June Lake cn the 

north. 

year, and use is increas irg significantly, especially durjng the winter 

mths. Industrial ccmplexes -1- wall sites, pipelines, power plants, 

and pawerljnes, could be spread tfrmghxt the core of this heavily used 

dispersed nxmaticm area. Major restrictions on dispersed activities could 

result. 

Finally, wid farm would have an impact on dispersed recreation. The degrea 

of the in@act would de- m the location. Wind farms are totally modified 

sites; they are fenced and represent an exclusive use of the land. 

Disprsed use on the Inyo has grown at a rate of app"ate1y seven psrcent 

per year over the past five years. The RFA projectea growth rate for 

dispersed remeaticn is 5.9 percent for the 1985-1990 perid. Demand 

prvjecticms far surrmer di- recreation are based on the assmpticm that 

developErlts (overm '*t - - tions) would be available to support 

dhprsed use. If devalcped site capacity were increased at a 

This area rau receives heavy dispersed nxmation use throughout the 

284 
rate of tm percent per year in ?=spmse to the projected demand for 

aevelopea~ticEl, arspersea recreaticHI would be expcted to increase at a 

ccmparable rate. 

 isp per sea winter recreatim is expeded to follow increases in alpine skiing, 

estimated at fax to five percent per year until 1990, and two to three 

peroent per year after that intn the fifth decade. 

REmmTIW THE~TIm0pm"nYThe Recreatim @porhmity Spzlnnn (RX) is a system that stratifies 

National F& lands int0 different types of recreational opportunities, 

activities, and e.xpexience ca-ies based 081 the size, the distance fm 

roads, and the c%gYea of aevelopnent of any r€€xeational area. This system 

is a to31 used in the land allccatim process associated with Planning. The 

seven r#s classes are: primitive (P), Semi-primitive Ncol-rotorized (SPW), 

s€nli-primitive bbtOr32 ' ed (SFM), Roaded Natural (RN), RoaM lJbdified (RM), 

Wal (R), and mban (U). See chaptar VIII, Glossary, for definitions of 

each Class. 

Current acres, recm3atic.m use, and recreaticBl area capacity for each RC6 

class cm the Farest are displayed in Tables 43 and 44. Information about 

each Ros class is divide3 into tm subcategories: developd recreation and 

disperses recreatlan. 

The original Ros system had aiLy six Classes. 'Ihe Irryo has Clmsen the qticn 

of splitt&q the Roaded Natural RC6 class into thu subparts: Ftoaded Natural 

(roaded with limited developnent) and Road& -fie3 (roaded with roderate 

developnent). Heavily developed areas are classified as Rural. 

Table 44 displays current acres and use by RX class, as well as the 

potential supply in ternas of both capacity and use. Although approximately 

46 percent of the FareSt is TYIW classified as Prhitive, the recreational 

capaciiq of those acres is low because of steep, inaccessible terrain, a lack 

of water, and a lack of recn?aticmal attractims. hren the addition of 

trails in the White and Inyo Mmntains would not generate great increases in 

use. In additirm, capacity ccmtxols (qwtas) 081 designated wilderness muld 

1Mt the a"t of use and the ability of the Forest to meet demand. 

The Roaded mfied and Rural classes include mast of the lands with highly 

potential supply of lands with these atkactions is limitd, and that supply 

would be exceeded by demand before the end of the next fifty years. Resource 

conflict and mst cmsideraticms also limit the oppxtunities to change lands 

fm ale RCIS Class to another. 

Fmy Ros Qass charges, hcrwevsr majar the champs thanselves, would mt affect 

large aaeages. Lands suitable for a shift to Roadd Modified or Rural RC6 

classes a"t to less than one percent of the Forest land base. Extensive 

acres under wilderness designaticn and steep would limit the 

ptential fa lards to shift frnn primitive and semi-Primitive mn-mtorized 

toward Smi-pnlmitive t-btorized or Roaded Natural. unroaded suitable timber 

lards that caild be roaded for timber harvest repmsent cmly a "rm of 

developea recxeaticmal oppo&ml 'ties such as canpirig and skiing. The 

285 
30,oM) acres, or lesa than two percent of the Forest. The greatest 

opportunities for potential chatqw wxld involve a shift fran Semi-himitive 

m*tQrized to semi-primitive mtorized. However the demand for 

qqorhmities in the latter categosy are limited due to the distance from 

mjar urban areas. Wst of the us8 in the Semi-primitive Pbtorized class is 

generated by the snall popllaticm of 1- area residents. 

Acres in the urban RCs class categcny are heavily enclrmbered by 

xmmxeaticmal develcgmmts. "my are not typically suitable for Forest 

recreaticpl use. It is expectd that urban acreage would receive high 

priority for diqxsal through land exchange. 

Table 43 

DevelopedRecreation 

(Eclblic and Private Sectors) 

semi-primitive m-r"trbXized 0 0 0 

sani-primitive mtorized 2 50 1.0 

Roaded Natural 110 2,195 257.3 

Roaded Wfied 870 18, 100 1317.9 

mral 3,730 25,750 1223.9 

urban 15 310 34.1 

lVmL 4,730 46.480 2836.2 

Table 44 

Dispersed Recreation 

(public and Private Sectors) 

IMsClass Acres (PAOTS) (-I* 

Qpacity 1982 Use 

prirmltive 872,600 4,290 493,350 

Semi-himitive Nm-kBlmrized 392,600 4,050 76,850 

semi-primitiv3 Pbtnrized 189,200 2,500 21,300 

Roaded Natural 383,600 62,900 395,000 

Roaded Wfied 35,100 34,900 494,700 

mal 11,600 15,050 87,300 

urban 2,000 0 0 

TOTAL 1,886,700 123,600 1,568,500 

* Does mt include fishiq or hunting WFUDs 

286 
Table 45 

Su@y and DaBd by IILS czkss 

P sPN4sR.l RN m R U 

Existing Inv€ninry - (M -) 870.6 392.6 189.2 383.6 35.1 11.6 2.0 

1982 use (MRms) 495.4 76.9 22.3 652.3 1812.6 1311.2 34.1 

Use coefficient (RVD/acre) 0.6 0.0 0.1 1.7 51.6 113.0 17.1 

mt" SUUJ ly 

capacity coefficient 

capacity (p-) 6540 8500 9460 76720 63070 92000 N/A 

(P-/-) 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.2 1.8 7.5 N/A 

Use (M RVDS) 1175.3 439.70 807.90 2992.1 4043.5 4524.0 N/A 

Use coefficient (RVD/m) 1.35 1.12 4.27 7.8 115.2 390.0 N/A 

"A"T.aARFAs 

Issues, Qncerns, andcQporhm 'ties 

- (-1. 

Managenent is amZenEd with the task of estab1i.W rwxmnended RNAs 

The public has raised the issue of the need to establish Research Natural 

and 

with the need to determine that all Regimal targets for Botanical RNAs en 

the Uryo ham beenmt orce these areas am established. 

"re is an qprbnity to respcpld to these issues and cc"s in the Plan. 

Badrgrand 

The Inyo is xespmsible for meem botanical RNA wets for eight 

wetam types in two physicgraghic pmvhces. Five RNAs have been 

established, and tw3 date RNAs have been screened by the Region 5 RNA 

Carmittee and have been accepted as mem Forest hqets for the vegetation 

types represented. Ecological surveys have been cmpleted and boundaries 

proposed. With the establishmt of these two candidate areas, the Inyo will 

have mt all assigned botanical targets. 

The planning regulatim call for the amsideration of geologic and aquatic 

RNA candidates as part of the plannhg m. As the Regim is in the 

process of developjng a target system for aquatic and geologic elements, tzae 

Plan will defer the cmsideration of thDse elements and identify the need to 

reqxnd to targets axe they are established. It is expected that the Irryo 

would have cmsiderable potential for geologic RNAs. 

287 
The denad for RWLS by the g-al public and the scientific rx"ity has 

resulted in naticmal and Regional RNA taryet systa. Selected areas are 

The followiq are the established and candidate RWLS CUI the Forest, discussed 

in terns of their research values and potential conflicts with other 

activities. 

Harvey Monroe Hall (3,883 acxes): 

Sierra Nwada - unique ecOSyStemS (subalpine and alpine habitats). 

This is ane of the few locations in the Sierra Nevada wfiere habitats between 

10,ooO and 12,000 feet elevaticm are easily accessible by road. That fact in 

itself is iqortant for research purp3ses. In additim, the area is 

representative of alpine and subalpine habitats in the southern Sierra. The 

Hall area has been used for scientific studies for mxe than fifty years, 

Dr. John C. Merriam Wrote in 1932, "this MtUral 

significant opporhnu 'ties for lxztaln ' aspects of scientific research in this 

country." R.V. Stuart, Chief of the Forest Service, established the area the 

following year with these wcads: "There was canplete agrement that the 

future value of the area for such [scientific] purposes undoubtedly 

transcended any other values or uses for which it might be dedicated." 

The major potential amflids with scientific values in this area would be 

mineral developnent on djacent lands (the RNA itself is withdrawn fran 

mineral entry) or passible wilderness designation. The area is in Further 

Plannjrg status &.will be amsidered for wilderness during the planning 

precess. It is expected that wilderness designaticm would attract mre 

recreation use to the area. Such use could potentially conflict with 

scientific studies. 

IndiaM surmit (1,162 acxes): 

established and ptecked under federal law. 

Established 1933 

be one bf the 

Established 1932 

Basin Ranges - Jeffrey p be forest. 

largest ccmtigums pure Jeffrey pire forest in the world. Surroundrng . This area ccmtaim a virtually pure stand of Jeffrey pine and is part of the 

lands 

are managed fa carmercial timber pxduction. For this reason, the RNA 

serves as a valuable basis of canparism between managed Jeffrey pine stands 

and those allwed to follow natural precesses. Thirty years ago, the 

American Muzaun of Natural HistcaCy in New York City ccmd~~ct& studies in this 

area. Their Hall of Forests IYJW txmtains a large diorama presenting a 

pmUopl of the Indiana Sumnit Natural Area as a typical Jeffrey pine forest. 

The major potential amflict with scientific values in this area is illegal 

public fuelwood gather-: however, steep terrain g-any discourages 

vehicle en-. 

Last Umxe Meadav (660 acres): Established 1982 

Sierra Nevada - faxtail pine forest. 

This area cmtains a lepresentatve stand of faxtail pir~ withjn a half-mils 

walk fmn a paved road. This fact is impartant for research purp3ses. 

288 
Foxtail pine is a species of special interest to the scientific carmunity; it 

has an unusucil disjm distxibuticm, being fomd cmly in the southem Sierra 

Nevada and in the KlamathMxntains 3OOmiles to the mrb. 

There are M major potential amflicts with scientific values in this area. 

RNA is within existing wilderness, but is located well away fmn txails 

and canpsites. Altkugh sone hikers may en- the area, the number is likely 

to be low. 

sentinel Meadow (1,897 acres): 

Basin Ranges - lodgepole pine and limber pine. 

This a?Xs oontains lm&kh&& lodgeple pine stands typical of the arid 

mtane habitats of the Great Basin. The area is variable in slope, asped, 

and -, thus mtaining "arous variations in loagepole pine grawth 

form and stand formation. 

The major potential ccmflids with scientific values in the area are illegal 

public entry for fuelxed cutkiq and OIN use. Altkugh steep terrain 

generally discourages vehicle en-, there am a few vulnerable points alcmg 

--. 

mite Manrtain (2,004 acres): 

Basin Ranges - hristleccsle pine forest. 

Established 1983 

There is also a snall pre stand of limber pine. 

Established 1953 

This area mtajns an unusual plre stand of bristlecone pine. Bristlecanes 

usually cccur as a thin fringe near timberline in certain high nwuntain 

ranges. It is most unusual to find the species grawing in a pure &and as 

extensive as this me. The stand in this RNA is considered a remnant of the 

vast forests that grew in the Great Basin wfw precipitation was nore 

arxrdant than today. 

The mly major potential amflict with scientific values in this area is 

increased mticm use. The RNA is part of a Further Planning area being 

studied for possible wilderness designaticm during the ~"riing process. It 

is eqected that wildarness would attract greatly ircrezsed visitation. 

McAfee Meaday (2,727 acres): Candidate 

BasinRang es - alpine fellfield. 

The gently rolling plateau on the crest of the scum White Mountains has 

the largest area of accessl 'ble alp- stem in the western United States. 

Althxgh alpim vqetaticm in the Sierra "da, Cascades, and Rxky 

Wnmtahs is adequately represented in RWLS cm f-al lands, alpine steppe 

in the Great Basin is 

!l"he major ptential &lids with scientific values in this area muld be 

graz3.q (10 m), use of an authonlzed helioopter test site within the 

popxed bourdary, and wilderness 6esignatic.n with associated increases in 

recreation. The first two uses have already been terrmna . ted in prepa?xtion 

for establishnent of the RNA. The guestion of wilderness designation will be 

resold by the Plan. 

yet represented. 

289 
wppoclmi 11 Flat (3,328 m): candidate 

Basin Rang es-pinycmp ine and limber pine. 

This area amtains a raMlkably dense forest of pinycm pine, plus all of the 

plant associaticms typical of the middle and upper elevation regions of the 

southwestern Great Basin. In addition, several plants endemic to or rare in 

scientists fran the University of Arizona, the University of California, and 

the University of colorado have been attracted by the plant camrunities 

the Inyo wnJrltains are found within the Fnoposed RNA. In recent years, 

represented in the area. 

The major patential amflicts with scientific values muld be mineral 

developnent and public woodcutting. Although the area is under analysis for 

pssible wilderness designatics, recreation use would not be expected to 

increase significantly even wil3-1 the attraction of wilderness; there is 

little water, and terrain is extremjly rugged. 

Issues, cancerns, and 'ties 

The public has raised the issue of mphasizing the majntename and expansicsl 

of riparian vegetation. The public is especially "ed with the impacts 

of livestock grazing, recreation, and water diversion on riparian areas. 

Management is o"ed about activities that could conflict with the 

riparian area-depmdent values of wildlife, fish, vegetation, and water 

quality. The primary potential conflicts involve grazing, recreation (OHV 

use and developed sites), energy developmt (snall hydrcelectric and 

geothermal), and "ral activities. 

Accelerate3 emsion in wet meadows, including active cutbanks and stxeam 

channel degradation, is of special cc~1ce~n. The problems are mxt severe in 

the White Wxmtains and on the Kern Plateau. It 1s believed that this 

situation stenr; primarily fran overgrazing that occurred fifty years ago or 

lqer. Even if all au"t activities in thDse areas cam to a halt, 

accelerated erosion would Continue, and many wet meadows would dry out over 

the next fifty years. 

The emmachiat of wxciy vqetation on wet meadows is another management 

cnncern. The fact that mxt of the wet ma&# riparian habitat on the Forest 

is in wilderness limits the use of prescrited fire or other vegetative 

managecent practices to prevent or reverse such encroachment. 

The Forest has the opportunity to establish and apply direction for managing 

riparian areas and for coordinating the managecent of those re-ces defined 

as riparian area-depdent with those that are rmt so defined. 

The application of Best Managemnt practices (Ws) for water quality will 

help prvtect riparian habitat. Where BMps are rmt sufficient mitigation for 

major impacts such as water diversion, existing Forest Service policy would 

resolve conflicts in favor of riparian area-depmdent remmces. where 

290 
accelerated erosian is a pxblem, the Forest has the oppztmity to restore 

degraded wet meadows and to slow the ercsicm ~PXSS (metbods are described 

in the 1981 Forest Watershed Iq"ent Needs Plan). Riparian vegetation 

can be maintained or rejuvenated by wted burning, fertilization, and/or 

mechanical manipulation. Riparian dtim can also be mniM so that 

situatim that threaten that resource can be ccareded before damage is 

severe. 

Riparian areas an the Inyo Natim Forest are associated with lakeskm?s, 

perennial and intarrnittent streans, and wet meadows. Aspen stands are als~ 

midered an element of riparian habitat an the Inyo, as they are associated 

with wet sites, even tkugh tkse sites do not necessarily include surface 

water. 

Riparian areas cm the Forest encanpass about 37,000 acres. Most of that 

acreage (26,000) is found in wet ".s abme 8,000 feet elevatim. There 

are my 1,100 miles of streans cm the Forest. Stmanside riparian 

vegetation an the Inyo typically form a strip less than fifty feet fran the 

bank an ea& si& of the stream (100 feat total), except where the stream 

flows thniigh a meadow (in which case the strip is wider). Lakeside riparian 

strips rarely extend rmre than 100 feat fm sbore. Appmxma ' tely 80 percent 

of all riparian areas on the Forest are inside wilderness. 

The plant species anpxitim of a given riparian area depenaS primarily on 

the anrnmt of water available, geam>rphic characteristics, and elevation. 

Many streams below 6,000 feet in the eastern Sima Nevada supprt riparian 

areas in which willows are &"nt. Water birch mixed with willow is c" 

in the middle elevatims, rang- fran 4,000-7,000 feet alq streams with a 

with the highest rate of flow. Black oak is fd along streams on the south 

end of the Forest. White 

alder occurs at higher elevatims throughDut the w&hem Sierra Nevada. 

low rate of flow. The Jeffrey pine-cotkmmd type prc' . tesmstreams 

Aspen occurs alq streams at higher elevaticms. 

r4x.t wet meadows are acminateaby seages. 

The dticm of riparian areas on the Forest is reflected in the followkg 

1982 inventory data. M 26,000 a- of wet meadow inventoried, 90 percent 

were damaged' or threatened with damage by accelerated erosion. Of 

fish-bariq stream miles jnventoriied, 35 percent were rated high in fish 

habitat quality, 34 percent "I, and 31 percent low. Of 320 sham 

reaches in the Golden "ut Wildexness evaluated for stream charnel stability 

(uiq Regicm 1 metkdology), 10 percent were rated gd, 65 percent fair, 

and 20 percent pwr. 

The water resamxe and associated riparian vegetatim in the watersheds of 

i%m Lake and the Cwens River have been altered by mre than a hundred years 

of irrigation, hydroelectric developnent, and water exprt. Of the 

approximately 529 miles of stream in the Mnw Lake and Cwens River 

wahrsheds, 466 miles are currently affded by water diversions. About 140 

of these miles are within the Inyo National Forest boundary. The Forest has 

lost riparian vegetation, imp3rtant fish and wildlife habitat, recreation 

opprtunities, scenic quality, and wilderness values as a result of this 

alteration. Small hydrcelectric applicaticms have been filed for virtually 

291 
all streams on the Forest that are tributary to the Mxm Basin or the Owens 

River. 

The limited supply of dense and prcductive riparian vegetation, and its 

ccoltrast with arid make it especially imp3rtant to wildlife for 

fd and cover. Riparian vegetation is also an impoaant canponent of fish 

habitat quality, as werhangirg vegetation keeps the water cool and roots 

hold soil in place, preventing sedimentation. Cattle graze more heavily in 

riparian areas than m the smxmmkg ' dry range. Recreatiunists seek these 

Riparian vegetatim provides scenic variety, as its lush green contrasts with 

the- ' grays and brmns of the desert 1ands;Cape. Finally, riparian 

areas are subject to impacts by Ws where vehicle mutes cross streams, and 

in wet meadows where topzgraphy does mt limit vehicles to established mutes 

and where illegal use is a problem. 

Exist.irg mlectric projects have conflicted with riparian values in the 

past, and Faoposed new projects would conflict severely with such values if 

fully developed. The amxlllt of water m a stream correlates with the width 

of the riparian strip: significant reductians in the flaw regime can be 

expected to reduce the size of the riparian zone and to affect riparian 

area-de-t resources. Although geothwmal facilities can be located away 

frun riparian areas, surface water and/or groundwater remmal associated with 

geothermal ~rxyar generation could affect riparian vegetation fran a distance. 

In g-al, any kind of activity that disturbs the soil, changes the munt 

of available water, or alters the vegetation of a riparian area could 

ccslflict with riparian values. Roads and trails, campgrounds, timber 

harvest, and vegetation manipulation for dcmestic or wild animals all have 

the potential to affect riparian values. Likewise, fire suppression can be a 

problem, as fire suppression metbods can damage soil and vegetation. Once 

they have been seriously damged, riparian areas are difficult to 

rehabilitate. 

The demand for riparian area-depix&nt resources is expazted to increase 

dramatically, especially because riparian values serve as a recreational 

attraction and the demand for recreation is increasirg. 

' 

areas for shade and water as a relief fran the hot, dry surrounding S. 

Issues, ccmems, and 'ties 

The public has taken an interest in threatened and endangered plant species 

and in the survival of all native plant species, regardless of status. The 

lmal chapter of the California Native Plant Society has expressed interest 

in how inplmtation of the Inyo Natimal Plan will affect native plants in 

the area. 

Management CCBIC~R~S include: protection of sensitive plant species until 

viable populaticns are achieved and delisting is Wible, while managirg for 

other resaurces; and identifying and protecting potential sensitive plant 

habitats until inventories of these areas are mnpleted. 

292 
While e.xi&iq directi 011 is not in need of charge, the Forest is presently in 

the process of develop- a Sensitive Plant Managemat Plan that will clarify 

~aogram objectives and establish a priority setting system for each species. 

Included in this plan will be the identification of field survey, population 

mapping, rem and approval p”%, a description of mnibrirg 

techniques, a species management guide cutline, and guidelines for developing 

recwery Plans. 

Habitat occurs 081 the Forest far twenty-two plant species currently listed as 

sensitive. Of the species, sixteen have current sightiqs and information 

while six athers are lunm only fran historical herbarium records. Gne 

species has a management guide, eleven have an interim recQrmendation 

document, four are new additions to the sensitive plant list, and the 0th~~ 

six are those with cslly histnrical data. Nine species are found in areas 

wtlere Iynmal Farest activities and projects have the potential to create 

dir%=torindired impacts. The others are in classified wildernesses. 

Eight species are endemic to Natimal Forest lands. None of these is 

federally listed as threaten& or endangered, but two are pmped for 

federal listing. Four Species have been listed by the State of Califomia as 

rare and cre is in the process of being listed by the State of Nevada as 

threatened. 

Known populations of sensitive plants 081 the Forest cover abut 6,800 acres. 

Although the dti011 of sensitive plant habitat varies by species and 

population, it is generally fair to excellent Forest-wide. 

Current policy dictates that all pject sites be surveyed for sensitive 

plants and that a clear- be granted before vegetation is disturbed. In a 

few cases, sensitive plant populaticms have been fenced to exclude activities 

which might affect the plants. In most cases, however, project locations are 

“ed as necessary to avoid lavJwn populations. 

Sensitive plant species and their potential amflicts with other activities 

are listed in Table 46. 

293 
Table 46 

Sensitive Plant species on the 

.sP-=i= potential canflicts 

CXyptantha Ioosiorum 

-era eurekensis 

Draba cruciata integrifolia 

Ericq" Empnulaceum 

Ericgo" wrightii ola"e 

Hackelia brwicula 

Hackelia sharslu 'thii 

Lupinus padre --l@ 

Lupinus sublanatus 

Pdcularis Q-enulata 

Phacelia "=ensis 

Phacelia nashiana 

SClerocactUs polyancistrus 

Streptanthus oliganthus 

Trifolim dedeckerae 

Draba as&" aLivestock tcamplhx~ and hikers. 

Hikers (mall chance). 

"e. 

Ws, sheep, geothermal, s"biles. 

mer and packstock. 

Dispersed camp-, OHVs, mining. 

Dispersed camp-, OHVs, grazing. 

MiIYirg. 

m. 

"e. 

Sheep, seasonal road grading.sheep 

"le. 

Cattle, OZNs, road gradirig. 

m. 

Cattle, hikers, road grading. 

o=mstructim, land exc., OHVs. 

Fishermen, Ccanrict dam maint. 

OHVS. minirig. 

Cattle, OHVs. 

Road &., OHVs, theft, mining. 

Mining, roadgram. 

Cattle, r0aagradi.q. 

WAlUi LIST #l. lhose plant specl 'es XEedmg ' mrne informaticn for evalmtim. 

Axtcstaphylcs urva-usi mxcemis 

Astragalus johannis-howellii 

Astragalus ken- elatus 

Astragalus lentigenxus kemensis 

calmrtus excavatus 

Drab cana 

Dryopteris felix-mas 

Elyrm~s sxibneri 

-- 

Trails. 

Recreation users. 

"e lu-lmn. 

"e known. 

Kale known. 

Cattle, OHVs. 

Grazing. 

Kale known. 

"e known. 

Lack of water. 

Grazirg. 

camping, trails. 

ptarmigans. 

None knmn. 

294 
Issues, corerns, and Qx" 'ties 

Public issues center cm the heed to establish Special Ins Areas (SIAs) 

to protect archaeological sites. habitat for threatened and endangered 

species, and arws with botanical, geological, or scenic values. 

Management cc"s include the need to identify candidates for SIA 

designation and to evaluate Natimal Natural Lanchnark ("L) candidates. 

The cmly existing Special Ins Area on the Forest is the Ancient 

&sti-me pine ore st mtmical ~rsa. ms area encanpasses 28,887 acres 

in the White Wnmtains and is managed with an emphasis on natural history 

interpmtaticm and scientific research. This area is internaticmally 

significant, as it mtains the world's oldest living tree and has been the 

site of important --ring daw (-logical) studies. 

The Botanical Area is withdrawn fm mineral entry and is isolated 

gecgrwcally fmn timber harvest, intensive range managenwit, and intense 

recreation use. The only people who visit the area are ttnse specifically 

attracted by tke Special Interest Area, typically he who have scientific 

interest in the ancient bristlemme pines. Due to these factors, and to 

limitaticms stipulated in the managemnt plan for the botanical area, there 

is little cc" that Forest managemnt would have adverse impacts on the 

area under any alternative. 

Interest in cmsidering the establi-t of additicmal Special Interest 

?ireas on the Forest has focused on ptential geologic areas. Gugeologic features are feud throughout the Forest. "Textbook examples" of 

wlcanic, "xphic, ad glacial geolcgy attract large numbers of students 

and scientists to the area. Of a preliminary inventory of sixty geologic 

features on and near the Forest, the following eight have been selected as 

candidates for further evaluaticm because of their unique characteristics. 

1. Papoose Flat granitic inbusion 

2. Granitic danes in the Buttermilk area and on Egypt eeek 

3. Hot eeek 

4. Starkweather Lake glacial polish 

5. Tioga Tams 

6. Inyo Craters SICRI~: 

Devils PLlnchbOwl 

7. -ake Fault 

8. Mct Lake/l- convict Ccek (including mraines). 

Inyo Craters, Deadman glass flcw, Obsidian Dane, 

The Forest inter& to evaluate these candidates and to make recormendations 

to the Regional Forester for psible designation during Plan 

inplenwitation. The Forest has identified rm candidates for scenic, 

archaeological, or zoolcgical areas to be evaluated at this time. 

The De-xkt of Interior has &velo@ a listing of National Natural 

Landmarks ("Ls). "L designation of an area does not change its managemnt 

295 
jurisdiction or affect how the area is managed. For example, if the White 

muntains vmx aeSignated as a National Natural Landmarks, the area muld 

mtinue to be managed by the Forest Service under the direcix 'on specified in 

the Plan. 

Follmh~ is a preliminary list prepared by the National Park Service of 

possible NNLs m the Forest. The ri@t-hand column indicates any existing 

Ccqmsional or akhistrative designatims affecting the area. 

Table 47 

potential "L candidates Identified by 

Naticmal Park Service 'Ihene Studies 

"2 =sting Designation( s ) 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

Pbno Lake and Mxn Craters 

Indiana sumnit 

rmrlache Meadow vicinity 

HarVeyMX-lID3Hall 

LaStChanCeMeadow 

w Valley 

MxnMesa 

NorthForkOakC?E& 

Olancha Peak 

onion Valley 

Ritkr Raqe 

San Joaguh Rime 

Sentinel Rime 

Shiqle Mill Bench 

Ah" volcanic field and 

ViChity 

mahama Hills 

Banner Sporings Bunchgrass 

convict c=reek 

coyote Rime and Coyote Flat 

Divisim Creek 

Wee Meadow Research Nabal Area (RNA), 

White "ntains RNA, Ancient Bristlewne 

Pine Forest Botanical Area 

Mxm Basin National Forest Scenic Area 

Research Natural Area 

mIE3 

Research Natural Area 

Research Natural Area, Golden bout 

Wilderness 

mIE3 

Feature not kn3.m 

"e 

G3lden Trout Wilderness 

N3ne 

Ansel Adams Wilderness 

mIE3 

Research Natural Area 

Feature not IUYmn 

Not on National Forest land 

Not on National Forest land 

Feature not lmown 

John i%ir Wilderness (upper canyon) 

None 

Nane 

22. Glass Pbur~tain None 

bbst of the ptential candidates listed in Table 47 receive recq-u 'tim under 

special Interest Iueas. 

current "gement; others have been identified for evaluation as ptmtial 

296 
Issues, concerns, ad- 'ties 

The public has raised a nmbsc of issues relative to timber managmat. The 

most significant of these issues amng local area residents is the 

availability of fuelwood for public use. Scme parties even suggest that the 

Forest Service provide or encourage the developnent of woodlots for fuelwood 

produdion. 

The resihts of Nxn and Inyo Chmties rely heavily on National Forest lands 

for fuelwood, due to the isolaticn of the counties and the 

unavailability of fuelwwd fran other sou~ces. The length and severity of 

winters at higher elevations in the area trigger public ccolcern about the 

cast of bm heating. A Cord Of publiC-uSe fuel-, which Currently CO& 

$5.00, would heat an average-sized hrxlse for two mmths. Gas or elhicity 

to heat the same house would cast appmxma * tely $500 for two mmths. This 

difference in Oost is the primary reason the public raises an issue ahout 

fuelwood availability. 

The Inyo Natimal Forest has the cpprtunity to meet the demand for 

public-use fuel& by makirg lqging residue available to the public, by 

allowing the public to cut wood in p-"wcial thinnhg areas, ad by 

allu.ving the public to collect dead and ibm material on nast Forest lands. 

If dgmand greatly exceeded the supply fran these ~CIUICRS, the Forest oould 

ccnsider selling individual .trees to the general public as well as to 

carmercial fuelwood operators. The Forest Service can provide technical 

expertise and leadership in the establishment of woodlots an private land, 

but wmdlots are not omsidered a suitable use of National Forest land. 

mstofther€"q issues were raised by individuals and groups fmn other 

areas, and were alldressed broadly to all National Forests in the Region. The 

cnly me of those issues that dealt with problems appropriate to timber 

management ap1 the Inyo was the need to integra-k silvicultural practices with 

othar resource needs. The issues of manag- old growth timber and riparian 

areas for values other than timber prductim are addressed unda the 

headiqs of Wildlife and Riparian k-eas respedively. 

Ccmtr~l of onpetiq vegetaticm, especially if mhl entails a 

applicaticm of herbicides, is a national public issue. It is mt, however, a 

major issue cm the Inyo Naticmal Forest, as the arid climate and soil 

prcductivity levels 081 noSt timbered parts of the Forest prevent the rapid 

and abLlndant gravth of brush and grasses that muld be expected to ompte 

Regicm 5 (the Pacific Southwsst Regia) is pparirg an EIS on Vegetation 

Manag-t for ReforestatiCa, which adm-esses the full range of alternative 

biological, and chemical methods and prescribed fire. Selection of any 

particular metbod will be made at the project level based on a site-specific 

analysis of the relative effectiveness, ernrircwnen tal effects, and casts of 

the feasible altemative methds. Herbicides will be selected cmly if their 

use is essential to meet managentent objectives. Past experience cm the Inyo 

.. 

with h-ee seedlirgs for survival and gmwth. 

methods for mtzvl of 0npeth-g vegetation, including mecham 'a, 

indicates that Micide applicaticm would be minimal (affecting less than 

297 
300 acres per year at &) under any timber management scenario. Aerial 

application of herbicides is extremely mikely to OCCUT. 

The primary managenent cc~lcern on the Forest is the need to establish a 

timber "gmt pngram that meets the long-term sustained yield capacity 

of the Forest and meets the requirement Of rKK~-deClining even flm. 

Many factors influence the ability of the Forest to increase timber Outputs 

and to meet timber policy requiremen ts. The first of these is the type of 

harvest applied to cnmmxial timber lands. The Inyo has, in the past, 

eirphasized intermediate (partial) harvest on large acreage to meet its timber 

output goals. The main re- for this practice has been the desire to 

minimize impacts on other "xes, primarily recreation and scenic 

quality. The result has been large areas of partially cut, mature stands 

that fall well short of optimum prcductivity. 

The alternative to interme& 'ate harvest is regeneration harvest (using 

cutting methods that "ve nnst or all of the .trees fran a given site and 

thus pmmte vigorws regeneration of young .trees). Unless the Inyo makes 

effective use of regeneration harvest, as directed by the current Timber 

Management plan, the Forest may not be able to maintain current timber output 

levels while meeting the requiremen ts of lq-term sustained yield and 

m-declinicg even flm. 

There is also a need to decide which lands will be managed for cannercia1 

timber prduction and which forest managenent system will be used. The Inyo 

provides marry high quality recreation opprturuties, has a greater than 

average density of cultural sites, provides critical habitat for local 

wildlife, and provides sumner rangeland essential to local ranching 

operations. Timber managenk?nt aimed at high levels of carmercial proauCtion 

is not necessarily ccrrpMtible with these other and activities. The 

ptential yield currently calculated for the Forest assumes that timber 

management will occur on a given "bsr of acres. However, significant 

munts of land mthin the timber base may be less valuable for timber 

proaucticsl than for other uses. 

Departure fran the m-declhjq even flow requirement is not a wncem or 

issue on the Inyo. The Inyo is not a significant contributor to Regional 

timber targets; thus, departure on the Inyo could not significantly affect 

achievement of these targets. In addition, due to the overall existing 

condition of timber stands on the Forest, departure would not be expected to 

significantly reduce or prevent mrtality losses nor to greatly irqnuve 

timber age or size class distribution. 

There are tm systems of forest managexmt to choose fran: even-aged 

managexmt and uneven-aged management. Factors influencing the decision of 

which syskm to use with reference to adequate regeneration are the 

reliability of the systa, based on research results and the results of past 

practices: and the suitability of the systa to the timber types on the 

Forest. 

The Forest has the oppxhmity to address these factors in the planning 

process. Regeneration harvest can be emphasized over intermediate harvest, 

timbered areas where other resources are mre valuable than timber proctuction 

298 
can be identified, timber management prdces 081 those lands can be 

mdified, and predicted harvest volumes can be adjusted accordingly. 

The semrd management is the need to impove the health and vigor of 

timber stands in areas with a recreation management eq2xasi.s. Many timber 

stands in recreation areas shay evidence of stress from several factors, 

iracluding pests and Such stands will be highly susceptible to 

increased pest-related damage unless brought under management. The Forest 

hastheoppxhlm 'ty to manage timber in recreation areas without reducing 

aesthetic and rexeaticnal values. Silvicultxral prescriptions can be 

written to imprave the health and vigor of these stands and to maintain than 

in gccd ccmdition for the future. 

A third ccncem is the need to determine the appropriate management of the 

Forest's extensive pjnyon-juniper xo5lands. Alhgh the proauctiVity of 

pinyon-junipfs sites is presently being studied, little data is yet available 

on the subject. These lands are currently managed for wood proaucts only by 

makjng dead and down .trees available to the public for fuelwood. 

Pinyon-juniper lands may well have value for murces othw than timber. 

There is an opportunity in Forest pl& to analyze opportunities, 

establish directi on, and identify research needs related to pmyon-juniper 

woodlands. 

A final cc~lcem is the need to assess the inpacts of public wood gathering on 

other resource values. This cc" is addressed der the heading of 

Wildlife. 

. 

Tentatively suitable timber stands are fomd in tm general locations on the 

Inyo National Forest: on the north half of the Forest (south of Mora L&e and 

north of Mamnoth Lakes) and at the south end of the Forest (near "the 

Meadus on the J.Zern Plateau). 

The species presently managed on the Inyo for mnnercial wood pzcducts are 

Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine, red fir, and white fir. Subalpine forests, 

pinyun-junipfs woodlands, and stands in riparian areas are the 

non-camercial forest types on the Inyo. 

The Jeffrey pine forest occurs between 7,000 and 10,000 feet elevation. This 

forest type may have vary- amounts of intennixed lcdgeple pine and red 

and/or white fir. The average timber prcductivity site in Jeffrey pine is 

Meyers site index 60. Jeffrey pine stands mpy a total of 71,007 acres, or 

63.7 percent of the timber base. Jeffrey pine in the area has been harvested 

for sawlogs since the early 1880s. 

Althugh the lodgepole pine forest mcwx from 7,000 to 12,000 feet in 

elevation, those stands capable of pnz&cirg cnmmxial quantities of wood 

are generally found between 8,000 and 10,000 feet. Lodgepole pine stands may 

include Jeffrey pine and red and/or white fir. The average timber 

proaUctivity site of this type is Dahms Site Index 40. The ext3emely poor 

gruith form of most lcdgeple pine on the Forest precludes harvesting for 

sawlogs; however, the spacies is harvested and sold for fuelwood. k&geple 

pine stands -py 19,372 acres, or 17.3 percent of the Forest timber base. 

299 
Jeffrey pine and loa9epole pine have a low tolerance for shade, so mst 

stands grow naturally in even-aged groups. Many existing stands on the 

Forest are ma- to over-matum. The average growth rate within these types 

is significantly below potential, primarily because past timber harvest 

practices relied on natural regeneration. Natural regeneration was 

unsuccessful, resulting in understmked stands mth low growth per acre. 

Stands of this type are high priority for regenerakon. 

The red fir type occurs fm 9,000 to 11,000 feet, with mst of the 

carmercially productive stands below 10,000 feet. Red fir rows in nearly 

pure stands with an occasional white fir, Jeffrey pine, or lcdgeple pine. 

The average timber productivity site is Schmaker Site Index 30. Red fir on 

the Inyo occupies 21,169 acres, or 19.0 percent of the timber base. 

under naturcil conditions, the red fir type perpetuates itself in even-aged 

stands. Hawever, the shade-tolerant nature of both red fir and white fFr has 

led to the developnent of s~ne even-aged stands with two distinct age 

classes. This ccoldition usually cmurs when scme trees in the stand begin to 

die, allowing emugh might on the forest floor to sustain new seedlirgs. 

Fir stands can be better managed by wing regeneration cuts that allow 

partial sunlight on the forest floor such as shelterwood or swip cuttiq, 

than are the pines, which requrre full sun. A managed red fm forest would 

have greater age class diversity than a natural forest. 

Sane red fir has been harvested for sawlogs, in those areas where natural 

repnxluction was seen as adequate. However, mxt pure red fir stands on the 

Forest have rat yet been entered for timber harvest. Red fir has not been in 

high demand on the wwd proaucts market, and there was scme question abut 

the ability of silviculturists to regenerate that species under conditions 

found on this Forest. Hcwever, in 1979, the Inyo National Forest began 

exprimentiq with snall clearcuts (less than ten acres) in red fir in order 

to detennine the ability of the Inyo to regenerate that timher type 

successfully. Good survival and growth of planted seedlirgs have been 

achieved. It appears that the regeneration of red fir using -1 clearcuts 

in cunbhtion with planting is a viable silvicultural option on the Forest. 

The subalpine forest cmurs above 12,000 feet and contams lodgepole pine, 

muntain hank&, Western ate pine, whitebark pine, limber pine, and 

foxtail pine. The subalpine type is the least productive on the Forest, with 

a timber prcductivity rating of Ihmnirg Class V. Subalpine stands do not 

meet the "I suitability criterion of prcducing twenty cubic feet per 

acre of new mxl per year. 

The pinyon-junipr type occurs from 5,000 to 8,OOO feet in elevatxon. Stands 

vary €ran pure pinyon pine, through pinyon pine-juniper associations, to pure 

juniper. PinyOn-junfpr sites do not reliably proauCe twenty cubic feet of 

mod per acre per year. Sane harvest- for fuel-, posts, and poles has 

taken place in the past, and these species are currently an impoaant soucce 

of fuelmod for local cc"ities. There are m plans to manage either 

species for carmercial prcducts ckru-g the p1annj.q period. 

Oak, aspen, cckton-, birch, willow, and alder are not suitable for 

carmercial prcduction on the Inyo. 

300 
Nearly all sawlog ha"g ' on the Inyo National Forest is amcnplished in 

winter by ground-skim over-the-suxy. 

salvage sales may be harvested over bare de to their snall size 

and/or urgency. No aerial han"g ' in use, mr is it expected to cccur in 

the foreseeable future de to ecanCmic amsiderations and physical 

feasibility. 

Over-the-- logging is practiced to protect soil, ground vegetation, and 

water quality. As a result of Msmrancla of Agreement with the appropriate 

state agencies, m-9~3~ lqjng is also cansidered adequate pt&on for 

certain types of cultural resource sites. These mranda "ize the 

al"t of land that needs to be taken out of pnxhlction in order to protect 

cultural values. Finally, winter logging reduces potential wnflicts between 

timber management and ?.-exeation use of the Forest. 

Only fuelwood sales and 

The NFMA regulations and the Regional. Guide call for a 40-acre limit on the 

size of opnings created by timber manag-t activities. The current 

practice on the Inyo is to limit clearcut openings to 20 acres or less. The 

impact of this size on timber yields is negligible. 

Cqmbility, Availability, and Suitability 

Not all forested land is biologically capable of, or physically suitable for, 

prc&ci.q regular QSOPS of industrial xed. In addition, sone of the lands 

which are both capable of timber prduction and suitable for it are not 

statutorily available. 

Land is considered incapable of prwkcing timber if it is not physically and 

biologically able to mce industr ial quality wood at a rate of 20 cubic 

feet per am per year. Land is unavailable if it has keen administratively 

or ccolgressionally withdrawn fran timber production, such as in Research 

Natural Areas or Wilderness. Land is considered unsuitable if there is mt 

reasonable assurance that the land can be restocked to acceptable standards 

within five years after final harvest or if technology is mt available to 

mce and/or harvest timber witbout irreversibly damaging soil proaUctivity 

or watershed conditions. 

Individual timbar stands are dined, for pi- purposes, into groups 

with similar characteristics in terms of species, .tree size, and stand 

density. These groupings are referred to as timber types or strata. The 

ninereccgm 'zable strata on the Forest are listed below. 

L3P - Lodgepole pine: crown diameter 12-14 feet; 20-39% crown closure. 

P2G - Jeffrey pine; crown diameter <12 feet: 70-1W cram closure. 

P2P - Jeffrey pine; crown diameter <12 feet: 20-39% crcwn closure. 

P2S - Jeffrey pine; crown diameter <12 feet: 10-19% c10wn closure. 

301 
P4P - Jeffrey pine; Crown dim- 24-40 feet: 20-39% Crown Closure. 

P4S - Jeffrey pine: own diameter 24-40 feet: 10-19% cram closure. 

F6G - Jeffrey pine: ism distinct size classes: overstary with mwm 

diameter 24-40 feet and U-&&XZY 

70-100$ ~rown clas~re. 

diameter <12 feet: bath 

R4X - Red fir: cram diameter 24-40 feet: variable cram closure. 

REG - Red fir; two distinct size classes as Jeffrey Pine (PIX). 

Forest Mamgawn tsystens 

Cmqress has direct& the Naticnal Forests to deternune * the 1Ca-g-ten 

sustained-yield capacity of tbs Forest to prcduce timber under different levels 

of management intensity and to develop a base harvest schedule that will lead to 

a regulated forest (a fully regulated Forest is me in which age and size 

classes are represented in such pqa-ticns and growing at such rates that 

app”ately equal annual or pridic yields of proi.cts of desired size and 

quality may be obtamed ’ ). These tasks involve the amtion of a forest’ 

managanent system. 

Tm management systems am Caman‘ly cansidered: uneven-aged management (trees 

of all ages growing intermingled on each acre of land) and even-aged managment 

(all .trees within a stand the same age). The Inyo National Forest has favored 

wen-aged timber managanent because that system is well supparted by scientific 

research and years of practice throughwt the western United States. In 

addition, even-@ management is the system that best approximates natural 

regeneraticsl patterns in timber types on the Inyo. The system of uneven-aged 

managemsnt, (~1 the other hand, is not well tested or subatantiat4 by scientific 

study in the relatively dry envircanwt of the Eastem Sima Nevada. However, 

the uneven-aged System needs to be tested for possible future application. 

For a mxe detailed discussion of silvicultural system, see pspendur . n. 

The follcxhq tables sumnarize the capability, availability, and suitability, by 

stram, of lands on the Inyo Naticmal Forest. 

302 
Table 48 

Liads lkntatively capable, Suitable. and Available 

meal Capable and UMVailable Timber Net Suitable and 

Suitable Timber Lands (Wilderness Available Thhr 

stratun Lanas(acres) and=) (-) Lands (-) 

L3P 

F2G 

P2P 

P2S 

P4P 

P4S 

P6G 

R4X 

R6G 

TOTAL 

27,869 

11,646 

31,538 

12,095 11,1m 

6,603 

13,409 

23,424 

35,520 

173,207 

8.644 

287 

3,424 

3,167 

5,336 

2,312 

1, Qoo 

13,801 

24,135 

62,506 

19.225 -. ,-~ ~ 

11,359 

28,114 

8,928 

5,767 

4,291 

121009 

9,623 

11,385 

110,701 

Table 49 

Fbrest& Lands Not Capable of or Suitable 

for CInmrdd Timber 'an 

Incapable unsuitable 

(Less than 20 (=!3====tian 

Cubic FtfYr) Nrrt ASsmed) Total 

-tun (-) (-SI (-1 

L3P 188,025 1,491 189,516 

P2P 6,445 3,468 9,913 

P2S 10,442 17,592 28,034 

P4P 1,346 900 2,246 

P4S 3,465 1,444 4,909 

P6G 2,521 384 2,905 

R4X 3,538 3,419 6,957 

R6G 7,251 1,202 8,453 

0 260,067 

483,100 29,900 513,000 

303 
The current Inyo National Forest Timber ManageilEnt Plan (1967) projects an 

average annual potential timber yield on the mrth half of the Forest of 11.5 

WF. Actual timber sold in recent years has averaged 10.5 MYBF per year. 

There is no (surrent timber manag-t plan for the south end of the Forest. 

Hm-, the potential yield in that area is estimated to be 1.5 WF. 

The 1967 Timber Managemnt Plan is based on a cannercial timber base of 

91,500 acres (not inC1udi.q the mche Meadows area on the Kern Plateau). 

These acres are divided into three categories: standard "pmnt, special 

canp3nent, and marginal canpcswt. Altbugh lands in the first tsm 

categories are certain to meet the "7+ capability criteria listed above, 

lands in the marginal anpment may mt meet those criteria. 

The current timber plan favors even-aged manag-t. Practices that are 

applied under this manag-t systan include: regeneratian harvest 

(clearcutting and shelterwmd cutting), intenwdiate harvest, site 

pparatim, plant-, release, precarmercial thinning, and fuel treatmat. 

These practices are defined in the Glossary, Chapter VIII. 

The Inyo National Forest has been supplying 1- and fuelwood to the local 

area since the 1800s. Hawever, the Forest's overall contribution to the 

1- industry is relatively mall. There are no lccal sawmills; however, 

SaWllillS in Gadnera 'lle, Nwada and Loyaltm, California de- up logs 

from the Inyo National Forest, particularly since the Inyo conducts winter 

lcgging, providiq timber at a time when other sources to the mills are not 

available. The current annual harvest is 10.5 WF. 

In contrast, the local fuelwood industry and the public are almost entirely 

depndent upm the Inyo for their local fuelwood supply. The Inyo currently 

sells appmximately 4,000 wrds of fuelwood per year to CQrmerCial -atom 

and 6,000 wrds per year to the public. 

The demand for sawtimber from the Forest cannot be predicted fnm historical 

sales txerds. Since all timber offered for sale during the last decade has 

been sold, we can only conclude that supply has not exceeded demand. In 

addition, the Inyu has relatively little uncut volume under contract (less 

than two years' sell volume) and has had no sales turned back. All these 

indicators lead to the ccolclusim that sawtimber fnm the Inyo is in high 

demand relative the other National Forests in California. 

!Cha demand for fuelwood varies somewhat with the severity of the win-, but 

seasonal variation is less significant than a g-a1 correlation of demand 

with population. The demand for fuelwood is expected to mtjnue wing in 

direct propcation to populatim grawth. 

Current evidence iradicates that the demand for bth sawlogs and fuelwood will 

increase intn the foreseeable future. 

304 
Over .the period 1979-1984, timber sale revenues exceded timber costs by mxa 

than $1 million for the perid as a whole. Hawever, in three of the six 

years, revenues were less than costs. This OccUzTed when mets were weaker 

than normal, which caused both harvest volumes and prices received to 

decline. Timber market and sale -am fluctuations often distort 

canparisms between revenues and costs for individual years because costs are 

incurred for projects that may mt yield revenues until later years. 

VISUALIs-, concerns, & opprhml ' ties 

The major public issues and managenient ancems are that the visual quality 

values OBI the Forest be identified and evaluated and mitigation measures be 

develapea to ensure the continuation of a high quality visual murce. 

The Forest needs to respcold to these issues and cancerns in the Forest 

planning process. The Forest has the opprhmity to maintain a very high 

level of visual quality, as cmly about six percent of the land base has 

received major impads. 

Backgrand 

The visual "rce, as a key attraction for recreation visitors to the 

Eastern Sierra, is a prjmary value on the Inyo National Forest. Both 

visitnrs who spend time here and tbase who pass through on their way to other 

places are attracted to this area by the magnificent scenery. The 

preaaninance of recreatim as a sourc~ of inom3 in the Eastern Sierra is 

based, at least partly, on the unique natural scene~y of the area. 

The scenic quality of the landscap is mnposed of 10,ooO-foot escarpnents; 

deep, dramtic canyons; nuuntain lakes, stream, and meadows; and extremely 

high visibility due to the steepess of the terrain and the lack of screening 

vegetation. 

Visual quality in the Easkn Sierra has declined somewhat over the past 100 

years, as human activities have encrwched on the natural appearance of the 

landscape. Structures and associated ground diw have had the most 

significant visual impacts OBI the Inyo (unlike many National Forests, where 

logsing has had the greatest impad). scxlrces of visual impacts include 

mineral develapnents, recreation facilities, hydroelectric developnents, 

highway rxmsbxction, and cn"ity developnent. The primary visual impacts 

of the past ten years have been ski area developnent and related cc" 'ty 

growth. 

Major potential future visual impacts include additional ski areas, camunity 

gmwth, and energy developnent. Both Mamoth Mxntain and June Mxntain Ski 

Areas have ro~n for growthwithh the existiqpennit areas. As many as five 

addttirmal ski areas could also develop in the same gwal area. !The 

COmMlities of Mamroth Lakes and June Lake are expe&ed to grm in reqmse 

to a&Titicmal skier capacity. 

305 
If all potential energy projects are develaPea as pmposed, uley will 

generate nvze visual dishrbaxa than all earlier human inpa& on the 

F&. Proposed energy projects include geothxnml, hydxelectric, and wind 

pclwer genera- &velopnents. Such projects could be large and "nerous, 

and each project muld include many Structures (e.g., buildings, pipes, 

pxerlines). Vegetative and top3graphic screening in the affected areas 

would mt be adequate to meet current Visual Quality Objectives if projects 

are fully developed. 

The only significant potential visual inpact related to timber 

wouldbethe- . of red fir in heavily used recreation areas. 

mly - Variety Class 

The quality of scenic resources can best be expressed by the concept of 

Variety Class. Landscapes in Variety Class A include such features as 

tmuntainpeaks, stream, lakes, "s, rockyoutcrops, riparianvegetation, 

fellfields, unusually steep terrain, and unique land forms. Variety Class B 

scene~y typically ircludes forested lands on rollirag tefiain with a few 

vegetative or toposraphic variaticm. Variety Class C lands are are 

generally expansive and brush-covered wiI3-1 little variation. The Inyu is 

part of the Sierra Nevada and the Desert-Desert Mnmtain landscape 

pmvin~~. Although much of the latter province contains vast expanses of 

Class C scenery, very little land in this category is found on the Inyo. The 

follming table Sumnarizes the scenic variety of Inyo National Forest lands. 

Table 50 

Inyo tiatid Forest Lands 

by Variety Class 

Variety Class Descripticm Acres Percent of Forest 

A Distinctive 832,000 44 

CinIRYn 906,500 48 

Muumal variety 146,200 8 .. B 

C 

wly - Sensitivity Level 

Sensitivity is a measure of the human concern for scenic quality as seen fran 

a given observation point. The sensitivity of an area depnds upon its use 

(how many people use it and for what purp3se) and up its visual qualities 

(what is seen and how closely it is viewed). Most Inyo National Forest lands 

are visually sensitive, due primarily to the vlsibility of the landscape and 

the large a"t of wilderness. An indicakcm of this sensitivity is the 

fact that mst state and federal highways in or adjacent to the Inyo National 

Forest are existing or potential state-designated scenic highways. The 

following table SLmmarizes the visual sensitivitv of Inyo National Forest 

lands. 

306 
Table 51 

by Smsitiviiy Level 

Inyo Natid Farest Lands 

Level RelativeSensitivity Acres Percent 

Level 1 & wilderness Wxt sensitive 1,426,700 76 

Level 3 & unseen lands Least sensitive 288, OOO 15 

Level 2 PDderately sensitive 170,000 9 

mly - Visual Quality Objectives 

A Visual mality Objective (VQO) describes the acceptable level of landscap 

alteration for a specific land area, based on the variety class and 

sensitid* level of that ems. va3s are used in Forest planning to identify 

the level of visual quality that would be mt under each planning 

alternative. The foll- table sumnarizes VeOs as currently inmtoried 

for Inyo National Forest lands. 

Table 52 

Inyo Natimal Farest Lands by Inventoried 

Visual Quality objective 

ccnstraints cal 

objective MaMgement Activities Acres percent 

pIxse”tion -F?mMbited 580, 000 31 

(Wilderness & RNAs). 

Retentim -m mt be visually 329,700 17 

evident - retain 

natural appearance. 

subrdinate to natural 

character of landscape. 

dcminant, but must 

character of landscape. 

daninant but not the 

primary focal point. 

Partial Retentim -Must be visually 646,200 34 

Mzdificatiun -May be visually 264,800 14 

ocolform MtU23-l. 

Maxi” Mzdification -May be visually 64, 000 3 

307 
Supply - Existing Visual Condition 

The Existing Visual conditicol (EXC) of all lands on the Forest, including 

wildexness, has been inventoried. This data describes the degree to which 

the naturaz appar- of landscap has been altered. EVC Types I-V relate 

generally to the VQOS listed above. Alterations described in Type VI do not 

meet any of these VQOS: they mld be considered unacceptable modifications. 

The WC types listed below are used in Forest p1arm.q as a basis for 

measuring the effects of alternatives on visual quality. The follming table 

sumnarizes the existing visual condition of Inyo National Forest lands. 

Table 53 

D-qo National Forest Lands by 

Existing Visual ccsldition 

WTYpe Description Acres percent 

un+33llched 1,430,600 76 

changes unnoticed 169,100 9 

Minor disturbances 187,800 10 

mderate Disturbances 70,900 4 

Major disturbances 19,400 1 

Drastic distucbances 7,100 0 

Supply - Visual Absorption Capab ility: 

The Inyo is mxbrately capable of screening (visually absorb*) 

land-disturbing activities. However, these activities are mst likely to 

cccur in areas where absorption would be mst difficult such as along ma& 

or in heavily & recreational areas. The follaWing table sumnarizes the 

absorption capability of all Inyo National Forest lands outside of wildemess 

(approximately 30 percent of the Forest is wilderness). 

Table 54 

Inyo National Forest Lands by 

Visual Absorption Capability 

Absorption capability Acres 

percent of 

mtal Forest Lands 

High 

Wderate 

Low 

307,700 

736,400 

275,600 

16 

39 

15 

308 
A Visual (juality Index (VQI) can be developed to numerically display the 

difference between the Exi- Visual Condition (EVC) and the visual 

condition that would exist if a given set of Visual Wality Objectives (vQ3s) 

were implemented. !lh current Inyo National Forest Visual Quality index is 

142.07, indicating a very high level of scenic value. 

The Inyo Naticmal Forest considers the visual resource a primary value 

because the landscap is inheren tly high in quality (variety class) and is 

extremely visible and seen by millicns of -le each year (sensitivity 

level). Due primarily to the low levels of land-disturbing resource 

activities on the Forest, 94 percent of the land has retained a natural 

appearance. 

demand for scenic beauty is most readily characterized by demands for 

recreaticmal activities. clrowth rates for all forms of recreation on the 

 ores st except camp- ham increased significantly in the last 20 years. The 

amnmt of canqing has declined with declining develop3 site capacity. See 

the Remeatim sectioll in this chapter for more detail. 

Many recreaticslal activities are directly oriented taward the scenic 

resource. Major increases in the overnight accarmodation capacity of lccal 

annumities as well as increases in dispersed activities such as hiking, 

driving for pleasure, mrdic skiing, and general forest recreation are based 

on the visual enjoyment of the Forest. Fxpndmg * attractions off-Forest 

(including 1- events and celebrations), better access and mre leisure 

time, affluence, and education Create a demand for continued high vlsual 

quality on the Inyo National Forest. 

ISSlaeS, cancerns, and opprtmu 'ties 

Issues, CCBIC.RIIIS, and opporhmities regarding the soil resource on the Forest 

focus m soil cmse~~~tim, rehabilitation, improvement, and enhancement. 

Issues, cc"s, and opprtunities in this categoIy include declining soil 

pnxiuctivity, rehabilitation of damaged or deteriorated watersheds, and 

managemsnt practices in silviatlture, grazing, recreation, and other Forest 

activities that protect or enhance watersheds. 

Present and projected demands on the Forest for increased prcduction of 

COmDdity gccds, expansicm of recreational facilities, and expansion of 

mineral and energy prcductim could expse increasing expanses of soil to 

mim. The me- used to pursue these activities can alter the soil 

heycola the pint of recovery. 

The Forest currently manages the soil resource primarily by mitigating 

activities to minimize inpacts. Where soil impacts are severe, watershed 

restmation projects may also be mdertaken. The Forest Watershed 

Impragnent Needs (WIN) Plan has identified 23,560 acres, primarily in wet 

309 
meadows, that are in need of t. Of this acreage, apKoximately 

5,000 acres are currently damaged, and 18.560 acres are threatened with 

damage if preventive measures are rot taken. !The WIN plan we -loped 

primarily in respoose to water quality ccslcerns; soils c"s were 

secopldary. ~&Etimal soils cc"s need to be addressed by additional WIN 

studies. 

Ther8isanopprhml 'ty to establish soil resaurce managanent 

the Forest Plan that goes bSyCd Current managenent by tailor- dh?C'h 'on to - 

'on in 

specific management areas. 

Soil is a basic and essential Farest resource that supp3Tts or directly 

influences nost, if ryJt all, other resources. Soil is cansidered prcductive 

when it can grow vegetation for dnissb 'c livestock forqe, wwd prcducts, 

wildlife habitat, and scenic quality. Each soil type has a unique set of 

characteristics that determine its suitability for such activities as timber 

harvest, road cxmstzuction, grazing, and rwreation site cnnstxuction. 

More than 120 distinct soil typs have been identified on the Forest. An 

order 4 Soil Resource Inventmy (SRI) has been canpleted for the east side of 

the FO& (the White and Inyo Mmntains and the Pimna area). A "bination 

order 3-Order 4 SRI of the west (Sierra Nevada) side of the Forest is 80 

percent ccnplete. The latter inventory excludes wilderness except on the 

 ern Plateau. 

order 4 SRIs are broad TeccB'lnaissame irnrestigatiuns that are adequate for 

order 4; they am cwnducted for, and are adequate for Forest plannirg 

purp3ses on lands subject to heavy recreaticBl use or timber managemnt. bm 

specific on-site invesh 'gatim, are needed for project-level work. 

The soils on the Inyo National Forest are variable in terms of parent 

material, physicgraphic position, susceptibility to erosion, and capacity to 

sum Vegetative growth. Fifty- percent of the soils on the Forest are 

derived fran granitic parent material. Sedimentary parent materials 

re-t 20 percent, pllmic0 parent material represents 9 percent, and 

lh&%X-le parent material represents 6 percent of the total. About 78 

percent of the soils on the Forest are sandy or coarse-textured. 

--quarters of these soils contain more than 35 percent rock fragments 

(stones, cobbles, or gravel) throughout their profiles. About 15 percent of 

the soils on the Forest are ashy in texture. me-fifth of these soils 

mtain more than 35 percent rock fragnmts throughout their profiles. The 

Physicgraphic position ranges 

fmn flat tableland to gently slop- alluvial fans, to extremely steep 

mnmtainsides. 

Many soils on the Forest lie on steep slopes. Sixty percent lie on slopes of 

greater than 30 percent. Of these, one-third are on slopes greater than 60 

percent. Soils on slopes exceeding 60 percent are considered sensitive 

watershed areas and are generally managed with a primary masis on 

pmtecting and/or maintaining soil reso"? values. 

About 200,000 acres remain to be surveyed. 

Forest-wide plw m. order 3 SRIS prWide info-tion than 

7 percent are fine-textured soils. 

310 
Soil proaucUvity is defined as the capacity of the soil, in a specific 

"mt, to proauce bianass (vegetation). The factors that influence 

prc&&vity are soil depth, percentage of rcck fragments, texture, available 

water-lmldirg capacity, nutrient status, maintenance of the duff layer, 

mineral toxicity, and pH. PrecipitatiCpI, slope, and elevation also affect 

prcductiviw. Soil prcductivity m the Forest ranges fmn exb-emely law to 

highly prcductive. 

The greatest threat to soil proaudivity is erosion. Sane soils are mm 

likely to emde than others, but all are affected by disturbances caused by 

natural catastrophes or managmt activities. Highly prductive soils can 

be rendered unpxductive by erosicm. The soils on the Forest with the 

highest erosion potential are the Beveriwe, Brad, Finley, Midas, and Oosen 

families. 

kst of the sails on the Forest show little evidence of erosion. However, 

certain areas have lost mast of their topsoil because of accelerated 

-ion. Accelerated cxcsion has resulted frun management activities and/or 

fmn natural cahsbmphs. 

grazed by livestodc (mxt effects have cone €run pt grazing misnanagment) 

and alpine ski arsas. 

Soils m Rangel ands 

%e follmixq soil pm3uctivity data is based on range measurements. 

Rangeland soils are associated with five g-al vegetatian .types on the 

Inp: high desert/alph, pinym-junipr/big sagebrush, bitterbM/big 

sagebrush, ~J.Y meadows. and wet meadows. 

These soils wether make up about 6 percent of the Forest. 

The mast severely affected areas are meadows 

Table 55 

Soil Prc&&a 'vity m Rangelands 

m/acxe/yr. Acresm ~SentativeSoil 

Vegetatim Type Forage FOX-€!&* Families or Subgmups 

High *:alph 75-300 152,574 Pergellic Cryobrulls; 

Piqon-junipx/ 

big sagebrush 300-600 661,282 Basket; Trocken 

Bitt€zbrush/big 600-1, OOO 248,307 Supervisor; Tceja 

sagebrush 

Dry meam 1,ooo-1.500 13,831 Wlic Haploxerolls 

Spanel 

Ticpic Wrepts 

Haplaquolls 

Wet madm 1,500-2,OOO 14,506 Dobrow; Typic 

311 
Table 56 

Soil -istics cm Fangelands 

Soil familyar Percentof Associated Elevatims AverageAnnual 

subgroup theF-t Landfarms (feet) Precip.(’hches) 

Pergelic muntainsides 9,000 to 11 to 18 

CsyoborollS 10% 

Basket 42% mxlntainsides, 

alluvial fans, 

dunes, and 

bomands 

Supervisor 16% mxlntainsides 

dunes 

Aridic 

Haploxerolls 1% riparian areas 

Dobraw 1% wet meadows 

14,250 

4,700 to 8 to 12 

11,400 

5,900 to 9 to 17 

12,600 

10, 000 

11,000 

6,000 to 10 to 30 

7,000 to 10 to 30 

%xtly mm-wilderness: cnly wet and dry meadow figures include wilderness. 

Meacbws, which are scattered throughout the Forest, have the mDst proaUctive 

rqe soils on the PIYO. These soils have developed fm alluvium derived 

fran mixed parent material. The soils are generally deep and well developed, 

often with alternating mineral and organic-rich mineral layers throughout the 

profiles. Texhres are coarse to medium; water-holding capacities are low to 

derate (2.5 to 7.5 inches for the soil as a whole). Either surface water 

or water frun a high water table keeps many of these soils mist throughout 

the year. The ~k~al erosion rate for these soils is low to derate, but 

accelerated ercsion is a ccmtrpl problem on meadows where tm much grazing has 

occurredinthepast. 

The history of intensive grazirg on what is ~y3w Forest land goes back a 

hundred years. Severe gully erosion on the rangelands, especially in meadows 

and riparian areas, has resulted frun decades of overuse and poor grazmg 

practices. The rangelands on the Kern Plateau at the south end of the Forest 

have sustained the mrst of this damage. Grazirg levels have been reduced, 

and watershed restoration projects are under way to stop and eventually 

reverse the course of accelerated erosion in damaged areas. 

Meadm soils on the Forest are presently being restored at an average rate of 

forty acres per year. Mea- restoration projects are under way m the 

ButkwxrLlk area, the Kern Plateau, the White I&”, the Casa Diablo area, 

the Glass Mmntains, Little Antelope Valley, Little Hot Creek, Mamma 

Meam, Swall b@a&%!s, the Coyote Plateau, and Baker Creek. 

Soils an T- Lands 

The fo1lmir-g data on soils associated with the tlxxe major ccmnercial timber 

types m the Forest is based on timber mammn”cs. 

312 
Red fir 19,732 2/30 

Jeffrey 71,007 4/60 

Pd 

Lodgepole 21,169 6/40 

P104 Kwed: Olancha: 

Siretta 

46 Wen: Wapal: Chaix 

25 Dystric Xemthents, 

cindery: Thow: Glean 

Table 58 

Soil characteristics of carmercl 'd Tidxddd~ 

Representative 

Soil Family percentof Associated Elevatims Average Amud 

or- theF-t* Landfornrs (feet) precip. (bches) 

Kwed 

oosen 

1% mtainsides, 

mtain flats, 

IlKrahes 

muntain flats, 

hillSl~, 

alluvial fans, 

& uplands 

1% "ntainsides, 

5% "ntainsides, 

"ntain flats, 

plateaus, hillSlopes. uplands, 

IlKraines, stream 

terraces, and 

flccdplains 

7,200 to 15 to 40 

12, 000 

6,000 to 10 to 30 

9,500 

7,800 to 14 to 30 

10,600 

* wilderness only 

Carmercial timber cm the northwest part of the Forest grows on deep, yourg, 

wly developd pmice, granitic, and andesitic soils such as the Kwed, 

Oxen, and Thow families. The soils rem- by the Kwed family are the 

msst proaudive timber- soils cm that part of the Forest. Soils in 

the Oosen family are eately prcductive, and those in the Thow family am 

the least pnductiva. All of ths soils in the area have lcm to &ate 

waw-hzildiq capacities (2.5 in 7.5 inches for the upper sixty inches of the 

soil). The soils are sandy and coarse-textured and often wntain many rock 

313 
-ts "gha& their profiles. lhese soils are himy susceptlhle to 

erosion, eSpaAal1y an slopes of rcue than 30 percent. 

Timbet lands on the s€~thwest part of the Forest in the Mollache 

"rhin-Wn$ishar Ridge area of the Kern Plateau lie cm shallow to deep, 

Fly developed, granitic and ardasitic Soils that fall into the siretta, 

olaix, and Glean families. Soils in the Glean family are the most 

pxdwtive of the three; soils in the Qlaix fmily are wately eve, 

and soils in the Siretta family are the least eve. All of the soils 

in the area have low to lweerate Water-hDldixq capacities. They are sandy or 

profiles. Althcgh the ~t~~al erosion rates for these soils are low to 

moderate, the potential for accelerated erosion is mate to high, 

de- cm the Slope ad the cmaslt of ai-. 

soils an other Lands 

Soils on the 23 percent of the Forest outside of rangelands and carmercial 

timbar lands tend to be low to modarate in 'vi- and water-hldhg 

capacity. As a result, sllppcnt sparse vegetative growth and are 

-1y subject to erosicm, especially on steep Slopes whwx3 the 

vqetation has been renwed. As "g-t activities and human uses of 

these lands tend to be minimal, erosicm is not a major problem over large 

areas. Mining and c%N use, however, create lmalized impacts that can be 

coar~e-texhned, and marry antain marry Iock f-ts through their 

severe. 

Alpine ski area developnent has adversely affected the soil resource. Soils 

on the two existirg ski areas are &lar in prcdwtivity, water-holdhg 

capacity, and erosion potential to the soils on timber land at the northeast 

end of the Forest. The parent ma.terial at mth is mostly mce (sane is 

granitic) whereas at June Wxmtain it is all granitic. 

The ski runs on these areas have been built on steep slopes, and all or most 

of the vegetation has been remxled. Wind and water erosion have been severe, 

resulting in the loss of the top soil layer (the most proauctive part of 

these soils). Soils carried fruu the slopes have reached streams, degrading 

water quality. Mcm pravena Plans for each ski area have been 

partially iqlmented, but soils are still -, and water quality does 

not yet meet State of California Water Cuality goals in some instances. 

other recreatimal activities cm the Inyo have also affected soil stability. 

Fishing and camping, especially alaq Bishop creek, have resulted in 

.trampling of vegetation d erosion of streambanks. Off-highway vehicles in 

the mche Meadows area have also &stmyed vegetation and led to erosion in 

themeadows. 

Other Forest activities that could affect soil stability are geothermal 

energy developnent, mads, and trails. Each of these activities disturbs or 

n3mVe.s native vqetation, expxllq ' the soil to accelerated erosion. These 

activities also often dish% -/or remove scme of the soil. 

The demand for optimum soil condition is related primarily to the demands for 

vegetative growth (for tinker, rarge, wildlife, or scenic values) and water 

314 
quality. 

of the otherresances -on the Inyo Naticnal Forest. 

Stable and mve soils are needed to meet the denand for “C 

Th3 Forest CUfientlY manages soil - by the developnent and 

jnplementaticn of site-specific soil resaurce pteztim technicpes.. Best 

Managenent Practices (eMps) for water quality pmteztion are used as 

guidalhes, as many of the practices that lxwtect water quality do so by 

prom soil stability. BMps are a mllecticn of management -nts 

and ansideratials that need to be addressed @or to and dur- the 

hplementaticm of land management activities. 

Issues, c”s, and- ties 

Managenent is - with the need to maintain and imprwe water quality. 

the TnyJ is Sdilmntaticn. The most significant sources of sediment are ski 

areas and ?aq3lands damaged by past misMnagement of grazing. 

Water quality is also a pblic issue. The primary threat to water quality on 

The major opporhrnities of the Farest has to mspcd to water quality issues 

and a” are: amtinu& applicatim of Best Manag-t Practices (BMps), 

am- b@3nentation of ski area masim FTeVentim Plans (EPPS), and 

mtim of damaged watersheds. 

BMPS have been certified by the State and approved by the Envirnnmen tal 

Pmtectim Agency for axtrolling “-pint sources of surface water 

polluticm. Methods and techniques for applying the appropriate ENP am 

identified durirg the on-site investigation of Forest projects that ham 

potential to degrade surface water quality. 

The vast majority of rurriff fran Inyo Natimal Forest land is used for 

danestic or “icipal -lies or for irrigatim. AltMugh small and 

localized bacterial, nutrient, and chemical problem exist, established basin 

water quality chjectives are met by 97 percent of the total water flcxvjng off 

Farest lands. or apFaraximately 1,047,000 =-feet per year. ”he only 

significant impad an wa- quality is sediment fmn ski areas and eroding 

wet meadcws. 

The vegetatimly barren or sparsely vegetated slopes of the Forest’s two 

alpine ski areas can axtribute heavy sediment loads to s.b-em during the 

spring mff season. Ski runs are developea to prOvi.de “I skier 

capacity on minimal 9y3w cwer. This principle requires that any vqetatim 

onthembeofminimal height and that vegetation ba straight up 

and down the fall line. The pnice and granitic soils characteristic of sM 

areas on the UryO are easily disturbed, and orice disturbed they are easily 

f?I-cdd. ApprawM . tely 1,500 acres are currently disturbed. Although Ebmsim 

h-eventicsl Plans have been develop3 for both ski areas, app”a ’ tely 800 

anes of disturbed land have yet to be stabilized. 

315 
The other major sources of sediment on the Inyo are wet meadows that have 

been severely eroded wer the past century. The 1981 Forest Watmipruvement Needs (WIN) irnrentory SUIveyed 26,000 acres of meadcrw, 23,560 

acres of which needed hp” t to either maintajn or restore water 

quality. Pka&m erosion is rrost severe m the Kern Plateau, Coyote Flat, and 

the east sides of the White Mxmtains and Glass Pbmtajns. 

Mimed grazing in the past has triggd acoelerated erosion and greatly 

jnhibited the natural recovery of sone sites. About 15 to 20 percent of the 

current cattle grazing and nearly 15 percent of the sheep grazing on the 

Forest~inthesemeadows. 

reduced the prcductivity of many “tall meadows. htinued grazing has 

mch of the sediment prcductim occurs during sprirg mff, with an 

occasional high-intensity sumner storm mtribut3q large amounts in a 

localized area. Grazing has a t“y to ccmpact soils, to concentrate 

water on livestock trails, to trample ska&ark, and to denude small 

localized areas such as water trough sites, sal- sites, and sheep bedding 

areas. Inadditicm, livestockspenda- ‘mte a”t of the time in 

riparian areas, especially in wet meadaws, thus inhibiting recoveq. The 

above cunbination of factors can result in kcrased runoff and sediment 

pmducticm m sensitive rangelands. 

Stream reach jnventwy and channel stability evaluatim pr”s have been 

applied to rangelands on the Kern Plateau. Areas with goOa bank protedion 

saxes (-iderable stream bank rock armairg and &”side vegetatim) 

have shown fair to god resistance to the impads of livestock grazing. 

sensitive stream reaJles with pmr bank ~orotection scores have st” dramatic 

impacts in reqcn%e to livestock grazirg. Nearly all sensitive Stream 

reaches in grazing allotments have gens through a cycle of erosion, mcludiq 

headcut - migratim and gully widenirg and deepening. The tran~1h-g of 

m such stream- has increased sediment production by as 

mch as 500 percent above estimated natural levels. These reaches may, 

howevar, represent less than 5 percent of the total StL-ean miles on the Kern 

Plateau. The bank protection raw system will be used to monitor grazing 

impads and recarsry potential alciq these mches in the future. 

Sane mall, isolated riparian areas in other parts of the Forest show 

evidexe of much disturbance due to frequent visitatim by livestock for 

water and shade. Water quality in these areas deteriorates only duriq 

infrequent -, but the riparian areas are degraded -theless. 

Watershed restoration projects are currently being jnqlmented m the mxt 

severely damaged wet meadows at a rate of app“ate1y 40 acres per year. 

A goal of 200 to 3M) acres per year is desirable and attainable. 

m, 

Other activities that currently or potentially impact water quality are 

geothermal energy developnent, and roads and trails. Each of these 

activities disturb native vegetatzi.cn and canpacts the soil, resulting in 

bcxeasd nlnoff, channelization Of water, and sedimentproduction. Thase 

parts of the Forest with the highest pmcipitatim and the steepest slopas 

are the rrost sensitive to the water quality impacts of land-disturbing 

activities. 

316 
Timber managensnt has historically ccnflided very little with water quality 

m the Inyo, and ccmflicts are not expezkd to increase unless harvest occu~s 

m different soil -typas or steeper slopes than thDse hanrested at present. 

luhst: timber harvest occurs over-the-slow, so sails are not usually affected 

directly by 1cggi.q activities. In additim, the timbered area of the Forest 

lies nwstly m pumice soils. Eunice is so porcpts that there is little, if 

any, surface IllMff to carry soil into st". If steeper slopes or 

different soil types are harvested in the future, water quality could becane 

mxe of a rx"~ than it is at present. 

The Forest includes tan watershe& that serve nnmicipal water systems; these 

watesshds are listed below. 

Table 59 

uunicipal watersheds 

~1 tbe Inyo Natid Forest 

Municipal watershed Average Amnd --site Water Use 

(-feet) 

LeeVW(=reek 365 

Rackcreek 64 

Bishop 25 

Big Pine Creek 10 

7 

-Pine- 

--- 

17 

Glass Ckeek 16 

Pine CT0ek 300 

RenrarsedCreek 325 

Ma"thLakeSI3aSjn 3,750 

The first six of these watershe& include large wilderness acreage and heavy 

recreatim us8 areas. Local domestic water uses include caqgwmb, 

resorts, and slprmer hones. The mly with water quality in these six 

watesshds are rem-eaticmal use of the campgnxrnds and backcoun.try areas, 

fuel spills frun vehicle accidenta or resort facilities, or faulty septic and 

leach line facilities at resarts or sumner hones. The latter concems are 

minimized by pastins roads to OXltTml speeds and ' facilities every 

few years to guard against undeteded leaks. Back-tq use problerns are 

rrrmunized by educatiq the public about wildemass sanitatim and imposirg 

wilderness use quotas to prvtect resources. There is 1y3 foreseeable need far 

a&iitimal measures to be taken for municipal water StandKdS to be met. 

The Glass crsek wa- includes cnly Natimal Forest land. The cmly 

danestic water uses include a and a snall sumner lnm tract. The 

watershed is stable and water quality is gxd: a "r sedimentatian p-oblen 

in the meadows is targeted for improvement in the near future. Allhugh the 

stzeam below the reaxaticmal facilities typically shows bacterial 

ctmtaminaticm in late s."r and thnxghxt the fall, the water meets water 

.. 

317 
quality standards for downstrean uses. New ski area developnent or tjnlber 

harvast are potential impacts an the wat0rshd. 

Ihe Pine creek waterskd pIWides water for the SMll “g Cmnurdty Of 

RavaM. ?he headwaters of Pine crsek are in wilderness; the Pine (=ceek Mine 

is located just outside the wilderness kunda~. Water mes fran 

wilderness with excellent quality but deterimates ES it flows tl“gh the 

mine and mill sites. The major threats to the water quality of Pine Cre8k 

are wildarness use, mining and millirg operations, and fuel or tcmic chemical 

spills from vehicles travellr~~ the mad. ’&era are rm “ioirs or 

developed reCI-eatj.cn sites in the Watarsbd. wastewat€rc discharges fran the 

mine and mill are regulated by the State Water Omlity Qmtz-Ol Board, and 

BMPS are =lied to mining aparationS an Naticmal FcapSt land. The majority 

of mine and mill facilitiw are cn private land and, hence, outside of Forest 

service amtz-Ol. and there 

is a CcpltLngenCy plan for warnirg the camnmity in case their water supply is 

m*w. 

Reversed creek and its tributaries prwide water for ”mities in the June 

Lake Loop. Fxisting and potential adverse inpacts on water quality are ski 

area developnent, cammity developnent, and vehicle traffic. The existing 

ski area pro3uces ccmsidexable sediment during peak mff periods, causing a 

Taxic ChlliCal spills have occurred in the past, 

shutdown of water lzeaiment systems for thirty days or m3Ie each year. 

Implementation of the EPP for the ski area has reduced these impacts over the 

past few years, and discharge will SOcBl meet state ?xquh” ts. Any 

expandm of the ski area niust be carefully Planned and tightly cOntroll€d. 

anmnmity growth should involrre close ccoprati.cn between the Forest service 

and the mty. The water supply fcor June Lake Loop cannum ‘ties should be 

sufficient t?~ meet projected pplaticn growth, tbqh conflicts with 

downstream users cculd atise. A discussicm of the potential to hxase 

water quantity in this area is included under the headiq of Water Yield, 

below. For ntxe detailed infor”, sea “June Lake Loop: A Review of 

Current Water Uses and mtum hkxb’’ (1982). 

The ca“ity of Mamoth Lakes uses nearly a third of the water flming fran 

the Marmrsth Lakes Basin. Most of the watershed is on National Forest lard, 

of which 80 percent is wilderness. The Lakes Basin is managed primarily for 

recreaticdl and watershed values. There is m timber or other 

colillodity prc&ction in the watershed, due both to a lack of opportunities 

and a imimary 6nphasis on recreaticBl in that area. The five reservoirs in 

the Basin are used for water storage (Mx) acre-feet) and regulation of 

hxh-eam flow. Swimning is permitted mly in Horseshoe Lake, which does mt drain directly intn the 

watershe& Water fmn Horseshoe Lake apparently percolates through the soil 

into the water table. 

The quality of Mammth Lakes Basin water is gxd where it emerges fran the 

wildemex, but declines sawahat as it passes through recreation 

developnents and heavy use areas. Water quality has ~~ in recent years 

since new sewer Systenr; have been installed and wilderness use has been 

regulated; State StandarCEs for danestic water supplies are mt consistently, 

Fishiq and boating are all- on the reservoirs. 

318 
!rh0 supply of watex in the Lakes Basin does not meet present and projectea 

demands for the g?x%&q Maunnth anmwdty. A discusdm of the potential to 

increass iWs quanu- is included mdar the 

In April 1977, a Water Managenent Plan, Final Ehvirccmen tal Report, was 

prepared by the Wannub Chmty Watar District in raspoose to water rights 

of Water Yield, below. 

filirgs in the Ma“ Lakes Basin. m Forest respondedto the final rem 

by ccm%&iq an -tal analysis and pI-qmAq an -tal 

Assessnent (m). This assesgnent limits drawdowns on the “virs and 

stiplates hstream flus for affected stream reaches. These stiplaticrm 

have been jlxwpxa- into the li- CUditiaYs fm the water rights. No 

CalSbAnts are Placed on Forest service activities within this Operating 

agregnent. hrturedirecti on ad4’esses increased storage potential within tfva 

Basin, subject to the stiplaticns of the existLrg EA and future EAS. 

Of the twenty-’bm Naticmal Forest system watershds OBI the Forest, less than 

20 percent of arry Wvidual land base is privately owned. 

Intermingled pivate lands are managed prd”ntly for “aticmal values 

(housing, fishing and hunting). The Pine C%eek watershed is occupied by a 

tmgsten mine; the Lake cmwley and Marmoth Creek-mt (3reelc watelxh&s have 

grazing and major mty developnent. Due to the low level of prujectea 

impacts fran recreaticm developnent and manag-t (except alpine skiing), 

the lack of a substantial private land base, and the lay level of management 

intL3rlsity. use, and devalopnent m m3st watershds, ally two areas on the 

Forest are -le to amulative watershed impacts relaw to water 

quality. Those areas are the Mmache Meadows area on the Kern Plateau and 

the Marmoth Creek-mt -waterskd downstream f” Marmoth Lakes. 

nxxeaS& grazing cm sensitive stream reaches and meadows and anltinued 

illegal c%N use in i5-e Mmacb area could have significant inpacts on water 

quality. The soils in that area are derived fmn decanposed granite 

resulthg in a lpeaarcinance of loamy sand with little cahesim amxg 

particles. The lack of m%rsbxy mgetatim in timber, and the lack of 

rmky or vegetative anmring on streambanks make this watershed very 

sensitive to changes in the hyatologic regime. 

IMeased mff fian past graziq and OHV trails has aaverSely affected 

water quality in the Mmache area and will probably continue to do so. 

Watershed damage fran these activities has reduced the ability of disturbed 

sites, especially wet meadavs and riparian areas, to absorb and offset the 

effects of high mff pericds. Ctmtinued or inaeased use of the area with 

-ti- land-disturbing activities would have to be closely rmnitored due 

to tha high potential for furthar adverse impads on water quality. 

Studies have indicated that grazing can increase sediment proaucticol by 25 to 

loo0 prcent or mre (Mechan et al, 1977; Hartrnent et al, 1960; G. Lusby, 

1970). Grazing also hueases the total water yield and the duration of 

wff in a watershed (Ha” et al, 1970). Inoreased and pmlcslgea wff 

haeases -icm and reduces the water available for vegetative gxmth. 

Stream reach inventory and channel stability evaluatim p”=g have been 

applied in the MHlache area. Areas with gcd bank pmtection scores 

319 
(considerable &"bank rock anmring and streamside vegetation) have shown 

fair to @ resistance to the impacts of livestock grazing. Areas with pcor 

bank pr0-m ScCDes have shown dramatic impacts in Jxspmse to grazing. 

The bank rock cxmtent and streambank vegetation are used as indicators of the 

resistance of a stream to impacts and will be used as a means of assessing 

grazing impads cm watex quality. 

Existing and proposed ski area Caevelopnent, urban growth, and livestock 

grazing have already adversely impadea water quality in the Ma"* 

CSeek-Hot (seek watershed. A tenfold increase in SlLSpended Seainent aring 

the spring mff-sumner pericd occurs in "m* Creek between the outlet of 

'Ituin Lakes and U.S. 395. The prdc" . t soufces of this sediment are urban 

developnent and associated ski area developnent. Much of the future prop3sed 

hlopnent would represent gxmd-dishub~ activities, sans of those cm 

steep Slopes, resulting in increased mff and sedimentaticol. 

The State Water Resmces aOn.h-01 Board has recently adoptea a motion to 

place a high priority cm establisNng stringent guidelines for urban 

developnent in the Plmmth-W cresk watemhed in an attenpt to "r 'ze 

adverse water quality impads. 

Issues, CoMzmS, andc@p"l 'ties 

Management is rxmwqld with the lack of legal nechanl 'sns in state law for 

cbtamuq water rights for nmcmsmptive water-demt resources. The 

management of those resources, such as fish and wildlife habitat, riparian 

vegetatim, scenic and recxeaticml values, are mkal to the mission of the 

Forest Service, but could be threatened by other water uses on Forest land. 

This cawam 0~1 the Inyo focuses cm such amsunptive uses as hydrcelectxic 

projects. ckmsb 'c and municipal wakr needs, and irrigation. 

The Forest resolves ccmflicts related to water rights and uses by 

in- ' iplinary review, by setting forth stipulations in appropriate 

special t?=mj.+=. and by r-pf-g ' to enagy license applicaticms 

received by the Federal Energy Regula- carmisim (FERC) for hydroelectric 

*. 

projects. 

The Inyo Naticmal Forest bids 340 water rights to meet its existing 

"mptive use of 7,400 acre-feet of water per year. This water use 

represents 0.007 percent of the total water yield fran Inyo Naticml Forest 

lands. Mxa than 95 percent of Forest and m-Forest water rights have been 

bventoried and are currently accurate. It is estimated that the Forest's 

Owncalmqtl 've water needs would grm rn more than 10 percent over the next 

fifty years mfbr any management scenario. Wxt of that demand caild be met 

by-ingwwwn 'ate State laws and p"s. 

Many stream, riparian areas, and riparian area-&pndent resmmxs on and 

near the Forest hinre been advarsely altered to a significant w. 

Appoxhately fifty miles of st" on the Forest have been totally dewateEd 
for “icim, hydroelectxic, and irrigation prpses. Appoxma . tely 30 

percant of that total may be parUally rewatered in the future if new 

licenses for existing hydroelectric projects include stiptilaticm to that 

effect. Ccqressional action or litigatim would be needed to reinstate 

indxeam values CBI the lpmaining 70 percent. 

Issues, concerns, ami Oppoauru ‘ties 

Management cc” focus on the public den!aml for lmra wate, both locally 

and in Scutbem California, and the captitim between co“ph ‘ve water 

uses (such as -, irrigatim, and municipal supplies) and 

-w (- ) values. 

Essentially all of the watw? fmn the Forest flowing into theP4x-m andoiyens 

Basins is eithar used in lccal cumunities or exprtd for municipal 

mm. The small a”t of water that is mt conslrmed semes wildlife 

needs in the desert sn;viropments of the valley floors. 

The current mean annual water yield fran Irryo National Forest lands is 

approximataly 1,093,ooO acre-feet. Table 60 displays water yield by National 

ppproximately 60 percent of water fmn the Farest drains into the Owens and 

Wem wins. Nearly 50 percent of the 190,ooO am-fwt flcwing into the 

WlrrY Basin and 75 parcent of the 502,000 acre-feet flc%&xJ into the oiyens 

Basin is e via the Los Atqeles Aqueduct to supply 80 percent of the 

total water used by the City of Los ?ugeles. Another 30 percent of the 

FareSt water yield flcws west fm the Sierra Ocest, via the Kexn and San 

Joqujn Ri-, inb the Central Valley where is its used for kcigaticm, 

hydroelectric pcrwer, and municipal supplies. Water fmn the White muntains, 

r-apcesen~ appmxhably 6 peroent of tha Forest +-tal, is used for 

ranchirg, irrigaticm, and danestlc needs within ten rtKLes of the Forest 

Ixxnndary. 

The -ti& to increaw watar yield on the Forest by vegetation managemit 

is limited by sewzral key fadars: the low levels of precipitation omr much 

of the Forest; the large acreage in designated wilcaernesS; the &“tim of 

mrst major acajnages by recreation aevelopnents and heavy reczeaticm us%, and 

the relatively -1 at”t of acreage suitable for intensive timhx 

management (the best cppxhml ‘ty to increase water yield). 

The entire Forest includes cmly 700,000 acres of land that receive sufficient 

pecipitaticn to warrant an analysis of the ptential to increase water 

yield. PSpraxiMtely 580,000 of those am are in designated wilderness. 

oftheremainder , caily 80,OOO acres are in suitable timber. me to these 

limitiq factors, “I water yield off the Forest would represent an 

ixxeas0 of cmly 20,000 acre-feet par year over current levels. That 

ixxeas0 would result fmn timber harvest and/or vegetatim renwval for ski 

area aeVelopnent in t.b San Jw Ri$e atea between Marmo.th and June Lake. 

FareSt System (NFS) watsrshed. 

321 
1606001001 

01 

1080400601 

a3 

1809010101 

02 

1809010201 

02 

a3 

04 

05 

06 

07 

1809010301 

02 

a3 

04 

1809020101 

1809020501 

1803000201 

02 

1803000101 

0 

51,230 

73,125 

138,120 

190,000 

30,575 

116,000 

41, 000 

59,475 

53,865 

13,955 

71,360 

34,705 

65,095 

8,970 

11,000 

27,085 

10,430 

1,OOCJ 

40,330 

11,440 

45,575 

TOTAL 1,094,335 

Thecamosu 'ties of Mammth Lakes and June Lake, both included within the 

Forest bcu&xy, are quickly ouQpmhq their water supplies. The ultimate 

limits of apnsicn for both "unities may wll be set by the water supply. 

In years with average or belua-average precipitaticm, the water supply for 

The 

current cc"ity plan calls for a near-aoublm of the ppulaticm, with 

cofiespcaadirg kaxases in demand far water. Although increased water 

storage Capacity has been pqcsed for the Mammth Lakes Basin, and al-ugh 

varicus opticms are keing studied, wilderness designation and recreational 

amsideratims limit that cpprtu~ 'ty. Wilderness and recreaticm also 

preclude the management of vegetation to iracrease water yield in the Lakes 

Basin. The "unity is exploriq gmundwater soucces, but the volcanic 

geology of the area does not lend itself to lughly proauctive wells. Other 

alhmatives are very costly. T3-e~ are several agreements and master 

operating plans for managment of the Mamnoth Lakes Basin water supply; these 

agreements and plans are upaatea every five years. 

The ppulatim of the Jure Lake Lccp is projected to increase 100 percent 

overthenexthentyyears. Therearelmre- 'ties for increasing 

I4a"th Lakes falls apprmwM * te1y 10 percent shcat of existing demand. 

322 
0 

0.1-10 

10-20 

20-30 

30-40 

40-50 

50-60 

60-70 

70-80 

80-90 

90-99.9 

10 

TiYmL 

63.4 

141.5 

67.9 

27.2 

10.5 

21.7 

5.3 

12.3 

26.0 

23.1 

24.2 

105.9 

529.0 

12.0 

26.7 

12.8 

5.1 

2.0 

4.1 

1.0 

2.3 

4.9 

4.4 

4.6 

20.0 

99.9 

cunrlative Effects (Water Yield) 

Chmlative watershed effects associated with the Inyo Naticmal Forest are 

availability. These cumulative effects center on the water needs of growing 

populaticms in water-deficient areas (bath locally in the Eastem Sierra and 

in the city of Las Argeles). The major ccplflict has arisen between 

Beginning in the 188Os, water divarsim and channelizatim within, and sxport fran the Ptrn and Owens Basins has had significant adverse impacts on 

water-depen3ent ESCWX@S. As the atom table illustrates, 105 miles of 

st" or 20 mt ofthe total in these wa- have been canpletely 

dewatered. In additim, the dewateEd streams are those that cplce had the 

heaviest flows, the rrost proauctive fisheries, and the msst extensive 

riparian habitats. 

Cne of the rmst significant "ble impads of water remxral has been the 

declining quantity and quality of waterfail habitat. According to the 

Department of Fish and Game, in 1983 (a ve~~ wet year in which much of the 

local "ff was used to recharge the water table) more than 3,000 birds were 

raised in the Lower Cwas Valley. In 1984 (an average water year) fewer than 

300 birds were raised in the Valley. 

MIlcarned far less with water quality than with quantity and/or 

mve water uses and .in&" values. 

323 
Owens Lake is essentially dry, and t4x-n Lake is projected to stabilize at 45 

percent of its original volums (before wa- diversions began in 1941). Pbm 

Lake is axsidered a prime annual restiq and feeding site for nearly txm 

the world ppulaticm of California gulls. If water diversicns cmtinue at 

current rates, the salinity of the lake cauld increase to the point of 

significant adverse impads cm native brine shrimp. These shrinq are the 

foundation of the food chain that supports both migratory and resident birds. 

Within the present Forest bxmdary, nearly fifty miles of stream are 

dewam, prinacily for purposes of irrigation, municipal/acmestic supplies, 

and hydroelectric power g-aticm. There is an wrtunity through the 

hydrce1rxtz-i~ 1icersi.q grccces to partially rewater certain reaches of 

stream and to recover appraximately 10 percent of the water-de-t 

resources that have been lost. Arry &tional rewatering could only be 

obtained by litigation. 

ThedgMndbathforczummph 've uses of water and for water-related 

recreatiDn (the backbne of the local ecorrmy) are expected to -irKxease over 

time, so the conflict and cxnptitim between ci"ptive and x"mptive 

needs will cmtinue and intensify for the foreseeable future. 

millim migratory birds and a nesting site for approxuua * tely 20 percent of 

Fublic issues regadt-g wild and scenic rivers include the c"s that free 

flowing rivers be pesemed, some rivers be maintained unspoiled in their 

natural state, rivers be ddered for wild and stem 'c rivers status, and 

ptential additims to the wild and scenic rivers system mt be threatened. 

rivers for Wble inclusicm in the Natim Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

Management czrc&ms cm the subject amress the Ilea3 to assess candidate 

E&gEe!! 

Ccqz-es established the National Wild and Scenic Rivers program in 1968. In 

1982, the Depazanent of Interior canpleted the California Cmpmnt of the 

~ti~~~ide inventmy of rivers with potential for wild and scenic status. 

That inventory included three rivers m the Inyo National Forest: the North 

and South Forks of the Kern River and the Middle Fork of the San Joaq~~in 

River. No additional rivers cm the Forest were identified as potential wild 

and Soenic river candidates. The North and South Forks of the Kern River 

have subsequently been designated by cmgress as Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

The Inyv Natimal Forest COordLnated with the Seqmia National Forest (the 

lead unit for the Kern River), and the Sierra National Forest (the lead unit 

for the San Joaguin River systan) in making -ti- for the south 

Fa& of the Kern and the Middle Fork of the San Jcmquh Rivas respedively. 

The EImoh Fork of the Kern River originates within Sequoia Naticnal Park and 

flows sxth through the Kern River Canyon until it empties into Lake 

Isabella. At the Kern River Raqer Station in the Park near Golden Trout 

324 
creek, the North Fark of the Kenl becanes the c5" bmndary betw€en the 

Irryo and sequoia Natimal Forests. The river is free-flowing dropping 

itmxgh rocky goryes with pr%=ipitcus sidewalls. After the river leaves the 

Park, it flmm lb-aigh the Golden Trout Wilderness to just south of the Forks 

of the Kem, where it leaves the wilderness. 

The North Fork of the Kern River bordets the Iqu Natimal Forest from its 

cmflueru=e with Golden Trout cseek to its ccmfluence with Nine Mile cceek, 

all within the Golden Trout Wilderness. The Iqu Natimal Forest side of 

thiscarmcnm is tcailless, exoept for a s3xx-t sectim of trail gonarthwsst frun the jdcm of Nim Mile (Ireek. White wa- rafting is 

mar, with trips starllrg frcm the Squoia National Forest side of the 

river. 

The South Fork of the Kem arises an the Inyo Natimal Forest at an elevatim 

of 10.200 feet within the Golden Wilderness. The river flw in a 

SaUtharlY directi m for twenty miles thrcqh the wilderness, then for eight 

miles through MmacJ-ie -, and sixteen miles through the Smth Sierra 

Wilderness whre it fonns the bauradary between the Inyo and Sequoia,Naticnal 

Forests. The segment of the river that passes through the Inyo National 

Farest is approximately forty-four miles lag. The river is free-flcwing, 

descending thrmgh deep gorges with larye granite outcrappings and domes 

rapids. Pbst of the lands lie in wilderness. The river SupFOrts 

dramatic and &versa riparian vegetation. The segment of the river on the 

Inyo is readily accessible by -1. An eight-mile stretch thrcugh Phache 

Meadows is accessible by fcmr-wheel drive vehicle. 

The Sauth Fork of the Kern lies &ly cm the Seqwia Naticmal Forest. The 

Sequoia, therefom. todr the lead role in assesshg the river. The Inyo has 

played a wtiq role in supplying informatim to the Sequoia. The Inyo 

will follaw the Sequoia's lead in pmduccing the managanent plan for the 

river. 

The Mime Fork of the San Joaquin starts from Thousand Island Lake at an 

elevatim of 9.800 feet within tha -1 Adanrs wiiderness m the ~nyo 

Natimal Farest. The river flows in a southerly &kect~ 'm for sixteen miles 

thnxgh the wildEuness and Devils Postpile Natimal M"ient, then in a 

westerly diredi an for miles until it enters the Sierra NaW Forest. 

The river segments m the Inyo total appr"a ' tely fifteen miles. 

The Middle Fork flows thrcqh a deep carryepl with steep, rocky sides, sheer 

granite walls, and impressrve daues. The rivw has "erc~ls rapids and falls 

that are impassable by raft. The -t of the river m the Inyo is 

acoessible by trail and the Reds Wafm Road. 

The Miwe Fork of the Sari Joaquin is i~luded with the rest of the San 

Joaquin River in the Naticmida Rivers Inventmy. The major part of this 

river, including sam of the Middle Fork, lies m the Sierra Natimal 

Forest. The Sierra has, thm&ore, taken the lead in ccnducting the 

intarspersed with cpen "s. The gnryes have xlu"x waterfalls and 

assBsgnent adwill make Wrn5 forxnaMg€ment of the river to the 

ReSicplal Forester. 

325 
Wild and dc rim rexmmdaticn is a -1- acininmtSa tive 

-ticn that will receive furthsr rwxlew and possible modificaticm by 

the Chief of the Forest service, secretary of ?gricultme, and the President 

of the United States. Ccqress has the au-ity to designate rivers to the 

Naticmal Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

WImIs-, concerns, andc3"d ties 

kst public issues about existiq wilderness involve a&inistrative decisims 

that are made in wildsmess management Plans, not in the Plan. 

The major plannhq issue raised by the public c"bg wilderness is the 

imDuIlt and locaticn of new wilderness areas. That issue is handled under the 

heading of mather Planning Areas. 

Four of the five existing wildernesses cm the Forest are managed under 

approved managenent plans. A plan for the Smth Sierra Wilderness has yet to 

ccmsistency and resgcmsivaness to current dtions, that they be amended to 

include recent wildemess &ti-, and that a plan be dewlopea for the 

South Sierra Wilderness. Specific ca" to be handled in managanent plans 

include 1i.mitatZc-n and disparsal of use, party size, caniping and campfire restrictions, recreational livestock use, outfitbr-gulde operations, trails, 

ecologically sensitive areas, and wildfire manag-t. 

be developxi. Managmlent is ocwcarned that existirig Plans be examined for 

The Inyo National Forest includes 565,142 acres within the Hoover, Ansel 

Adam (formerly Minarets), John U, Golden Trout, and South Sierra 

Wildernesses, and manages 25,201 acxes of Sierra Naticmal Forest land within 

the Jdm W. The Inyo shares managenent of all five Wildemeses with 

othar Forests. 

The Inyo manages atcut 9,500 acres of the Hoover Wilderness (out of 47,937 

total acres). The J.X- attracticm cm the Inyo pcatiosl of the Hoover is the 

Twenty Lakes Basin, an extremely scenic area with gentle to rollhigh-elmticm terrain which receives extcemely heavy day use. The services 

of a boat taxi fran the trailhead to the north shore of Saddlebag Lake, and 

theJ?" * 'ty of aqgrwds in the Saddlebag Lake and Tiqa Pass Road areas 

mtribute to the heavy use. The Hall Natural area, a Flrther PlW &ea 

being ccmsicaered for wildemess designaticm in the P1annk-g process, is 

adjacent to the Hoover. 

Inyo and Sierra National Forests. New additions to this wilderness were 

designated by the California Wilderness Act of 1984. Additions 0x1 the Inyo 

side are located above Grant Lake in the June Lake Loop and in the Reds 

MeadaJ-Devils Postpile area alq the Middle Fork of the San Jcaquin Ffiver. 

and nwuntain peaks. Visitor use, inclm day use, is heavy. Trailhead 

quotas are needed during the sumner seasm to manage Overnight use within 

The Ansel Adarns Wilderness (formerly the Minarets) is administered by the 

The AI2321 Adams iS llXI5tJ.y Sh?p and rugged, and CCXIta.inS IlFIQ' SCPlliC lakes 

326 
established capacity limits. me many rY3ightorng in the ”th 

and June Lake recreatlrn - provide a user base for day hikes into the 

wiidafiass. Easy trail access facilitates wilderness travel. The Middle 

=of the,sanJoaquFnRiver, ~~hasitsheadwatarsinthewilderness, is

undar ccnsid3ratic.n fm wild and scenic river status. 

The Jdn Mrlr Wilderness earanpasses an area known infarmally as the “High 

Sierra“, charaderized by lnmdxds of lakes, glaciated peaks, and a favorable 

climate during the “er. All thase fadafi dine to attract ncxe users 

in the, sumner than the area can acmmncdate. clZ”tlY, most .trailheads 

have use quotas on “right travel -the sumnermths. The FmeSthas 

a substantial nun&er of developed ”n-& near wilderness .trailheads. 

People using these are the prircipal munx of day use in 

wildarness. Mast major trailheads are deed by “ercial pack staticms, 

which offer avernight and day Mps into the wil-. There am sone 

ccmflicts between backpacks and Stc& usars. Cutfitter-guide use in the 

cam of guided backpacking and ”.t-aineering is increasing. The 

wil- is easily accessed by trailheads, and sufficient trail mileage 

exists to provide needed access. 

The Golden Trout Wildernsss enmmpasses m318 than 197.600 acres 081 the Inyo 

Natimal Farest on the Kern Plateau in the far southern Sierra Nevada. The 

Golden Trout is characterized by large, open meadows separated by rolling, 

graze. Cqoirq wa- and 91- trcut habitat resbxation pjects are 

experience of visitcas. Cattle grazing is also an important resource in this 

wilderness. 

timber-covered ric3ge.s. There is abrndant feed for recxeatiO81 stock to 

Kestming c?qmded meadows and fish habitat, enhamug . the wi1- 

This wilderness p?mvicaas eurcellent oppartunities for stock-based trips and 

for less strenuous backpacking than is fcimd in most of the other Inyo 

Natimal Farest wildanaesses. Use levels have not yet reached capacity, 

ale campsites armnd the few lalres sbow signs of heavy use. The 

wildsrness is adequately semed by the exbting trail system. The major 

trailhead Foroviding access into the rrry0 Naticmal Forest porti081 of the 

Golden Trout Wildarness is at Horssshoe Meadau, southwest of Lcsle Pine. 

Overnight canping at Hcaseshoe Msdkm is restricted to short stays. There 

are M OW developed overnight facilities near trailheads, so day-use 

crowding is mt a problem. New or improves trailheads south and east of the 

wilderness &d help enczmage and increase use. If a paved road were 

cmskucted into the Wmache Meadows area, use would also increase and 

stock-based opparhnu ‘ties (inclw outfitter-guide opportunities) would 

improve due to better access for brse trailers. 

The portion of the South Sierra Wilderness on the Inyo National Forest is 

app”te1y 38,350 aores in size and is similar in geography and 

attractions to the Golden Trout Wilderness, which adjoins the South Sierra to 

the north. Cattle grazing is also important in the south Sierra. Sam 

streaks cimtajn mp”cing p3Pulaticm of @den trout. Fortias of old 

four-wheel drim roads cross the wilderness, senring as access routes for 

foot and stock trawl. The Pacific (3rest Trail runs north and south through 

the wilderness. Thsre am several trailheads, the mxt important of which is 

Sage Flat (for the Olancha Pass Trail), WNch is also the en- point for a 

327 
stock driveway for about 2,000 head of cattle each spring and fall. 

existiq trail system is adquate for user access. 

Wilderness rewx?atim amxIllted to 540,000 RVDs in 1982. Existirag 

wil- are served by 705 miles of trail and -*-nine trailheads with 

a capacity of 2,212 PAOTs (€"s-At-Cne-Th). 

The demand for wilderness use exceeds capacity in the Ansel Adanrs and John 

Muir Wildarnesses. As a result, trailhead quotas are ingnsd during the 

sumner seascB1. Any aeditimal increases in us8 can OCCUT my during the 

spring and fall mths and during the midweek days in -whenquotas are 

not reached. Day use in the nyenty Lakes Basin part of the Hoover approaches 

capacity during the sumner seasc~1. Use levels in the Golden Trout and South 

Si- Wildernesses have not yet reached capacity. This situation may charge 

as access iupmves and people becane mre familiar with the attractims of 

the areas. 

The demand for wildarness use is samewhat dependent on the overall 

xcreaticmal appeal of an area. scenic attractions, ease of access, lakes, 

-ites, destinatian points, and sources of drinkable water are all 

i"t. me amount of rwn-wilderness roadless land on the Inyo with those 

charaderistics is limited; it is unlikely, themfore, that wilderness supply 

can ever meet daMnd on this Forest, unless the demand itself declines. 

All wildfire in wilderness is presently mtrolled. It would be reasmable, 

based cn the resmrca valw and fire risk factors in wilderness m the 

Forest, to amsider the oopzfinement and contahnsnt suppxssicm strategies 

unless life, proprty, or other e@nsized values were threatend. 

prescribed fire far enhancauent of wilcaernesS values is not needed at this 

th. 

Public issues and managenent amcans have teen raised regarding the 

following genexal tqics: the diversity, mt, and distribution of wildlife 

habitat; the relativa aq$msis that sbould be given to habitat managanent 

for varicus species; the balancing of wildlife needs with the needs of 

ozmpi3.q resaurces; and the contxibutim managanent can make to meetiq the 

grawing demand for wildlife-related recreation. Issues and cnncems specific 

to Mvidual wildlife species or groups of species are discussed under the 

Species &keadiqs below. Fish are discussed under the separate heading of 

Fish. 

mst issues and "xns center cm habitat pmtection and maintenance. 

protedicrm and maintenance are threatened by dramatic changes in habitat due 

to vegetation "gemnt; decxeasjq habitat diversity; and, in scme cases, 

humanintz-udcn. 

The Forest service is nzqxnsible for "giq wildlife habitat, but mt the 

animals thmselves. Wildlife populatims are the responsibility of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Ssrvice (mtened and wered species) or the 

328 
California Deparhnent of Fish and Gams (all other species). The Forest has 

them 'ty to influence wildlife tluough its managemat of habitat in 

close cooperatian with the and thmugh the ccordination of wildlife 

habitat needs with the management of other resource^. 

Backgraad 

Tb Inp Naticmal Forest provides habitat for appmxhately 400 ten?&xial 

vertebrate species of wildlife. 

The overall supply of rmst habitat types is expected to charge little durhg 

the next ten to fifteen years. HcJwever, the increasing demand to pz-O3Uce 

-, timbar, forage, and recreaticnal Opprtml 'ties could cause a 

r&ucticm in same habitat typ=s. In addition, wildfire prevention and 

suppression my allow more habitat to reach mature, less pz-O3Uctive seral 

stages by reducirg the amount of rejuvemticm that would cccur under M~UTXI~ 

dticm. Al- the N4nber of species cm the Forest should mt change, 

the populaticm of species deperx%nt cm snags, early seral stages of brush, 

late seral stage of timber, and riparian habitats could decline. 

The demand for wildlife-related recreation slwild increase with increasing 

polxllaticm in the state of California. Likewise, the aesthetic value of 

wildlife that is not related specifically to wildlife recreation (i.e., "just 

k"ing they are thsre'') sbould increase with -ing urbanizatim and the 

need to protect rerunants of the national wildland heritage. Public issues 

related to selected species should increase as the public becanes aware of 

species-specific pmblerns. 

Management Indicator species (MIS) include key harvest species, threatened 

MatMgeEnt activities. 

and mared (T&E) species, key sensitive Species, and species that 

re-t the wildlife habitat types rrpst likely to be affected by Farest 

Management Indicatar Species are to represent all wildlife cm the 

Forest. As such, i3ey are used to detennjne the wildlife popllatim 

capability of different habitats cm the Forest and to evaluate managanent 

qpxhmities to enhance habitat. T Ei E, sensitive, special interest, and 

harvest Species can also be used to represent key habitat types. 

Determining the quantity and quality of habitat needed to maintab viable 

polxllaticm of MIS is cne way to meet the lqubment that the Forest Service 

maintain viable PlpllatiOnS of all vertebrate species cn the Forest. 

The Forest presently manages wildlife with an aphasis on harvest species, 

threatened and endaqad (T&E), and sensitive species; and special interest 

species. Harvest species are managed p-ilm-ily to enhanca reoreaticlnal 

huntitq -ties. T&E species habitats are managed with an -is cm 

recovery, or resbxbq the species to viable levels. Habitat for sensitive 

species is managed with the .intent of pmventing the species fran becaning 

threatened or endangered as a result of management activities. Special 

interest species have values for scientific study or recreaticmal 

329 
matim; their Mtat Is with the + of mahtahiq or 

ixmashg pzgulatlans on the Fon=st. 

The Management Jniicatcx Species selected for the Inyo Natimal Forest are: 

Harvest 

sensitive 

Threatenedandendangsred 

SpECial interest 

Riparian areas 

snags 

Early-middle sxal stages 

of-tnush 

ccgliferous forest 

Older ser;L1 stages of 

- We deex, Blue grouse, Sage grouse. 

- Bald eagle, peregrine falcon. 

- Fishar, Si- Nevada red farC,(;oshawk, 

Pinemarten, Great gray owl, spotteaowl, si- “da lllxllltain sheep, wolverine. 

Nelsan Iluunw sheep. 

- Golden eagle, Tule elk, F?=a.irie falm, 

- Yellow warbler. 

- Hairy hudpfxker, Williamson SapsLECksr. 

- sage grouse. 

- Goshawk. 

Carni-: Four dwxs exist or pYtentially exist cm the Inp that are 

listed by the Forest service or th0 California Deparhnent of Fish and Gam. 

These are: fisher, Sierra Nevada red fax, pine marten wolverine. The 

potential develqment of downhill ski- and associated activities cxnild 

adversely affect these specias. For the mst part these species ranges am 

outside of areas under timber “agemnt. 

Fishars are listed as sensitive by the Forest Service. lim recent records 

and a few unsubstantiated reprts exist for this species in the Inyo. Dense 

forested habitat cmprised of large trees are amsidered optinnnn habitat. 

West-side forests probably csmtain - suitable habitats than east-side 

--. 

The Sierra Nevada red fox is listed as sensitive by the Forest Service and 

threatened by the state. A few substantiated sightings have been reprted in 

the June Lake area. This species is fcund in open forest, alpine shrub and 

riparian habitats at higher elevatim. Rcck crevices and logs are reguired 

for denniq. 

Pine marten are listed as sensitive by the Forest Senrice. Martens are a 

relatively cc” d- in dense stands of red fir and lcdgeple pine at 

higher elevatim. 

!Fhe wolverine is listed as threatened by the state of California. Two recent 

mprts and several “ktantiated and old reprts are documented for this 

speoies in the White bhmtains and Sierra Nevada. Suspectea habitats include 

subalpine forests for breeding and cwer habitat and alpine shrubherbcams 

for foraging habitat. 

Me k: A major public issue is the perceptible decline in deer numbers 

over the past twenty to thirty years. Manag-t is also coflcerned with 

declining deer populaticms, especially in light of the RPA goal of increasing 

mule deer populatim 20 percent. If the probla behind declining deer 

Nsnbers are on Forest land, the Forest Service has the opportunitY to mmt 

330 
them. If, Iwmmr, a given herd or a significant portion of a herd Spenzs 

time on land3 acninistered by othets, the Inyo Naticnal Forest has less 

antrol of the situaticn. 

 ear are feud +3"t the Farest. Eight herds spend at least part of the 

year on Forest lm. Ihe density of resident maticns (tkcse that live on 

the Farsst yeaem) is law. Six deer per square mile is an estimated 

average denrsity ~gh-wality - =KP. 

MDst of the deer on tb Farest are migratoIy. 'Ihey wintar primarily in the 

oKel-S Valley, PizaM Hills, or walker River &ahage on Bureau of Land 

Management lands and spend the sumnars at higher elevatiaw, bothon the Inyo 

and west of the sierra crest. Deer densities on the winter rarge am 

cmsiderably higher (up to 120 deer per square mile) than on the scnrmer 

rarge. The Irryo has 112,119 acres of key winter range, most of it on the east 

slope of the Sierra Nevada betwean 4,500 and 6,000 feet elevation. Tb1-8 is 

adjacent to Naticnal Forest land. 

The current poplation of mule deer on the Farest and adjacent (primarily 

~uraau of Lartl Mamgmmt) lands is estimated at 20,200. "ha current 

popllation of tbase deer that sumner and/or winter on Natimal Forest land is 

12,000. The " potential habitat capability of Forest lac& is ruighly 

estimated at 16,000 animals. Any in habitat capability wcplld 

result clh?ctly fran habitat i"mt or indFrectly fran the management of 

timbar, receeaticn, ami livestack grazbq so that deer habitat quality is 

enhanced. 

The reasms for declincrg deer numbers are rnt k", but the is 

studyiq the situaticn in cooperation with other agencies, includiq the 

Farest Mce. Pmr-qmlity fawnirg habitat, hman disturbance of key deer 

habitat, and chaqes in vegetative divtxsity are possible amtx-ibutiq 

factors related to "gemnt activities. Fredatim may also be a factor, 

and thare is scme a" that kucks in same areas are over-huntd. Direct 

cxmtrihting factors. The fa- that limit deer populations must be 

identified, and a candinat& effort made to cxxrect problems, if deer 

rnrmbars are tobemaintain=dor ixxeas&. 

Ikar hmt3.IYJ a"td to 25,200 WFUDs in 1982: the demand for hunting has 

"irid fairly stable fran year to year, and is expected to follm that 

pattern if &ar rnanbers remain constant. If, hcwever, the deer population 

weretograwandhmter~ccessweretoincreaSe, demandwouldbeexpededto 

increase accordingly. &I the other hand, if the deer ppulation were to 

decline, the danand for bun- muld be expzted to follow suit. 

The California Department of Fish and Gam has lnepKed deer herd management 

plans for each of the eight herds that use Inyo Natimal Forest lands. Those 

also winter rarge on land by the Bureau of Land Managgnent, 

and social Canptiticm with tjnk&X 'c livestock have also been proposed a9 

Plans and the goals they envision are as follows: 

Buttermilk wrd: This. herd also is ahnst entirely migmtoq. Winter 

raqe is located in the scuthe-m Round Valley and a majority of the deer 

cross the Sierra NeMda crest and sumnar on the west side. Fpp"tely 

331 
35 percent Of the canbined shercvln ' -Buttermilk deer cross the Sierra over 

Bishop and Paiute Passes. 

Maintain the population near current levels (3,000 deer) to "u * 'ze 

quantity of habitat and prsventirg deleterious wets fran future land 

uses to winter, migration and stag- habitats. 

Casa Diablo Herd: The Casa Diablo herd winters in the Bentcol, Hamnil and 

Cbalfant Valley areas. The majority of this herd migrates arcund the 

south end of the Glass rhmtains and m3ves mrth to a staging area in the 

upper Owens River. "hey then migrate to sumner habitats an the east side 

of the Sierra between &ahan Qeek and Lee Vining Carryon. Important 

fawning and sumner habitats have been identified in the Parker-Walker, Lee 

Vinirg creek, and Glass creek drainages. A mall portion of this herd 

s~mmers west of the Sierra Nevada crest, in the Glass bB"cains and White 

mtains. 

The current population is estimated at 1,500 deer: the goal is to increase 

that population to 2,245 dear by applyirg flexible harvest levels: and by 

iq"J habitat and reducing crmptition and disturbance cm key sumner, 

intIxnvdl 'ate, and winter range habitats. 

East klalker Herd: The 1984 pre-season population was appnximately 3,040 

deer; the goal for this M would be approxuM * tely 5,050 deer. Pbst 

incseases wxld be achieved througll range enhancement and reduced 

cnnptition for forage on lands outside the Irryo National Forest. 

Goodaze m: The Ckcdale herd win- alcmg the Sierra Nevada front 

countq and sumners west of the Sierra Nevada, msstly in Sequoia-Kings 

Canym Naticmal Park. 

The current population is estimated at 2,600 deer; goals are expressed as 

buck, doe, and fawn ratios for the XJrbeIn and salthern subunits. The 

northem submit will be main- to maximize recreational hunOpPortLnrities. The southem suhnit will be managed with emphasis on 

older age-class bucks far viewing and late-- quota hunting. Habitat 

goals are to maintain the current quality and quantity of habitat and to 

prevent deleMous impads of futura land uses. 

Inyo-white Mmntains Herd: Maintain cufient 1- 'p status, improve 

habitat amditicms where possible, and prevent deleterious impacts fran 

future land uses (there is insufficient cersus information for population 

recreaticnal mtilq oppx&um 'ties by maintainirq the current quality and 

*s). 

-Herd: TheMmachedeerherds~mmerscmtheIrryoand~ia 

Naticmal Forests and the SequOia-Kirgs Canym National Park. (he winrange is located cn the Eastarn Escarpnent of the Sierra Nevada. Another 

is located in lh-g Valley adjacent to the sequoia National Forest. The 

area. In additLcll several migration routes pass through this area. 

The primary "germnt goal is to aeVelop and maintain a spring population 

of 8,000 to 9,000 ds (an increase of appvxhately 2,000 deer wer 

walacha Meadaws area is midered an important staging area and sumner 

332 
current levels). This mation could be achieved through habitat 

hpmwment and 1d-w priorities that favor deer. 

bhky Lake Herd: Reseatch On this herd iS being jnitiated. The Current 

fall populaticm is estimated at 3,000 deer; the goal is to innease that 

"ber to 4,000 animals by imprwing key habitats, reducing cunptiticn 

with livestock am3 wild horses for forage, and hpmnig sex and age 

ratios through flexible harvest levels. 

Sherwin--. Theshemnn . Grade herd is almxt entirely nliptw?f. 

Winter range is located in Ftcurid Valley and range is . t1y 

west of the Sierra Nevada Crest. Inprtant migration corridors extend 

lmrtll between Rcurd Valley and the shfxwln * stag3.q area, Solitude Canym, 

Mannuth Pass and Deadnan Pass. A major staging area exists sxuthwest. of . cseekandacknrictcT?=ek. ' tely 65 

-BLltt,snnilk herd dgrate to the rclrth and 

U.S. 395 between !she" 

peroent of the ocmbined sx-mxln 

over varicxls passes nossing the crest. 

* 

Maintain the cinxent popllaticn (2,300 to 2,400 dear) by reslm3rg the 

quality of wintex range, acquiring key winter range ~ylw in private 

-P, imFaavllls . the sex and age ratios and maintaining the quality 

and quantity of winter, stagh-g and migration habitats. 

Bald eagle: The bald eagle is feaerally and state-listed as an endangered 

species in California. The Forest Service is c"d with "aging its 

habitat so that the species can recover fm endangm status. 

(&crtmities foclls on caudlna * Ung cm-Forest activities, especially wintm 

ptecticn of bald eagle habitat in the Plan is nxpi1~3. 

The Inyo and adjacant lands have a SMll a"t of bald eagle wintexing 

habitat. ApFnaxlma ' taly twenty to th.lrty birds Winter m or near Inyo 

Naticmal Farest land. Winter bird Counts are so variable that it is 

difficult to krcw whether the rnrmber is ming or decreashg over the 

1- term. Eagles use lakes prior to their freezing in the fall and after 

the 

Owens River and June Lake Loap. Qn3 nmst site is suspected in the June Lake 

Loop that supparts up to ten eagles. An additimal Ioost site is suspeded 

in the Owens River Gorge that is lu>t on lands adninistered by the Forest. 

There is potenUal fer mnflict between bald eagle habitat needs and 

recreation, with the needs of this species. Marlagment directicol for the 

thaws in the Sprjlq. The heaviest used wintering areas are (=mwley Lake, 

mticm developnent in hrhteririg areas. 

Peregrjne falam: The peregrine falum is federally and state-listed as an 

90 that the species canbe recavered fm cz"& status. 

canplated a rscovery plan for this species. Management direch 'on for 

peregrine faLam pmtectl 'on irl the Plan is XFqUhsd. 

endangered species: the Farest Service is ccncarned with mghg its habitat 

The Forest has 

Altkqh peregrine falcons have historically nested cn the Forest, the 

nearest mapied nest sites are fcund in YoSemite Valley and Hetch Hem 

Canycn. Fight fledgl- were raintroduced (by hackiq) to the Forest in 

1983 and 1984. A third hacking att6npt failed in 1985. Birds that were 

Historic nest 

sites existed in the upper &ens River, June Lake Loop and Negit Island. 

hacked have been obserrvsd SparaarCallY since this €sl&"c. 

333 
Excellent nestiq habitat also exists in Lee vinirg and Lunly canycns. 

The "nn habitat capacity for paregrine falams on the Forest is estimated 

habitat needs and the managenent of other B. 

major "nt a"s are to detarmine the lxmlber of !gcshawJs nest sites 

An 

additiaml hackirg is scheduled in begin at Cnxley Lake in 1988. 

at four nest sites. Thare are rn apparent ccnflicts between peregrine falan 

Goshadc The gashawk is listed as a sensitive species in Wicm 5. The 

needed to maintain popllaticm viability, and the nun!bex of these sites that 

Md be maintained in stands of suitable timber. 

The "bar of sites maintainsd in suitable tinker is a cc" cm the Forest 

because fifty acres of timber & be left standing arourd each plotedea 

nest site to meat manag-t lequirements. Inyo Naticmal Forest lands are 

located at the smt%sa&em limit of goshawk range. Recreation use and 

studies indicate that gashwks cm the Forest require at least a 125-acre 

tend- s"a&hg their nests. It xuld be mm desirable, therefore, to 

provide 125 acres arcxlnd each nest site. Each nest site can represent a 

significant cast in tsrns of timber unavailable for harvest. Q1 the other 

I"M3, each nest site lost brings the poprlation of gashawks 081 the Forest 

stands as nesting habitats. This is especially true in the White Pkuntains 

and pxticns of the Glass Pkuntains. 

Goshawks are fumd in mature and old grawth stands of forest. Surveys have 

located app"tely 25 active nest sites cm the Forest (15 in suitable 

timbar, 10 els"). These surveys have concentrated on suitable timber 

stands, as those are the areas in which cmflicts are nrxt likely to mar. 

Another 25 undiscwered sites are estimated to exist 081 lands in wilderness 

or x"ial timber. Available data is insufficient to determine xd-iel3-e-r 

the goshawk population on the Forest is changing. 

Factors limLting the a"t and quality of gcshawk habitat are lack of mature 

insufficient vegetative di-ity in the forest ' thenestsite. 

The Forest has the opprtunity to address the laced for goshawk habitat 

management in the Plan. 

wt hrnnan distwbrEa are high, farests are sparse, and telemetric 

Closer to the "l "mt level. In some areas goshawks use open 

timber, human disturbance (an indirect result of imp- access), and 

Blue gruuse : The primary ccncern is habitat pMon for this species. 

Blue grouse on the Inyo are typically fd in forest and shrub habitats 

associated with riparian areas at high elevations in the Sierra Nevada and 

WhiteM2untai.n~. D.i" ' for the proteeti081 and maintenance of habitat 

may eventually be needed, but it is not of urgent cacem. 

Little is k"n ab3ut poprlaticm rarmbers and .trends. 

the Forest for this species as a game bird. 

sage grouse : 

declining. 

needs and to establish 

There is sone demand 081 

The mjor issue and co~lcern is that sage grouse populations are 

The Forest has the OpFOrtunity in the Plan to idfrtify resea~~3-1 

for the managaent of sage grouse habitat. 

334 
Sage gnxss are fd in the extendm sqdxuehhabitats an the Farest. Low 

both of which 

types appeat to be important aspects of sage grouse habitat. Big sagebrush 

serves as a winter cwmr and food SOUTCB; mea&is provide sumner feed and 

sagebrush is in- with big SqebNSh ana wet meaaows, 

sbmtthq gTanY% for courtship activities. 

primarily in the Lake QCwlay basin ad the mite MYmtajns. 

'Ihe popllaticn of birds on or near the Forest is estimated at 1,500, located 

The 

current habitat capacity for sage grouse an the Farest is estimated at 2,000 

birds. 

'Ihe reascns for pcpilation decline are not canpletely "3. It is 

suspected that oartain liv€&xk graziq practices and wildfire supFrrsssicn 

have csntsibuted to the bcmadng density of mbmsh ami a declining 

al"t of harbaceous lnxkskq which are, in turn, reducing sage grouse 

habitat capability. studies are curredltly being anduded to determine sage 

grouse habitat rcquhmmts. Hmting also ~plpears to be a factor in sage 

grouse declines on the Inyo and adjacent lands. Between 1982 and 1986 the 

sage grouse popilation. at crowley Lake doubled in the absence of huntiq frcm 

5OOto1ooObirds. 

!!&are is a demand for this species as a game bird, and that demand is 

to antinue. Howevar, with the decline of grouse ppulaticns, the 

CDFG clcsed the hun- seasn fm 1983 through 1986. The hunt was opened 

spottedOWlardg?32El tgray owl: There is little data about the occwrence of 

these species on the Farest. The Forest has the -+q to identify 

inventory and research needs regarding these species and to establish in the 

Plan the need for habitat pmtectial. 

spattea owls are ccnsidered sensitive in Re$m 5 of the Forest Service. 

Inli3lsive spottea owl surveys were dooe in the MannDth Lakes area aur.ing the 

s~mmer of 1987. Potential spottea owl habitat 

does exist in the Mclnacbe area. Nest sites have been located on the Sequoia 

Naticml Fore& adjacent to the Inyo. 

Tm Spottea owl sightings cm the Ranger District have been 

doccrmented. The demand for Spottea owl habitat is high, as its habitat is 

decreasing thragbut the timbared areas of California and the Pacific 

"e&. Spottea owls require larye tracts of old growth timber, and old 

gmwth is also a prkm potential scarce of wmd mcts. There is 

rmsiderable cc" that, without Special management, spotted owls could 

team threatened or endargd withh the next 50 years. Red fir stands 

have the highest potential for Spottea owl nesting habitat cm the Inyo. 

Great ray owls are listsd as sensitive by the Fo& Servica in California 

and meted by the state of California. Nesting records exist for lower 

elevaticm sites in Yoserm. 'te Naticml Pa&. The southenmpst 

o"a cm the east side of the Sierra is documented on the Toiyabe 

Natia Forest. 

Cseat m owl Sighthgs 081 the Forest have mt been verified. There are few 

potential conflids between the habitat needs of that species and the 

parmit in 1987. 

No respanses were elicited. 

335 
"g-t of other rasources because most of the suitable habitats are in 

wildarness. Livestock qazing in mtluntain meadDws may have an effect on the 

great gray owl Lney base. 

Nelsm (des€&) mdlllta-in sheep : The same parties that are interested in 

Sierra NeMda "ntain sheep are also interested in the Nelson mountain 

sheep. There is also significant public interest in Nelm mtain sheep as 

a gam species. In abher states, permits to shot a ram have been auctimd 

for bid prices excedxg . $6o,ooo. This interest is expected to continue. 

TheForeSthastheopportuIll 'ty in the planning process to address the habitat 

needs of Nelson "ntain sheep and the pxaible trade-offs between these 

needs and other lxsauc0 oppdxnities. 

Nelson nrnmtajn sheep sheep are located in the White and Inyo mtains. The 

White Nxmtajn herd has app"te1y 100 sheep and appears to be growing. 

Little is knam about the Inyo herd, but the population is roughly estimated 

at thirty animals. 

Nelson mtain sheep Nsnbers could be affected by human disturbanx and 

disease transnission fran dmestic livestock. Nxmtain sheep seek the 

mity of rough, steep terrain. In the White Mxntains, however, they 

leave that kind of ten-am . tofeedonthe~andbenches. Ifrecm2ation 

use in the White Mxntains were to increase, mtluntain sheep might cwnfine 

themelves to the rough, steep slopes. That behavior would, in effect, 

reduce the anknmt of foragiq habitat available. Increasing recreatim use 

could also bring recreatiasl stock into catact with sheep, involving the 

pssibility of di& transnissicm. 

A potentially significant sourca of human disturbance in the White "tajns 

is hang glidirg. Wnmtain sheep have been observed to nm for cover when a 

hang gliw canes too close. The most likely stimulus for increased 

nxxeatim use other than hang glidirg would be wilderness designation for 

all or part of that rarge. 

Nelm lllXlIltain sheep have been eized in recent years throughout their 

range in the VEsteJm united states. overall ill" are increasing as sheep 

are reintroduced into hisbxical range and as human disturbance and livestock 

interactions are mrOlled. The demand for Nelson mtain sheep is 

reflected in the public issues cited atom. As with Sierra Nevada mountain 

sheep, the establishent of mal separate ppulaticns would help ensure 

protecticm fran epizootic diseases. Total potential population is between 

3ooand4oosimp. 

Sierra Elevada (California) numtain sheep : This species is listed as 

sensitive by the Forest Service and threatened by the state of California. 

 he public is in- primarily in the reintductim of Sierra ~evada 

mtain sheep into historical range: that interest is expected to irmqse. 

TWJ sheep sccieties (The Society for the Oonsanmticsl of Bighorn Sheep and 

the Desert Bighcnn sheep Cmwil) and the (DFG mqhasize sheep management. 

Articles appear regularly in the press "bJ .transplants and related 

manag-t and has participated extensively both in studies of sheep 

popllaticms on the Inyo and in reintrcductim efforts. 

topics. Farest service "jnt is also - with ll"tajn sheep 

336 
CwZ-ent managenent enphasizes ~icticms on recreation use in mxntain 

habitat. An in“ recovery and consemation plan that identifies 

management - ’ties for Sierra Nevada -bin sheep has also bxn 

Written. The Forest has the -ti= to establish additicslal~ “I 

in the pian addressing mixin habitat needs and to cooperate with the 

California Deparbnent of Fish and Game in recovery efforts. 

Virtually all tbe Sierra Nevada mxdain in Califma are found on the Inyu 

Naticmal FoxBst. The sheep winter on the Forest alcq the Eastern EsmIpwnt 

of the Sierra NeMda: thsy sumner at higher elevatims of tha Forest and 

inside Sequoia and Kirqs Canytm Natimal Parks. 

There are five herds on the Forest; two of these are nabally distributed, 

populaticm of Sierra numtain sheep in these herds is estimata3 at 300 and is 

graving. If all existFng and identified potential habitat were filled to 

capacity, there would be abut 700 and 1,ooO sheep on the Forest. These 

sheep would ideally be fcund in many separate papulatims to ensure 

pmtecticm from epizootic diseases. 

There is potential for mxlntain sheep habitat needs to conflict with 

“eaticm ard donestic livestock graziq. Human disturbance can affect the 

sheep by displacing them fran impxtant habitats. Dsmestic livestock 

represent the threat of disease transnissicn, as mxntain are susceptible to 

certain diseases -ble by danestic sheep. Additional study may slnw 

that cattle, lynxes, mules, and llamas can also transnit diseases to wild 

sheep. Other factors that may limit Sierra mbin sheep range are the 

reduced prductivity of overmature forqe, the otdxuctim of access routes 

by human develcpwnts, and a limited ”nt of suitable habitat for 

rein+xual&im. 

The damn3 for Sierra mountain sheep is implicit in the issues and “erns 

listed alxsm. 

and the other three have been distributed by reintroduction. The total 

otherspecial interest SpeCI es: Althlgll the species in this categcny 

require a variety of habitats, the primary concarn associated with each 

species is the protection of that habitat to ensure population viability. 

There is an -ty to establish airecti- for the ptwtion and 

maintenance of habitat for .these species in the Plan. 

popilatim figures are I” cnly fur tule elk: there are app”te1y 600 

elk in the Gwens Valley, mJst of which spend at least part of the year on 

Forest lard. Elk rnrmbars are increasing, and animals are remrnred every few 

years for tcansplant to other areas. 

Riparian area-depeden tspeci es (yellow warbler): The managcmmt of riparian 

habitat to assure the viability of de-t wildlife is both a pblic issue 

andamampnent-. 

Riparian vegetatictl (including wet meadows) COVBTS less than two percent of 

We Inyo Naticnal Farest. 

t%pendept wildlife species has been decllnirg aver the years due to the 

deteicuatim ard exploitatial of these habitats. The arrount and adition 

ThB POpllatiCn and trend of riparian afea337 
of riparian habitat -1- wfiare riparian vegetaticn is affeded by 

aktwb", vegetatian manimaticn, or streamflaw n4". Apprcodmately 

20 percent of the Origlml streson habitat in the Mn, Basin andcwens Valley 

has tean eliminated due to water divarsicsls far hyameledriC generaticn, 

irrigatim, and danestic use. 

t@ es (will- - &hairy- ): m 

about this Qraup of species is with maintaining ervxlgh 

standirg dead trees (snags), logs, and habitat diversity to eTlsure 

popllatim viability. The Forest has the cpprhmity to establish dhectim 

far slag managelnant in the Plan. 

~uelwmd gather- is the major threat to snag-dependent species. In areas 

WhfXe vehicle access is easy, many snags have aln?ady been remnred illegally 

for fuel-. and educate 

the pblic about their hpxbma, but some people will resist these efforts 

and amtinue to cut them. 

slag ~~t on the Inyo is Slaw, and slags in many areas are in such 

shcnt supply that the viability of snag-&px%nt wildlife ppulations may 

al?csKQbeth?=€atened. 

In additi081 to standing dead trees, cavity-nestiq wildlife rely 081 down and 

dead woody material fca: foraghq and other needs. Altlmligh the Forest 

Service prohibits the cuttitq of snags, down and dead material is a legal 

source of plblic fuelwood. In"uq . energy costs and the rxKxeational 

value of wwd galfm5t-g have resulted in the virtual elimination of dead and 

down wood in accessible areas. 

The demand for slags cm the Forest is high relative to supply. The 

availability of slags and dam, dead wood could be a major factor limiting 

wildlife habitat capability of farested e"wnts cm the Inyo. 

Maintaining the quality of riparian habitat is a critial wildlife habitat 

cxncY3m O81 the Forest. since nearly all species are deplclent CBI those areas 

at siim time in their life cycle, the developnent or alteration of these 

resources pxbably has significant potential to adversely affect wildlife 

species. 

The Forest Service is o"ed with mnagirg riparian areas not only for 

wildlife habitat, however. Riparian habitat receives attention in the 

Planning process as a T~SOUTCB in itself because riparian area-dependent 

resources are so hprbnt and diverse. A more detailed discusSian is found 

LI&X the separate heading of Riparian Areas. 

species aepenaen t cm early-micklle seral stages of brush: 

Species depeden t cB1 older seral stages of coniferaus farest: (See Goshawk.) 

The Forest service can -te slags, protect them, 

This problem is especially serious because 

(See sage gnxlse. ) 

338 
IV 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 
This chapter describes the e”ntal consequences of implementiqg the 

various Forest p1annir-g alternativeS. It also provides the scientific and 

analytical basis for the canparative discussion of alternatives in Chapter 

11. 

The assesgnent of ewimmk“cal ccslsequences helps the Forest evaluate each 

alternative in terms of its mtributicm to net public benefit, a measure of 

the overall value to the American public of a given alternative. Both priced 

benefits (“E& ‘ties) and “-priced benefits (amenities) are considered in 

the determination of net public benefit. 

h-tal- are described in terms of charges fm the base 

year 1982 situation, unless otherwise stated under individual resource 

headings. 

The severity of omsequences is limited because the only 

alternatives considered were tl-nse that ensure lcmg-term proauctivity of the 

land. Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines addressicg the various indicators 

of lorg-term proauctivity such as soil stability, wildlife population 

viability, vegetative dimity were developed early in the plarJling process 

and guided the developnent of alternatives. A detailed discussion of 

Forest-wide Sm and Guidelines is in Chapter IV of the Plan. 

h-tal are discussed for each resource. Each resource 

section describes the Forest activities that have major effects on that 

resource, haw the ccnsequ- of these activities are assessed, the 

indicators used to assess the effects, the cause/effect relaixonships between 

the indicatars and the resource, the assumptias imprtant to the analysis 

(includirg passible mitigation “res), and consquences “KX-I to all 

alternatives. Cansequences of activities that vary by alternative are 

discussed by alternative. 

Fifty-year output pjedians were developed both by application of the 

linear Kogramnirg mOCae1, FORPLAN, and by analysis outside of that del. 

The FORPLAN analysis is descrikd in Chapter 11 and in lagpendix B, with mre 

detail in the p1annj.q records. Infomation about methods used to generate 

figures outside the -1 are ccsltained in the plannirg records. 

Chapter IV mncludes with discussicns of mitigation meafllres, unavoidable 

impacts, short-term impacts vs. laq-tenn land productivity, irreversible and 

irretrievable connitments of rsouces, potential conflicts with other agency 

mgrmsnt Plans, and energy ?zq&” ts and canservation potential by 

alternative. 

339 
DIRECP, INDIlWCJ!, AND aMuLATNE 

ECCNCMIcnlfzxdmtl 'an 

The Inyo Natimal Forest mtrib.hs to the revenues of each of the seven 

cnunties cxmtainhg Natimal Forest system land through bumet expenditures, 

Receipts Act mts, and PaymentS in Lieu Of Tax (PILT) fees. The FO& 

also adds dollars to the econcmy of each mty by attracting tourists to the 

area and g-tiq jobs. 

Al- the se~en-rwunty is mt ewprmically &mt UPZXI the Forest, 

Forest -Wt decisianS dired mC effects On ranchers, 

recreaticm permittees, and others who use National Forest System lands for 

theirlivelibood. Indirect impads are found in the support of the ecxurnic 

infrastructule thrcugh special-use pennib, reczeaticn oppxtum .ties, 

1- 'p ar3justments, energy and "xal activities, and utility line 

rights-of-way. 

The e"ic consequences of implawntiq the alternativas can be described 

in variolls ways. A sumnary of key eccnmic Wcato~~ is discussed in the 

following &cm. Far a nom -ive list of eoonanic variables see 

chapter 11. Appenaur ' B discusses in depth the fa&= and methoaolcgies used 

in the eccunnic analysis. 

1. Fresent Net Value (W) 

3. ReceiptSActpaymentS 

4. Forest tuaget 

5. Net cashfluv. 

2. Areae"entandiMxme 

Present Net Value is a measure of r~ i ive eccprmic e 

represen& the difference between all uric& benefits and 

Eiciency. PNV 

all management 

&ts. he projectea costs and benefitsfor future decade^ are dis-ted to 

the 1982 base level because the discountiq of values to a camon base 

facilitates the canparism of benefits and costs that - at different 

tims. The Forest planning ndel (!?JWIAN) allocated land uses and sche5uled 

activities with the objective of "izing the pNv of each alternative, 

subject to the set of objectives and requFremen ts dcpe to the alternative. 

The prcd~~ctim of goods and services fm the Inyo National Forest stirrmlates 

the local econony by generating inmme and anplayment. The results shown 

include t#th dired mploynent by the Farest and euplayment in the private 

sectc0:indUced by Forest activities. 

'Ityenty-fim Of Forest-generated to the federal a?3 

returned to the camties to pmvide supprt for roads and schools. 

Fcnest managenent, Plus cooperative dollars Such as c;reen-sticker "fy fm 

b he projected Forest wet n=p-esents Chgressicmal appropriaticms for 

340 
the state to build CHV mutea. Green sticker nrmay is derived fmn the 

Califwmia L?eLpri”t of Vehicles in lieu of license plate fees for CUV 

registration. 

The difference beheen Farsst-generated levenues to the federal treasuq and 

tbe fr33sra.l Costs of managhq the Forest is called net cash flay. Retun-Ls to 

the t“y ara generated by market - such as lninerals, timber, 

grazing, and deVe1m retXeati.cn and fran special use permit fees. 

Assu@zi cos 

1. The basic econaRic shructure of the Forest’s pr* 2a-B of inflUelX!e 

(Inyo and lubm Cumtie.5) will nat change sUhstantial1y; the retail sales 

and ssrvice sectors will maintain their relative hport” and their 

Close tie to recreaticn and talrisn. 

2. The pqylaticm of Southem Califcunia will mtjnue to grow, and its 

3. The broad existing landownership pattems in the Eastern Sierra will be 

maintained. 

CEE is the mxt &-efficient alternative because cmly the ”rm 

management lequirements and minimum hi@-tatim requirements were applied 

as CcBlstXaints cm maximizing PNV. CEE is, therefore, the basis for 

canpariscpl of PNV by alte?mative. 

pattern of recreational use will mt Charg.3 substantially. 

Table 62 

far the Planning period 

SUmElry of - ‘c Indicatacs 

Albxn3tiVes 

Indicator PFw am RPA CEE AMN m 

PNV (W) 3170.8 2559.3 3310.7 3484.1 2922.4 3084.1 

nuployment, first decade 

(M person years) 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.1 

Receipts Acts Payments ($PPI) 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.9 

Total Forest wet (W) 12.5 10.0 12.4 11.9 12.9 12.6 

Nt Cash Flay ($PPI) -9.4 -6.9 -7.8 -8.6 -11.0 -9.9 

341 
PRF: (PKefd) Increased devalcped and d.rspersea recreQtiDn programs 

Ldmitaticns an full ski area developnent 

and increased costs of timber harvest because of uneven-aged timber 

mnagemnt West of U.S. 395 and rn harvest in the San Joaquin area causa nrst 

of the loss in PNV as canparsd to cXE. However, m-pricd benefits such as 

impxed wildlife habitat, reduced impacts an mule deer, and hp"d visual 

quality offset the the reduced PNV in ccmtcitutjq to net public benefit. 

This alternative requFres an fran current met levels to provide 

increased -tian -ties at standard levels and additimal 

irnreshnents in range, wildlife, and wa- prcgmns to provide a broad 

range of plblic benefits. 

The diverse and haeased FoIBst Cutplts of this alternative lS?pmsent 

increased returns to the treasury, highfx Recaipts Act payments to the local 

CUJnties, and increased e"ent and benefits to the local euxnuy. 

Indicators shav this al-bmative to be eccannically efficient; hxewr, 

inrJreased costs and the anphasrs (II both et and 

result in the largest fifth-decade negative cash flow of any alt-tive. 

am: (aur€¶-itRcg?2an ) PNV is lowest in this alternative, as are returns to 

the tceasuy, Receipts Acts Psryrrwts to the camties, and total Forest 

budget. The enployment is seixix3-laiest amcq the altematiw; it 

is rot the lawst cnly because of tha relative -is on 

aipl~t-g~tiq market rsmrces. Budget lhibticns are direstly 

respmsible for tb lm PNV. The prhaq factors cmtrihtkg to the 1m PNV 

are the limitatians an capital irrvestment far increased recreatiDn 

developwnt and majntenanca of recreaticn facilities at lm-standard levels, 

and the main- of a pqramwd timber below above the msst 

&-efficient level. "-met rsauces such as dispersed recreation and 

wildlife are provided well below the level of projected public demand. The 

lm budget and high relative wis OBI market outputs, w, provide 

this alternative with the smallest negative cash flow of all alternatives. 

RPA: (1980 RPA Program) This alternative provides a broad range of resource 

cutplts at high levels with an euphasis m market resources. The total 

Forest budget is highest far this alternative. Potential conflicts among 

rescslrces are also high, as most resources are managed at high intensity m 

tbs maxi" available acreage. The timber harvest schedule requFrss cutting 

in some existing CCBlcentrated recreatioll areas, key wildlife areas, and 

visually sensitive areas. Alpine ski area developnent cccurs in cxmjunction 

with timber harvest, and both activities &lid with mule deer migration 

corridors. !I%e loss of xn-pricd -fits, such as visual quality and 

recreation quality, would e the net public benefit under such an 

intensive management prcg~am. The PNV of this alternative is, however, 

secmd cmly to CEE. The rsducticn in PMI relative to the CEE altemative is 

associated with the hczeasd cost of timber harvest, reduced develop4 

recreaticH1 opprhmtties, arid the lack of recormended wilderness. Receipts 

Act mts to local counties are highest in this altemative. due primarily 

to ircreasd timber sales and developed recreation receipts. The emphasis on 

market cutputs also baeases mployment in the lccal eco~~~y. While this 

the relatively large PMI. 

outplts would 

342 
alternative ranks high in many eccarmic variables, it does so at the expnse 

of important amenity values and to the detriment of net public benefit. 

CEE: (Maxuruze Cost-Efficiency) Ecaavrrm 'c efficiency is "u . 'zed in this 

alternative by scheduling timber harvest at eaxmically efficient levels and 

"iz- the recreation m. This alternative has the second-lowest 

first decade total budget, yet equals the PRF total -et in the fifth 

decade because of the large recfeation pmganl and the cost of providing 

standard-level -ti- services. Rtployment projections for the local 

eccarmy are highest in this alternative. There is SQne question, however, of 

the abilityof the Marrm3th and June Lake 0O"nities to expand to support the 

full developnent of potential ski areas as prcpxed in this alte?=native. 

.. 

Receipts Act payments are secad to RPA because RPA emphasizes market cutputs 

while CEE mizes both market outputs and --market wid outputs such 

as wildemess, wildlife-related, and other dispersed recre=tion 

cppxhmities. Even with this -is, however, sane timber harvest ad 

OCCUT within cmcentrated recreation areas and in sensitive wildlife habitat 

in the Pima& area. The CEE altemative would provide mts to the local 

Chmties crmparable to PEW and would incur a negative net cash flow second 

only to PRF. 

E": (K3Xhb.e All nlnEdties) Amenity and m-market Te6ouTc8 benefits are 

emphasized in this alternative at the expense of market remwxes and 

ecoMmic efficiency. PNV is the lowest of any but the CUI7 alternative. 

Limited ski area expansion, reduced timber harvest and livestock grazirg, and 

the large ameage far wildemess or limited access management 

acQ=untfOr&of thereductl 'on in PNV selative to CEE. The large 

first-decade total budget is nseded to -de increased Wilderness 

oppz&mities ttucugh capital irnrestmen ts in trails and trailhead 

E"ent and Receipts Act payments to the cmmties are lowest of any 

facilities. The ~-1oWest fifth pericd total bu%et represents the 

relatively 1av cost of the developed--tion and timber-harvest programs. 

alternative in the first decads. The negative net cash flow drops frun the 

largest in the first decade to the third-smallest in the fifth decade, 

primarily due to the snaller total budget rather than large retums to the 

treasury. Thelossesin~ 'c efficiency and local incane resultirg fmn 

this alternative would offset the gahs in visual quality, wilderness 

acreage, prjlnitive and Semi~tive recreaticBl- 'ties, andwildlife 

habitat quality. 

AMB: (hplas ize Wildlife and Reueaticn) The amenity emphasis of this 

alternative is offset by increases in priced rsaeation Outputs; althxgh the 

timber and raqe programs are reduced, the PNV of this alternative ranks 

higher than that of iWN. Timber, range, and developed-recreation cutputs 

are, however, restricted to levels below the most eccxdcally efficient 

level represented by CEE. emplayment indicates M significant increase 

in numbers. Receipts Act payments to counties are slightly lower than CUI7 

in the first decade. As in AMN, a large first-decade total budget and a 

lcwar fifth-decade total budget are the primary factors that contribute to 

hprovjq the negative net cash flow frun the seomd-larg& to 

second-smallest between the first and fifth decades. The lower fifth-decade 

budget represents a red" * in costly market resource prograrrrs in favor of 

dty and rnn-mt values. 
SOCIALrllbmdwtl " 

The six local social g-rcups mJst likely to be affected by alternative 

cutputs, land allocations, management practices, and special uses of the Inyo 

riati& Forest are identified as long-term residents, regional 

recreationists, seasnal employees, special-use permittees, American IM3ians, 

and retkees. other sensitive groups such as "en, the handicapped, the 

elderly, and "rities are distributed withjn the six identified graups. 

lhla of the alte?matives will discriminate against any particular glmlp. 

The atexnatives do raise social issues, however. 

the Forestt's primzy zone of influema differ significantly in their nets& 

and expectatiaxs for Forest resxlrce use. thfxe is potential for ccmflict. 

For example, altamtives that a@adze nm-rxreatim market cutputs 

(timbar -, w. - and energy asvslopnent) are msst 

acceptable to the lcxq-time residents, Native Americans, and others wkse 

livelihood is linked to thase "es. Q1 the other hand, alternatives 

that eqhaslz . m-narket outplts (dispersed recreation, wildamess, scenic 

quality, wildlife, and a natural are mast acceptable to the 

special-use permittees, "al reczeatimists, seasmal elnployees, and 

re- wb relata to the Forest prin?arily as a source of aesthetic values. 

Alternatives that aeVelOpea recxeaticm are generally acceptable to 

mJst of the identified gmups. 

when social groups withjn 

mca.toS.¶ 

The of alternatives will vary by group. Social attributes, such 

as lifestyle and quality of life, are the variables used to evaluate these 

-. These variables, thcugh significant, are mt in theaselves 

quantifiable or measurable. Forest activities associated with each social 

variable are, Iferefore, used as indicators of the effects of each 

alternative OPI social variables. 

The relatidp of the social variables and the indicators of effects cm 

thsa variables are displayed in Table 63. Tables 64 thnxigh 67 display the 

effects of the alternatives an social variables by social group. 

344 
Lifestyle 

Patterns of wxk and leisme, 

custars and traditions; relaticnships with family, friends, and 

others 

Attitudes, Beliefs, and Valtatims 

FdingS, 

that 

preferences. 

-le hEnre 

and 

for 

-- 

the 

landanditsuses 

Commrnity Stability and cohesicrm 

The &?gee of ccopration beixeen 

segments of the ozinmmkty in 

apmchiq papblm.3 OT realizing 

shared goals and the lack of social 

Ccpzflict. Stability aepenaS upsl 

the rate of charge with which 

people can cope. 

populaticn and Land Use 

The size, rata of change, and 

-iticn of the population and 

their effects on land use 

nir quality 

Water quality 

Visual quality 

wi1- 

Wildlife habitat divesity 

WtUI-alL- 'p adjustments 

Special use parmits 

Interpretive sezvices 

Perxmal safety 

Fire ptmtion 

Recreaticm aevelopnent 

Roads 

Water yield 

special use permits 

Recreation developnent 

L- 'p adjustments 

345 
Table64 

sumrary of Al-tive Effects cn social (;mups 

for tb Lifestyle Variable 

Alternatives 

PRF am RPA CEE Am AMB 

LC - Least wincides with graup's lifestyle. 

Gc - Generally coincides with group's lifestyle. 

SC - Substantially wincih with group's lifestyle. 

Table 65 

fm the Attitrde, Beliefs and Val- Variable 

sunoary of Alternative Effects m social Csoups 

Alternatives 

Iagtime Resident Gc Gc sc Gc Lc Gc 

Reg1Cma.l Recreaticnist sc LC Gc sc M: Gc - nnployee sc Lc Gc sc Lc Gc 

Special use Pennittea sc Lc Gc sc Lc Gc 

American Indian Gc Gc Gc Gc M: Gc 

Retiree sc Gc Gc Gc Lc Gc 

LC - Least coincides with group's attitudes, beliefs, and values. 

Gc - Generally coincides with group's attitudes, beliefs, and values. 

SC - Suhstantially whzides with grcup's attitudes, beliefs, and values. 

346 
Table 66 

for the (x” ‘ty Stability* and -icn Variable surmary of Effects an social G?=ulps 

€Ll-t€znatives 

social Group PRF (XIR RPA CEE AMN AMB 

kxqtim Resident S S S S LS S 

Regicmal Recseaticslist N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

s- hrployee S Ls S LS LS S 

special use Permittee S LS LS LS LS S 

American Indian S LS S S LS S 

Retiree S S S LS Ls S 

LS - Alternative would be less stable and leduce Ccmrmnity cahesiveness by 

creating plarizatim between the “ity and the group. 

S - Alternative would Create stability and cahesiveness between the group 

NA - Not applicable to the sroup dtxe it is not part of the cannunity. 

x- ‘ties are stable and cohesive under alternatives that wntinue 

the modest rate of gravth currently fwnd within the primary Forest zme of 

influeme. Alternatives that retard ca”ity growth or stimulate an 

increased rate of gravth are considered less stable. The Forest activity 

lrost likely to affect camnllu ‘ty growth is alpine ski area devel-t in the 

MamnothandJune Lakeareas. 

andthe ccl”i*. 

347 
Table 67 

sunntry of Alternative Effezts al social Groups for 

popllaticn and Land Use alang&s* 

AlteInatiw 

social GKaQ PRF aJR RPA CEE AMN AMB 

I"3 Resident S S S s Ls s 

Regie R-tiM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - Employee S Ls LS LS LS s 

special USB Pennittea s S LS LS LS s 

American Indian s s S S LS s 

Re- S S s s LS s 

LS - Altexnative wxld create less stable poprlaticm gmwth than lecent 

S - Alteznative would maintain stable and "geable populatim growth 

NA- Natapplicablebothegroupsinceitisnotpartof thecamnn~ 'ty. 

*popilatian gruuth which is lower than or ccosiaerably higher than rscent 

hisbric levels represents less stable popllaticm grauth. Increased 

popuatim gruuth often atails increased land use needs and anfliding 

land uses. 

trends. 

ccloditians based an n3cent tr€!&3. 

AssUlpu 'Q1s 

Social variables and indicabm are used to evaluate the potential impacts of 

the Farest alternatives an the six identified social gmups. The 

mlaticmship of social variables and indicatars with social groups are based 

an asmlptims about shared activities, interests, cxalmms, and values. The 

&al graups are b necessarily mutually exclusive, as individual persaa7s 

may bel- bo mxe than me group, may SupPCat variables t"racteristic of 

tb gmq, QT may m3vB fron - sroup to another. General statements of 

p3tential impads an social groups are therefore used cmly as a basis an 

which to canpare the the alternatives. They are not intended to indicate 

po-tial impacts an irx%vi!3uals within those group. 

Lik€wi!33, all2rxlgh the Farest activities selected as indicators pmvide 

cpp"ities to predict, measure, and &tor the effeds of alternatives, 

these indicatars can affect several different social variables. 

It is as!"ed that c7mthwd growth in r€cre&l 'cm use and diversity of 

andthosewlmvisit. 

-ti- q@Itlmities is i"t both to groups wry3 live in the area 

348 
It is assumed that any potential effects of the alternatives on American 

mian cultural or religious sites would be adequately mitigated by the 

cocardination ” requirenents found in the FOrest-Wide Standards and WdelineS 

to all alternatives. 

cansequences ‘Ihat vary by amti= 

PRF: (Preferred) This altarnative would proauCe high-level recreaticol 

outputs while main- or incxeasing wildemess. wildlife habitat, and 

visual quality. These factors would maintajn the lifestyle and the 

attitudes, beliefs and values of peaple associated emmmically with the 

natural resources such as lcrgkbm residents, seasonal employees, and 

AwicanIndians. 

who dew on the area for nxxeatimal, visual, and amkcmental quality 

values. 

Regional recreatidsts, special use permittees, and retirees wuld be served 

by the open space, scenic values, solitude, and recreational opprtunities 

represented by 172,600 acres of new wildemess, haeases in fish and 

wildlife prcgrm, and increases in facilities for skiing and developed 

recreation. 

Cnmnmity stability and -ion and ppulation growth would be maintained or 

baeased. All social g-roup would be accamodated by wntmlled increases 

’ties and the maintenance of alpine ski area 

would continue at current or slightly 

in recreational~ 

potential. population increases 

accelerated rates acceptable to affeded ccmnunities (based on ccmmmity 

Plans). 

Main~orincxeas ing market outputs may ConCeIn those 

This alternative could suppOrt recent historic rates of population growth, 

primarily stimulated by increases in recreation use. There muld be a shift 

of app”tely 13,000 acres fm a prhary emphasis on timber proaudion to 

other resource uses. American Indians would find increased employment 

associated with the recreationdl increases. 

UJR: (rxIlrrent- ) Altkugh the current management program is generally 

Supported by all social groups, buaget limitations over five decades wuld 

vent - and allow for declining levels of fuelwood, grazing, fire 

protetion, recreation, and wildlife habitat. For this reason, this 

alt-tive presents some serious potential effects. The recreation program 

is currently managed at low-standard levels, and no new ca-~~truction of 

sumner recreation facilities is occurring. This situation would be projected 

across the next fifty years. Consequently, recreation-related employment 

opportunities would be reduced after the first decade and continue to decline 

through the planning brim. Regional recreatimists, seasonal employees, 

and special use pennittees would find diminished recreational opportunities, 

facilities, services, andemployment. 

Lag-term residents and others linked eccsu;micslly to the use of natural 

resoufces would be served by the slight increases in timber outputs, the 

maintenance of near-current livestock grazing outputs, and the potential for 

substantial increases in mineral dewaopnent. 

349 
The needs of social srarps hb use tbe Fcorest primarily for "ation would 

employees, and retirees). With the - lhitatims on sumner "eation 

growth levied by tuagetarY restraints, facilities would be crowded, 

recreatim seasars would be shcntened, and recreatimal quality would suffer. 

&"ity stability and cohesion in cmnwnities based on timber, livestock 

grazirg, or mineral and encxgy eon should be maintained since these 

Forest outputs would be maintained or increased. 

&"ity stability and cahesicll in remeaticm-dependent txn"ities would be 

enhanced by mderate ski area developnent, but tkse benefits would be offset 

by the deterioration of the s~nrmer remeation prtzgrzun. Cammu 'ty stability 

and cahesion mild be reduced as s~mmer recreatiosl demand is not mt and 

tourism &ides. 

Population growth and land use changes would be maintained at historic levels 

thraugh the first perioa, but would be expcted to slow as rwxeational 

qp"ities declined in the law decades. American Indians would find 

future losses in seasxxd e"ent am3 reduced overall e"ent 

qp"ity. 

not be met (regicm-lal recJE?atialists, special use permittees, SeaScBlill 

RPA: (198oRPAP /. ) High market am3 "-market Forest cutputs would 

acccmrodate the employment needs of lollg-tinm residents and other individuals 

associated e"ically with Forest Outputs. Significant increases in market 

outputs, however, would generally conflict with those in all social groups 

wimse lifestyle, beliefs, and values are linked to scenic quality, open 

space, and opprtunities for solitude. This is true primarily because timber 

hanrest would be cat&- on the steeper, mre visible slopes and in sone 

camcentrated recreatiogl areas, and because there would be NJ new wilderness 

reccrrmendaticars. Increased mark& Outputs would cam at great loss to scenic 

quality and dimity of dty values. 

'Ihe needs of lq-term residents and 0th~~~ associated wxnnically with 

natural resourceS would be et due to the high-level pd~~Ction Of Forest 

ocmrodities. In addition, mDst sx"l emplcrvees and regional 

recreatioylists would be served by increases in alpine skiing opp3rtunities 

and developed sumner recreation facilities. regional recreationists, 

special use permittees, seasonal enployees, American Indians, and retirees 

would also be served because of increased opportunities. However, the 

increased intensity of management would sharply contrast with historic 

n!anagamnt and would detract frun open space, scenic, and general 

ernrironmental quality values. 

There would be ppulatim increases, land-use changes, and increased land-use 

ccslflicts associated with the increased outputs. Gn" 'ty stability and 

cohesion would be weakened by changes in Forest policies. Population growth 

and rate of me could exceed the ability of the recreationally oriented 

cxn"ities to adapt. American Indians could benefit fian better enrplayment 

qpxtunities. 

CEE: (W Cost-Efficiency) This alternative has the highest developd 

and dispersed recreation outputs in response to projected demand. Regional 

recreatirmists, seasonal employees, special use permittees, and retirees 

.. 

350 
would find increased recreaticmal diversity and employment opprhmity. 

Resident txcut populations would be maintained or increased slightly to 

supp3rt the increased demand for fishing, benefittizg long-time residents, 

regional recreationists, and American Indians. 

The large acreage of recomnended wildemess (339,800 acres) would serve thoss 

wb valued open space, unmdified scenery, and solitude. The increase in 

graziq and fuelwood proauctian and the maintmance of ncderate-level timber 

proauctian would meet the needs of lorg-time residents, special use 

permittees, and American Indians. 

This alternative would induce the largest developwnt of alpme ski areas in 

re- to projedea demand. Because of population increases, the Manoth 

and June Lake areas auld graw at rates and nmbm beyond the capability of 

the “ity to adapt. Cnmnmity services, traffic mutes, and water 

supplies could be inadequate to suppr’c the projected number of skier-days. 

Loss of carmunity stability and cahesicol would OCCUT with the large 

Mgration of people. Increases in ppulation would also result in many 

land-use and 1- ‘p changes. Finally, the pmpsed reduction in the 

fire pmecticsl prqram would represent an increased threat to prsonal 

safety and pmpertY values on lands adjoining the National Forest. 

AMN: (Maximize All Amenities) Reduced market and m-mket outputs would 

necessitate changes in the lifestyle and reduce the sense of self-sufficiency 

of those linked eamanically with the natural resources or the recreation 

mket. Increased fish and wildlife “bxs would benefit sane members of 

all social groups. However, because of lower timber and raqe outputs and 

rrrrmmal increases in recreation, this alternative would not meet the needs of 

many regional recreatianists, seasonal eniployees, and special use 

permittees. Sane loq-time residmts, American Indians, and retirees would 

be affeded by the loss of resource outpts and recreational oppxtuni+q. 

Those wln valued open space and solitude would be served by the large acreage 

.. 

in recarmended wilderness and limited access mgment. 

The de-emphasis on COrmDdl ‘ty -&ion and on increased visitation to the 

area would serve the needs of retirees and regional recreaticmists for open 

space, air quality, “dified scenery, and solitude. American Indian access 

to Forest lands for traditional uses could becane mre difficult because of 

large areas reccmnended for wildemess, and employment opp3rtunities for 

Indians would decline. This alternative would reduce growth, with a shift in 

land use fm timber, range, and recreation to limited access and 

m-mtive use. 

The outputs of this alternative would induce the least a”t of wsnnunity 

gra?th. There would be a loss of “ity stability and cohesion associated 

with a static growth ecanany. There would be reductions in the nmkr of 

regimal recreatianists and seasmal employees, and there would be 

unemployment problems resulting fm limitations on develapea recreation 

opprtunities. Less fuelwood would be available, but mre high-quality 

wilderness, nature study, and primitive recreation opprhmity would be 

AMB: (mphas ize Wildlife and Remeaticm) The output levels of this 

alternative &d maintajn a” ‘ty stability and cohesion with little 

pmvidd by this al.bmatiw. 

351 
&lid between c"ptive and m-ccmsunptive uses. This alternative 

allows for populaticm gruwth to closely -le historic rates, yet provides 

the needed increase in sumner recreation outputs that CUR was unable to 

provide due to hQet ljmitatims. Land uses would shift away fran 

traditicmal timber and range uses and toward an -is an wildlife, visual 

quality, wilderness, and r%=reaticnal opportunities. 

--time residents and American Indians would find limited employment 

opportunity with the lower levels of resource outputs. Self-sufficiency 

needs could be net through the slight increases in the fuelwood supply. The 

attitudes and beliefs of those wb fawr open space and solitude would be 

accamndated by the propxed wilderness recomnendations and lands allocated 

to m-- 've uses. 

RESOURCE" 

Forest activities that could result in lag-term changes in air quality are 

cc"ity expamim associated with alpine ski area developnent, geothermal 

devalopnmt, and mining activities. Forest activities that have localized 

and temporary effects on air quality are wildfire, prescribed tnuning, 

cxmst~~ctim activities, and vehicle travel m unpaved roads. 

Cmseqyeraoes of these activities cm air quality are assessed in terms of 

visibility and mxentsatim of pollutants, dadanis far which are specified 

by the Clean Air Act. 

Indicat5rs 

1. Indicatorsof lorkg-tmn~es 

Alpine ski area capacity 

Energy and mineral p3xdudim. 

Indicators of temporary and local ,2hanges 

prescribedbvtning - -. 

2. 

Wildfire 

canstruction activities 

Alpine ski area devel~k are closely associated with the resident and 

transient matims of neighbriq a"itiffi. These cumnmities grow in 

to the a"t of skiirg available to attract recreation dollars. 

the colder areas of the Forest), the mxe fuelwood burning would OCCUT and 

the rmre air quality would deteriorate due to increased particulate matter, 

increased noxious gases (ax), and reduced visibility. Likewise, irmmxd 

p3pulatims would represent increased vehicle use with associated exhaust 

emissians (Nox), 

The larger the cxnnmu 'ties, especially those near ski areas (as they are in 

352 
Ckkkmml emqy pxducticm wxild result in gaseaus enissions (primrily 

SO ) and dust fran facility and road aax&N&I 'cm and unsurfacd roads. 

Mmeral extracticm, aax&N&I 'cn activities., mill- emissions, tailing 

dim, andthe use of unpavedroads could prcduce enough dust to impair 

visibility or to affect other Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs). 

smoks frun wildfires hmeases particulate air pllution and affects 

visibility. The same is true of prescribed burning. Hawever, wildfires may 

cccur dur- perioas of poor air quality, while prescribed brnirg is 

cxducbi cmly un&r ccmditicm favorable for air quality 

impacts. In additicm, prescribed burning would have effects lasting me or 

tm days at &; the duraticm of a wildfire could well be lager. Gn the 

other hand, as prescribed fires burn at law intensity, they result in nore 

smke fran incanplete cmbusta 'on than nary higher-intensity wildfires. 

Dust fran cx"ction and use of unpaved roads also inpairs visibility. 

.x 

The cmly substantial changes in air quality will be the lcslg-tem changes 

associated with an"ity growth and geothennal/mineral developnent. The 

a"t of air quality debrioraticm fran tx"ity growth will be 

prcpxtimal to ski area capacity. The effects of mineral and energy 

developnent will be prcprtimal to new acres disturbed for those activities. 

A smke managgnent plan will be developed with each Fire Manag-t Action 

Plan and prescritd hrning plan to maximize smke dispersicol and "ize 

visibility deterioraticm. 

power plant and mill- operations are regulated by the Air Resources Board; 

the applicatim of Best Available CBntzol Techniques (BACI) ennrres 

an@iance with ambient air standards most of the time. 

Forest activities will be managed to meet state and federal air quality 

standards in all alternatives. 

AQRVs will be developed for areas (such as Class I wilderness) that are 

especially sensitive to air quality deterioration. Air quality in such areas 

will be "itored whenever Forest activities or envircaunental oonditions pose 

a threat to ApRVs. 

Altlaough vehicular emissions are generally a major source of pollutants, the 

number of vehicles utilizing the Forest road system (outside of acmmmities) 

at any one time will be too snall to measurably lower air quality. 

Particulate matter generated by mineral and geothermal activities will vary 

by seasc~l of use and geographic location. Although local impacts could be 

generated, AQRVs are not expected to be severely affected, either by 

individual. impacts or Wative -. 

Although total acres of wildfire and prescribed burning vary by alternative, 

the net effects of these activities do not. The intenmuntain air basin has 

excellent dispersion during the fire season, and &e management plans for 

353 
fire supForessicn and prescribed l"J will "iza the effects of these 

activities on AQRVs. 

Water mining (-W prmplng ' ) and water regulation, including 

divxsicms, are activities outside Farest service control that impact air 

quality in both Class I and Class I1 areas on the Forest. The impah of 

these activities arise when lake levels and/= water tables drop. ncpoSea 

lakebeds and soil that are 1- vegetation due to lack of grmmkater are 

major sources of airbolne alstintheowensand~Basins. Thed63radation 

of AQRVs fm these activities peaks durirg the late winter, early spring, 

and fall seaso~~s. Tlae mlem is currently under litigation, and the Forest 

is mrkiq with the local Air Resarce Boatd to wark toward a res3lution. 

Raffic m unpaved roads gemrates lccalized and temporary dust problems. 

The excellent dispersion qualities of the inbnmuntain regia and the snall 

"br of vehicles us- Forest roads work together to keep inpacts on AQRVs 

below measurable levels. 

Geothermal dsvelopnent * current leasing agreements could mnmt to 

appiroximately six plants on 300 anes in Lease Blocks I and I1 under 

all alternatives. 

-thatv by Alternative 

The fOllOwirg figure is helpful in 1-a ' the effects of alternatives 

cm air quality. 

Table 68 

Indicatars of Prujectea Inpacts on air Quality 

(end of the fifth decade) 

New geothermal and 

lnirEzal developnent 

(M acres disturbd) 6.1 6.1 7.0 3.9 3.1 4.8 

PRF: (Preferred) and am: (cht-rent PJ"n ). Any air quality deterioration 

will include increased levels of CO,, NDx, and particulate matter. The 

camunity of June Lake, which may be near- the upper limits of ambient air 

standards for COX a few days a year, will experience the impacts of 

increased ski area capacity. 

Mineral opprtunities will be relatively high under these alternatives; 

projected air quality deterioration fran mineral activities will also be 

high. 

354 
RPA: (1980 RPA Program ) Projected air quality deterioration fran mineral 

activities will also be the highest. 

CEE: (&x.imize Cost-Efficiency) Mineral opprhmities will be -ate 

under this alternative. projected air quality deterioration fm mineral 

activities will also be &ate. 

AMN: (- All Amslities) Mineral ‘ties will be lowest under 

this altexnative. Projected air quality deterioration from mineral 

activities will also be low. 

.. 

AMB: (hplas ize Wildlife and Recreation) Mineral opprtunities will be 

moderate under this alternative. Projected air quality deterioration fran 

mineral activities will also be moderate. 

aax7JRAL RlxURas 

nlizudu&iCxl 

Forest activities that have effects on cultural resowes include those whicb 

cause gmud diw, charge the amxult or intensity of visitor use or 

grazing pressme, affect vehicle access, or otherwise result (directly or 

indirectly) in charging the physical character of a particular piece of land. 

Cbnsequ- of these activities are assessed in term of the relative 

potential threat to cultural values posed by each alternative. Data sources 

used for this analysis include Forest plarning documents, previous 

-tal analyses (Forest Service and ouler), and professional ju@nk?nt 

and past exprim. 

Indicatnrs 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Direct Indicators of Disturbance 

This jndicator is determined fran the total Nsnber of new acres disturbed 

by private and public develcpd sumner recreation sites, alpine ski 

acres under high-level timber management, acres disturbed by geothermal 

and ather mineral activities (includirg mads), and lands to be excharged 

out of federal ownershl ‘p over the next fifty years. 

Indirect Indicators of Disturbance 

sumner recreatiQn use 

llnestic livestock graziq. 

Beneficial Impact Indicators 

Recarmendedwilderness 

areas, roads (excluding mining ?mads), trails (excluding mrdic -&ails), 

Wtlral resource p?xgranl diredi on. 

Gmmd-disturbing acticms have the potential to destray or aaverSely impact 

cultural resource properties. The greater the total area disturbed, the 

355 
greater the likelihmd of sites being impacted. The acreage disturbed by new 

roads is calculated as a corridor one-half mile wide. Trails are calculated 

as a corridx one-quarter mile wide. 

ReCI'Ettion use (RVDS and WFUDS) and grazing (Am) represent a gross relative 

increasing visitor use and grazing activities. Both types of use can affect 

cultural values by ground disturbance. Refxeation use is also an indicator 

of artifact hunting and vandalism. 

The larger the acreage in wilderness, the less likely it is that cultural 

values CBI those acres will be adversely impacted. The type and amnmt of use 

in wilderness is restricted, resulting a law density of visitation, 

prohibitim of vehicle en-, and lack of gruund-disbrbing resourc~ 

management. 

hndative lcmg-term impacts on cultural values can be mitigated not only by 

a"ticm with other resourc~ manage" and Forest activities, but also 

by a formal prcgram of "itoring, protection (other than project-related), 

enhancement, and jnteqretation. The degree to which these activities am 

inplmsnted varies with the cultural resource program direction for each 

alternative. This variation is discussed by alternative in the narxatives 

below. 

measure of the potential impacts on cultural resources resulting fran 

There is not necessarily a one-b-cme correspcoldence between the numker of 

acres distmkd and the rurmber of cultural lresource sites potentially 

impactea. The densi- of mtural sites varies fmn one geographic locatim 

to another, and certaln ' types of activities can be mitigated better than 

others. Due to this variation, the presence of cultural values does not 

necessarily inply a reduction in the land base available for resource 

managemnt. Although there could be an impact on the acreage available for 

timber harvest, that impact will be mitigated by pendins Mem>randa of 

Agrement between the Forest and the California Office of Historic 

P"tim. vnder these "ramla, piagi (PanaOra mth larva) collection 

1Cggil-g taques. This type-of-site, type-of-"g ' approach has been 

studied for the past five years. Its success allaws timber harvest to OCCUT 

in afeas not previously available for entry. 

Recreation impacts are di- 'onately distributed over the Forest, based 

on the differ- hity of use on different types of land. For example, 

recreation use averages 18.1 visitor days per acre in concentrated recreation 

areas, whereas it averages mly -042 visitor days per acre an "add lands. 

The adverse impacts resulting fmn trail canstructian and visitor use in 

recreation use. 

sites have been pro* fmn timber haraest by inp1-W over-the-m 

wi1- are covered by the indicators for direct disturbance and 

cultural resources are pro* under all altetnatives by the mandatory 

cmpliance -ts mtained in 36 CFR 800 and the prwisicms of the 

~andum of* (dated February, 1977). between the Forest 

service and the Advisary -1 m Historic PreservatiCpI. Implementatian of 

356 
specific pjeds rqwkes the pparatim of hiividual -tal 

&xlments. These axamu3lts include fom!al calsultation (as requrred * by 36 

(3FR 800 and the Fcuest-wide standards and Guidelines). 

compn to AJl Az-&r.nat.iVe.s 

Regardless of the alternative cksen, there will be a nmh?r of nrmulative 

currently has a negligible effect on other resources. Hewever, the density 

of sites per acre is subtantially higher on the Inyo than on nary other 

Forests in the Region (me site per 59 acres as caupared with one per 105 

acres 081 the ZLngeles and me per 245 acres on the Take National Forest). 

Given this situation, ths lq-term utility of mitigating direct impacts 

through avoidance of impacts will declh. In addition, site-by-site and 

project-w-project evaluaticm and mitigation will becane less viable over 

Emaver, they will becane more impcatant as the ability to avoid impaCt.9 

decreases. These ccmsiderations -line the need to emphasize studies 

direded to --of-site and --of-project canpliawe and management, and 

to increase the role played by tlnse approaches. 

locq-term iqJaCt.9 on cultural resources. cultural resource management 

tilm as they are labor-intensive and geared to short-term expedif2ncy. 

-thatvaryby Alternative 

Table 69 displays the effects of alternatives on cultural rezmmes. 

357 
We 69 

Indicataes of Esfects on cultural Resances 

(by the end of the fifth decade) 

Alternatives 

Macresdirectgrand 

di&u%arxe (total) 195.1 227.5 366.6 326.2 149.7 188.6 

Relative potential threat* L L H H L L 

IndireCt:Di&UhXD= Indicators 

m RVDS & WFVDS (5th decade) 6.6 4.6 6.5 6.6 5.0 6.2 

Relative potential threat* H L H H L H 

M ACM (5th decade) 41.4 39.1 55.6 46.5 35.1 39.4 

Relativepotentialthreat* M L H M L L 

Beneficial Impact Indicator 

Macres"d4 

Wilderness 172.6 107.6 0 339.8 510.8 222.7 

Relative potential threat* H H H M L M 

~TMRELATIVE~P M L H H L M 

* Assigned values armspmd to the lowet (L), middle (M), and upper (HI 

thirds of the total range of variation. 

** Qnnulative relative threat was determined by assigning point values to 

relative potential threats (L = 1, M = 2, H = 31, sunning total points by 

and uppr third of the total raqe of variatim. 

* PlaC€ment in lower, middle, .. alternative, and det,c"g 

PRF: (-fend) Under this alternative, disturbed acres and sumner 

recreation will increase 24 percent and 74 percent respectively as mnpared 

with 1982. Wilderness acreage will increase 31 percent. The relative 

potential threat to cultural values under this alternative will be mate. 

Thedirech 'an for cultmal reSOuCCeS under this altexnative includes 

mnpleting the Forest-wide, apbsizing type-of-site and --of-project 

metbods for anpletjng project evaluatim and mitigatim work, and developiq 

a balanced program of inventory, evaluation, ptection, enhancement, and 

iniE7qretation. ThiSc3bsctl 'on will offset the potential threat to cultural 

resowces ucder the allmmative. 

an: (cwxentprogram ) under this alternative, there will be an increase in 

disturbed acres and sumnar fecreation use of 29 percent and 21 percent 

respedively. Livestoc3r grazirg will decline 6 percent. Wilderness acreage 

358 
will increase 19 percent. 

under this alternative will be low. 

under this alternative, cultural resources will be inventoried at the rate of 

apFnnximately 12,000 acres per year, primarily in preparation for timber 

with potential to affect cultural values. 

ts for project jnplementatim will 

sales ad other undertaldngs 

Mandatory historic pressmation 

be met primarily through the avoidance of inpa&. Recorded sites are 

evaluated; formal site testing and mitigation are undertaken only when impact 

avoidance is not feasible. Typ-of-site evaluation studies are df?velOpea and 

implemented as the wrtunity arises. There is a "I of formal 

m-project site prote&j.cn, interpretation, and enhancement. This direction 

will do little to offset the potential threat to cultural re~~ucce~ under 

this alltarnative. 

RPA: (1980 RPA Prowam ) Selection of this alternative will result in a 47 

percent increase in dired gnnud disturbance, a 71 percent increase in 

sumner recreation use, and a 34 percent imrease in graz-. Wilderness 

acres will be the same as in 1982. The relative potential threat to culkal 

The relative potential threat to cultural values 

values under this alternative will be the highest of any alternative. 

In reqxmse to RPA goals, the cultural reSOucOeS program diredim for this 

alternative requires tha ccmpletion of a Forest-wide invmtory by the year 

1995, representing an average of 180,000 project and rr0l-projec-t acres per 

year. Aaditionalculturalresource~ 'on calls for supplementing a 

pi.ma~~ mitigation strategy of inpact avoidance with --of-site and 

--of-project eva+ations, initiatiq a formal site monitcrirg and 

ptection program, and pxsuing enhancement and interpmtatmn activities as 

the opporhmities arise. This direzh 'm will sonewhat offset the potential 

threat to cultural resources under this alternative. 

CEE: (W Cost-Efficiency) mder this alternative, there will be a 42 

percent, 76 percent, and 12 percent increase in disturbed acres, sumner 

-tion use, and livestock grazing respectively. Wilderness acreage will 

hxease 60 percent. The ovrxall p3tential threat to cultural values will be 

high, cslly to RPA. 

atltural resource program direzh 'on for this alternative includes ccolducting 

an average of 12,000 acres per year of project-relatea and mn-project 

surveys; developiq a bald evaluation and mitigatim prcgram involving 

the amidawe of impacts, --of-site and --of-project approaches: and 

develop- the formal "itoriq, protection, enhancement, and interpreettim 

aspects of the program. This l3inXtl 'on will slightly offset the increased 

threat to cultural v. 

AMN: (Maxlml . 'ze All Amenities) under this alternative, there will be a 19 

percent increase in disturbed ground, a 32 percent increase in sumner 

recreaticBl use, and a 15 percent reduction in AW. Wilderness acres will 

incmase 90 percent. The relative potential threat under this alternative 

will be the lowest of any alternative. 

under this alternative a formal non-project initiated supvey prcgram will be 

developed, resulting in an average of 45,000 acres per year of inventory, 

including project-related wcnk. Emluation and mitigatim will be pursued 

.. 

359 
through a balanced program of impact avoidance, --of-site, and 

*-of-project a"; formal m-project site protection and "itoririg 

efforts will be implementea. Bb"t and interpretive activities will be 

This dimzix 'on will further JX3dl.l- the low 

level of threat to cultural resources. 

AMB: This alternative will result in a 

24 percent innease in disturbed acres, a 63 percent increase in sumner 

recreation use, and a 5 percent reduction in livestock grazing. Wilderness 

acreage will increase 39 percent. The mall potential threat to cultural 

values will be low. 

Ths specifics of the cuJkural resources direclx 'on for this alternative 

include the exirrmna ' tim of 45,000 average annual acres of project and 

mn-poject inventory; an evaluatim and mitigation program based on a 

balance of impact midance and typ-of-site, --of-project approaches; 

formal site pMcm and "itoriq endeavo~~; and a special emphasis on 

cultural enhancement and interpretation. This 'on will 

further hce the lcw level of threat to cultural resources. 

developed as opprtunities arose. 

(Ebphas ize Wildlife ad Recreatian) 

Forest activities that have major effects on the diversity of vegetative 

seral stages include timber harvest, fire management, range manag-t, 

wildlife habitat management, recreatim management, and special designations 

such as wilcaernesS, Research Natural Areas, and Special Interest Areas. 

Cbnsequences of these activities are assessed in tenns of the amount am3 

distributiopl of wetatim in different successional stages. Data sources 

for this analysis include studies of species and vegetation types, forest 

managawnt prjnciples, management experience, and field observations. 

n!anagawnt and reoreatiap1. These elementS are not tracked by altemative 

since impacts are hard to quantify. In general, however, altwmatives with 

ths least potential for land disturbance and the lowest levels of recreaticn 

use will least affect these elements. 

Certain key diversity elmts are addressed other headings. Snags are 

dismssed un&x wildlife. Stream are discussed under fish. Riparian areas 

havethairownheadFng. 

Effects m cliffs, caves, and rock cutcrop are subject to *alS 

1. Size of ths mial timber base 

2. Newskiareas 

3. 

4. Wildfire 

Existhg old gmwth in suitable timber 

360 
5. 

6. Brushsubjecttodecadence 

7. 

8. 

9. 

The a”t of existhq old growth timber retained in each alternative will be 

related to the size of the comwcial timber base and to the acreage 

BIush rejuvenaticm for raqe and wildlife 

watsrshed improvenent (wet meaday probcticm) 

Wet meadows subject to accelerated erosicm 

Special designatims (wilderness, RMls, SIAs). 

deve1opedfco:newskiareas. mcarmercl .al timber management and ski area 

developnent entail the Cutt9l-g of trees. In the case of timber management, 

Mxi” wmd ecm retains forest lands in earlier wal stages. In the 

case of ski areas, harvested areas remain free of trees altogether. “Old 

growth” an the Inyo Naticnal Forest rafers to trees mre than 140 years old, 

with a diameter-at-bmast-bight (a) of app”ately 28 inches. The 

Forest currently has 199,275 acres of timber that meet this miterim. 

53,951 acres of that total are cm lands capable of camnercial timber 

pmdwtion and not withdrawn for other reasans suitable timber lands.(the 

tentatively suitable timber base). Wst of the remaining acres are in 

The a”t of brush subject to maturation is -ly proprtional to the 

amxlllt of vegetaticm treatment and the a”t of wildfire in that vegetaticm 

type. Vegetatiosl treamt and wildfire both can have a rejuvenatiq effect, 

as they older, mature vegetation and stimulate vigorous new growth. 

Brush becaues mature after apprrouma * tely 80 years. Cbxently the Forest has 

679,000 acres of brush, of which apFdaxlma ‘ tely 136,000 acres is already 

mature. Without tmahent, most of the remaining acres will be mature in 20 

to5Oyears. Fppraxlma ’ tely 6,800 acres will need rejuvenation annually to 

maintain a “I of 20 percent in the oldest seral stage. 

Large-scale brush vegetation treatmnts are not currently recormended on the 

Inyo. prescribed bums and wildfira have had inconsistent results. The 

success of a project is dependent 081 the pm-burn vegetation ccaditicas and 

vegetaticm cnmnmities that have pramial herbacems understories tend to 

respcold favorably to vegetation treatmmts that remove the shrub overstory. 

Ck”ities that have sparse prennial he.rbacecus understories do not, and 

are usually invaded by mdesirable shrub or annual exotics. Areas that will 

be subject to treamt are existing stands that have well-developed 

understories of perennial herbacecus vegetation. 

The amnmt of wet meadow subject to accelerated erosion is inversely 

pxprtional to watershed improvewnt work in wet meadows. Watershed 

vegetative anmring and the restoration of damaged soils with techniques that 

enable sediment to fill in scars fran past erosion. There are appnxchately 

26,000 acres of wet meadow on the Forest. Of these, approximately 23,500 

acres (& of that in the Golden Trout Wilderness) have been identified for 

watershed impmenat. 

existi.rgwilcla7Ess. 

climatic lxulditiors following the burn. 

ilp”nt entails the protection of elxdirg soils by StructIlIal and 

361 
Areas with special designaticms favor older seral stages of timber and brush, 

as active vegetation managemmt is not conducted in such areas. 

Assmpticns 

All alternatives include directl. 'on to meet "Um management requiremen ts 

vs camnn to AI1 Aztematives 

for diversity on a Forest-wide basis. 

The 400,100 acres of pinyon-junipx on the Forest will be affected very 

little by managenient activities in any alternative. 

Despite vegetation treatment and wildfire, the amxlnt of brush on the Forest 

is so large that most will be decadent by the end of the fifth decade under 

any alternative. 

The 145,324 acres of identified old-growth "ifemus forest in wilderness 

The 53,951 am of old growth in the tentatively suitable timber base will 

be subject to a shift toward earlier seral stages due to timber managemnt 

and/or ski area developnent (the a"t varies by alt-tive) . 

arad RNAs will follow eCQ10giCd procesSeS & all alteIll&i.VeS. 

coawquences that vary by Alternative 

The fo1lud-g figure is helpful in "tanc2h-g the effects of alternatives 

on vegetative seral stage diversity. 

Table 70 

Wcators of Effects m Seral Stage Diversity 

(by the end of the fifth aecade) 

Alternatives 

Carmercial timber base (Ma-) 75.2 89.1 99.2 97.6 61.8 69.8 

ncistixq old growth in suitable 

timber (M acres) 33.0 5.0 4.2 7.6 33.2 22.1 

Brush rejuvenation (M acres) 11.4 85.6 118.5 116.6 111.3 109.0 

Wildfire (M acres) 53.2 52.9 53.2 64.5 48.2 51.4 

Decadent brush (M acres) 615 541 508 498 519 519 

Wet meadow treatnent (M acres) 23.5 2.0 9.9 23.5 23.5 23.5 

Wet meadow subject to 

accelerated erosion (M acres) 0 93.0 13.6 0 0 0 

Wilderness/RwLs/SIAs (M acres) 864.4 769.2 661.6 982.1 1149.8 903.4 

362 
mi?: (Preferred) Shrubby vegetation will continue to mature and overall 

diversity to decline with the shift toward older seral stages, despite the 

effects of vegetation treatment and wildfire. Of total acreage in brush 

types, 75 percent will reach the oldest seral stage within five decades. 

Suitable timber lands will shift toward earlier successional stages and 

greater diversity due to timber manag-t. 

am: (chm-ent- ) Shrubby vegetation will continue to mature and 

overall diversity to decline with the shift toward older seral stages, 

despite the effects of vegetation treatment and wildfire. Of total acreage 

in brush types, 80 percent will reach the oldest seral stage within five 

decades. 

Suitable timber lands will shift toward earlier successional stages and 

greater dversity due to timber management. A small munt of wet mea& 

impruv-t will have occurred, leaving 93 percent of meadow acres vulnerable 

to accelerated erosion. 

RPA: (1980 RPA FTqr am) Shrubby Vegetation will continue to mature and 

overall diversity to decline with the shift toward older seral stages, 

despite the effects of vegetation treatment and wildfire. Of total acreage 

in brush types, 74 percent will reach the oldest seral stage within five 

decades. 

Suitable timber lands will shift taward earlier successional stages and 

greater diversity due to timber management. A mderate to low level of wet 

meadow improvement will have c"ed, leavirg 60 percent of meadow acres 

vulnerable to accelerated erosion. 

CEE: (Maximize Cost-Efficiency) Shrubby vegetatim will continue .to mature 

and overall diversity to decline with the shift toward older seral stages, 

despite the effects of vegetation treatment and wildfire. Of total acreage 

in brush types, 73 percent will reach the oldest seral stage within five 

decades. 

Suitable timber lands will shift tayard earlier Successional stages and 

greater diversity due to timber managmt. The full program of wet meadow 

will have occurred, leaving "e vulnerable to accelerated 

erosion. 

AMN: (Maximize all Amenities) Shrubby vegetation will continue to mature 

and -1 diversity to decline with the shift toward older seral staqes, -. 

despite the effects of vegetation treatment and wildfire. Of total acreage 

in brush types, 76 percent will reach the oldest seral stage within five 

decades. 

Suitable timber lands will shift bard earlier successional stages and 

greater diversity due to timber managaient. The a"t of exis- old 

growth in suitable timber will have declined 38 percent since 1982 due to 

timber management. The greatest impads on old growth will be found in 

Jeffrey pine, due to the large acreage managed. 

363 
The full program of wet meadow i"rement will have OcCuTTBd, leaKing - 

vulwable to accelerated erosion. 

AMB: (hphas ize Wildlife ad Recreatim) Shrubby vegetatia will continue 

to mature and mall diversity to decline with the shift toward older seral 

stages, despite the effcxts of vegetation treatment and wildfire. Of total 

acreage in brush types, 76 percent will reach the oldest seral stage within 

five decades. 

Suitable timbsr lands will shift tcward earlier successional stages and 

greater diversity due to timber management. The full program of wet meadow 

bp"mt will have OcCuITed, 1eavh-g rrme vulnerable to accelerated 

erosicm. 

ENERGY 

Int3mauch 'on 

The ptential eraergy sources addressed & this heading are hydzxelectric 

developnent and wind powar developnent: gee- enargy develapnent is 

discussed under the heading of Minerals. Forest activities that could affect 

resmrca management, fish habitat management, riparian area managment, 

watershed management, and wildetness recarmendatims. 

mea- 

-ties far energy develcpnsnt are recreation management, visual 

1. Management dir€ctl 'an 

2. Wilderness recomendatiohls. 

Maagen-ent directi on can emmuage and/or restrict energy developnent, 

found in the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines cu" to all alternatives, 

Managen-ent €"iptian dirwzh ", and resoulce ~orogram ~Frecticm unique to 

each alternative. 

Wilderness rea"%ticns have the potential to affect energy develapnent 

oppxhmities, as new energy Fapjects will not be considered inside 

wilderness. 

affrxtirq theopporhnu 'ties for such developnent. Management directl 'an is 

The Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines Mrm381 to all alternatives ccoltain 

the management dir%zkL 'cm nost likely to affect energy develapnent. 

Standards and Guidelines for energy developnent enaxLTage such develapnent to 

tlae deqea "nensurate with other resource values, and they direct the 

Forest to ccazsider energy pfqcsals on a case-by-case basis. Key Standards 

and Guidelines far other ~esc411ces (such as fish, water quality, soils, and 

visual quality) define the maximum acceptable inpact levels for those 

resoume values. Management Pmxxipticm direction and resauroe prcgram 

direction unique to each alternative rarely apply mre stringent standards to 

364 
those lands with identified ensrgy potential than the Forest-wide Standards 

and Guidelines. 

Wilderness recarmendaticns will have little effect 081 energy potential. my 

three I-rydroelectcic psqcsals (out of a total of 36) lie within FwAher 

~~antxing Areas, and all three lie close emugh to the Further PlW area 

hxrkhy to be easily excluded by a bcpnadary adjustment before wilcaemesS 

desigmticm if such exclusicm were desirable. The ciiiy wind-pwer pmposal 

received by the Forest aMmsses lands outside wilderness. Altbugh there 

have been m a~I~W2cmal prqxsals, potential has been suggested for the White 

wxnltains. ATen undar the altamative with the largest wilderness 

recarmendatlan, considerable Mgh-elevaticm acreage in the White Wnmtains 

will remain outside wilderness. 

Due to the assmpti- discussed atove, e ‘ties for new hydroelectric 

and wind pawer &velopnent are considered comrsl to all alternatives. 

FACILITIES 

Ei”mmM on facilities are discussed primarily in terms of 

loads and trails. Forest activities that affect Forest mad and trail 

OOnzStruCtion include timber management, rxxeatim management, and wilderness 

-ti-. c?msequences on other tvpes of facilities are mimr and 

will not vary fran one alternative to another. 

Indicators 

1. Miles of new road 

2. Miles of new trail 

3. Maintenance level. 

Forest roads provide access to the public for recreatrandl use and for wcd 

gathering. They also provide access for such Forest Service managmt 

activities as timber harvest, recreaticm developnent, fire -ion, and 

range administraticm. 

&sting trails serve primarily to provide hiker/equestrian access to 

wilderness and othar unroaded areas. Potential trails include minor 

additions in existing wilderness and impmved access for reoormended 

wilderness. There is an eqhasis an mn-wildemess trails to 

better distribute use and p%t resources in concentrated recreation areas, 

to attrad day use away fran wercrowded wilderness trails, to on 

existing opprhmities for dc skiing and OHV use, and to initiate 

opportunities for cyclists and the handicapped. In addition to new trail 

ConSbdm, certain ‘ key user-maintained trails in recormended wilderness 

will be added to the Forest trail system, hg~roved to meet standards, and 

assigned an appropriate maintenance level. 

365 
Forest roads and 'bails are a.S.im maintenance leVelS based Road 

Managenent Objectives awl the a"t of use they receive. If assigned 

maintenance levels are not met, the road and trail neM deteriorates, 

safety hazards arise, and canyirq capacity declines. 

As- 'cns 

Al- roads - for mineral and geothermal activities will af€ect 

mall access to some degree, they are not ircluded in this discussion. 

Mineral and energy roads are developed by privata parties .in respanse to 

specific min!3ralorenergyopparhnu 'ties. (l"tly. their locations 

cannot be meted and plbliC use of the roads may be discouraged or 

prdlibiw. 

Gd&xmal dsvelopers are required to maintain roads to existing standards 

withjn their lease areas. 'Ihe use of rcads by all mineral developers outside 

of their lease areas or claims requires a Special Use Permit wfiich will 

mtain language specifying road maintenance activities. 

camnn to All Alternatives 

The nsed far a visitor center to sfzve the Mono Basin Naticmal Forest Scenic 

Area was identified in the legislatim establishhq that area. That site 

will be LIrdex all alternatives. 

Mhar facilities include airstrips and heliports, borrcur and disposal sites, 

and darns. There are rn major issues or "cenxs related to these 

facilities, MT are they to change fran one alternative to another. 

Thirteen miles of new trail will be rxmstruw in existing wilderness under 

all alte2natiVe.s. 

Roads and trails will be recodlsteucted 081 a regular basis (approximately ome 

every twenty years) under all altf3Inatives. 

There will be negligible lwal road cxmstzucti081 under any alternative, as 

nkxt lcgging on the Forest uses over-- skidding methods and because a 

nekork of primitiva vehicle mtes already pMneates most suitable timber 

lands. 

-s that vary by Alternative 

Table 71 displays the effects of the alternatives on mads and trails by the 

end of the fifth decade. 

366 
Table 71 

IndicatQrs of Eff€€!ts cm Road and Wl svsterns 

(total miles - end of the fifth decade) 

New Trail Construction 

-existirg wi1- 

-recarmendedwilderness 

-"centratedrec. area 

dpen National Forest 

-0Hv 

Roads and trails 

maintained to assigned 

levels 

0 

87 

87 

13 

36 

180 

20 

36 

350 

635 

yes 

6 

40 

46 

13 

15 

0 

0 

0 

150 

178 

In 

21 

82 

103 

13 

0 

180 

20 

50 

275 

538 

yes 

21 

44 

65 

13 

60 

180 

20 

52 

400 

725 

yes 

0 

14 

14 

13 

66 

80 

20 

0 

250 

429 

yes 

0 

38 

38 

13 

56 

120 

20 

0 

300 

509 

yes 

PRF: (Preferred) A total of 87 miles of new Forest mads: will be 

under this alternative. These will be built to provide for 

recreatim site access. MDst of the new road will be fcmd in existing 

"entratd rexeation areas, but saw new sites will be developd cutside 

those areas as wall. 

There will be 635 miles of new trails created for a variety of uses. Mxk 

trails will be cmsku&& over the first two decades. There will be 36 

miles of trail in recarmended wilderness to provide for appropriate access 

while emphasizing the retention of each area's unique wilderness qualities. 

In addition to new trails, existing trails in "w&4 wilderness will be 

added to the Forest trail System and will receivB regular maintenaxe. The 

180 miles of trail in wrcentrated -tim areas and 20 miles in other 

areas of the Forest will serv~ primarily to disperse day users, protect 

-, especially in riparian areas, to provide oppxhnu 'ties for 

cyclists and the handicapped, and to attract day use away €ran overcrowded 

wilderness trails. Nordic ski trails will triple, and OHV trails will 

increase mdexately in respmse to increasing demand. 

The adition of roads and trails will be excellent, as all facilities will 

be n!ainm to assigned maintenance levels. 

367 
am (cbrKe3lt P -- ) A total of 21 miles of new Forest roads will be 

mbxctd uder this alternative to facilitate timber management in the San 

Joaquin and mnache areas in the fist two decades. Those roads will impmve. 

access to lands previously accessible dy on foot or by four-wheel drive 

vehicle, changing the type and amnmt of use miderably. There will be 1y3 

new developea recreatioll site access roads. 

There will be 178 miles of new trails created for a variety of uses. Most: 

new trails will be cc"ted over the first two decades. The 15 miles of 

traila in "x3ed wilderness will be located in the white Mnmtains, as 

that is the Further Planriiq Area with the greatest cpprtunities. The total 

trail mileage will be limited by budget restrictions in this alternative. In 

addition to new trails, existing trails in reoannended wilderness vvlll be 

added to the Forest trail systm. There will be m new trails in 

anwentrated recreatim areas or in open National Forest to disperse day 

-, prom resources, provide ogpxhmities for cyclists or the 

handim, or attract day use away fmn OvercrOwded wilderness trails. 

Nordic sM trails developed by the private sector under panit will nearly 

double in response to increas ing demand. 

Roads and trails will not be maintained to assigned maintenance levels, as 

this alternative has budget 1imitatic-m. overall condition will decline, 

carrying capacity will drop, and safety problems will arise. 

There will be 1y3 new OHV trails. 

RPA: (1980 RPA ) A total of 103 miles of new Forest mads will be 

m"xt& under this alternative. Timber manag-t will require a total 

of 21 miles of new road in the san Joaquin and milache areas in the first two 

decades. Those roads will imp" access to lands previouSly accessible only 

on foot or by four-wheel drive vehicle, charging the type and amnmt of use 

ccplsiderably. New develOpea recreaticsl site access will account for 82 miles 

of road. I&& of the rsw rcads will be found in existing concentrated 

recreation areas, but new sites will be developea cutside those areas as 

well. 

There will be 538 miles of nm trail created for a variety of uses: mxt new 

trails will be over the first two decades. The 180 miles of 

trail in ccslcentrated recreation areas and 20 miles in other areas of the 

Forest will serve primarily to disperse day users, prow resources, 

especially in riparian areas, tn provide 'ties for cyclists and the 

Mapped, and to attcact day use away fran OvercrOwded wildenless trails. 

Nordic ski trails will increase 150 percent and OIN trails will inorease 

substantially in reEpmse to increasing demand. 

The cordition of roads and tcails will be excellent, as all facilities will 

be maintained to assigned maintenance levels. 

CEE: (MaKimize Cost-EyfiCienCy) A total of 65 miles of new Forest rcads 

will be a"&d under this altematiVe. Timber n"g-t will require a 

total of 21 miles of new -road in the San Joaquin and khache mas in the 

first two decades. Those rcads will improve access to lands prwicusiy 

accessible cmly on foot or by far-wheel drive vehicle, changing the type and 

a"t of use ccnsiderably. New devahped recreation site access will 

368 
account for 44 miles of road; most of tb new road will be found in existing 

mxentmted "eation areas, lxlt new sites will be &?velapea outside those 

areas as well. 

There will be 725 miles of new trail cmated for a variety of uses. Most 

trails will be ccplstruded over the first two decades. The 60 miles of 

trails in reccmnended wilderness will lnxt1y be 1mted in the white 

"tairls andcoyote areas, as those are the Further PlaI-lniq Areas with the 

greatest - 'ties. In addition to new trails, existing trails in 

receive regular maintenance. 

The 180 miles of trails in cancen.trated recreatian areas and 20 miles in open 

National Forest will saxe primarily to disperse day users, proW resources 

(especially in riparian areas), to provide -&unities for cyclists and the 

handicapped, and to atkact day use away fran OvercrOwded wilderness trails. 

Nordic ski trails will mxe than triple and OHV trails will innease 

substantially in 

The etim of roads and trails will be excellent, as all facilities will 

be maintained to assigned maintenance levels. 

recQrmended wilderness will be added to the Forest trail system and will 

to increas ing demand. 

AMN: (Maxlrmze All Amenities) As m3.y fourteen miles of new Forest 

rwxeaticm roads will be ccmtzucted under this alternative, vehicle access 

will be little changed fran 1982. 

There will be 379 miles of new trails created for a variety of uses. Most 

trails will be amsbxcted over the first two decades. The 66 miles of trail 

in wilderness will nmt1y be locatpd in the white mtains and 

Coyote areas, as these are the Further P1ard.q Areas with the greatest 

-ties. In addition to new trails, existing trails in recarmended 

wilderness will be added to the Forest trail system and will receive wlar 

maintenance. The 80 miles of trails in amcentrated recreation areas and 20 

miles in 0p.n National Farest will serve primarily to disperse day users, 

ptect resources (especially in riparian areas), to provide opp3rtunities 

for cyclists and tha handicapped, and to attract day use away fm 

overcrowded wilderness trails. Nordic ski trails will increase substantially 

in resp3nse to increasing demand for that use; there will be ~3 new ow 

trails. 

Roads and trails will be in excellent amditim. All facilities will be 

maintained to assigned maintenance levels, as this alternative has m buclget 

ljmitations. 

.. 

AMB: A total of 38 mles of new Forest 

roads will be ccolstruded under this alternative for new developed recreation 

site access. All of the new road will be found in existing concentrated 

recreaticBl areas. 

There will be 509 miles of new trails mated for a variety of uses. Most 

new trails will be c"cted over the first ism decades. The 56 miles of 

trails in recormended wilderness will mostly be located in the white 

(hphas ize Wildlife and Recreation) 

369 
~tajnsandQyoteareas, as~aretheFurtherPl~AreaswithMe 

greatest qJprhmities. In addition to new trails, existing trails in 

recaive regular maintenance. The 120 miles of trails in czmenhted 

disperse day users. Ixmteet - (especially in rlpsnian areas). to 

use away fran overcrowded wilderness trails. 

reamed4 wildarness will be added to the Forest trail system and will 

remealdm areas and 20 miles in other Forest areas will s2Ne prhwily to 

m& - ‘ties fm cyclists and the handicam, and to attract day 

Nardic ski trails will innease 

171 percent in respcnse to the increasing demand for that use; there WILL be 

1y3 new cmv trails. 

Roads and trails will be in excellent dtim; all facilities will be 

maintatned to assigned maintenance levels. 

FISH 

mircdwzb ‘al 

Forest activities that have majur effects m fish habitat klude fish 

habitat management, watersbed management, energy devalopnmt, cn“ity 

devalopnent, sumner recreation use, and range management. 

Ccmsequ- of these activities are assessed in t- of resident fish 

habitat capability and censequent changes in fish prciiuction (nmbsr and size 

of fish). Data sources for this analysis include streambank stability 

surveys, fish habitat management principles, research, management literature, 

habitat capability models for selected indicator species, and professional 

judgment and experienca. Habitat capability xdels were used to assess 

species respsplse to management practices. Various resident trout (r-, 

~IC&, tnown, and golden tccut) were selected as indicator species for 

“itorkg changes in fish habitat: the mDst sensitive species in a given 

str€?am will be the indicator for that stream. 

Indicators 

1. Fish habitat hp”nt 

- Threatened trout habitat 

- Golden ’Ilrout Wilderness habitat 

- C”trated recreatiosl areas 

- ReWatering Of dewatered Streams 

2. Watershed imp”ent work in wet meadows 

3. IXnEsta ‘c livestock grazirg 

4. 

5. 

6. DevelOpeasumnerrecreatimuse. 

The effect of each altemative m fish habitat capability &pads primarily 

an the amxlnt of fish habitat hp”mt in streams. Fish habitat 

Energy devalopnent (hyazoelectric and geothermal) 

cn”l ‘ty growth (using alpine ski area capacity is an indicator) 

370 
improvemnt includes the re"l of stream barriers, st~~ctural impm-ts 

(such as weirs and check dam), and the mal of undesirable fish (in the 

case of golden trout habitat). 

Fish habitat hp"3t projects are praposed for streams in threatened 

trout habitat, in the Golden Trout Wilderness, and in concentrated recreation 

areas. The rewatering of streams currently dewater& for hydnxlxtric 

projects will reclaim additional fish habitat. 

watershed improvemnt in wet meadows erosicol and sedimentation, 

thereby fish habitat. noded streambanks and excessive 

sdimntation m primary fish habitat problems in the Golden Trout 

Wilderness. Watershed bp"ent canplementS the fish habitat ~~t 

lrmgram in that wilderness, enhanuq ' the annunt and condition of fish 

habitat in associated streams. 

While fish habitat improvement and watershed improvement can increase fish 

habitat capability; livestock grazing, energy devlopnent, ski area 

developnent (as a stimulus for cnnnunity growth), and developed sumner 

recreation use have the potential to red~~ce that capability. 

LivestaA spend a di- "ate "nt of time in riparian areas. 

Livestock can denude &manbrh of protective vegetation, damage streamhank 

stnlh, and cause sedimentatiosl of stream channels with corresponding 

adverse effects on fish habitat quality and quantity. The magnitude of 

effects de- on the a"t of grazing and the extent of ptxtive 

mitigation measures applied. 

Hydrcelectric power developnent removes water fran streams, thereby 

eliminating or reducing the a"t of fish habitat. Cimcern about the 

impacts of new hydroelectric developnent is greatest where existing fishing 

use is greatest, primarily in -txated recreation areas in the Sierra 

Nevada. 

Same types of ge&henml power plants rely on cold water to supply 

evaporative cooling tawerS. This cold water can be dram fran surface 

facilities drew 081 surface water sources to meet all or part of those needs, 

the amxnTt of geothnml developnent will be expected to affect water 

availability far fish (these effects will be mitigated to the extent that 

groundwater sources were used instead of surface water). There is also the 

psibility that spills fran Wen pipes could pollute surface water. The 

potential impacts of ge&herml activities 081 Hot CYeek are of particular 

cz", as Hot creek is a desiQnated wild trout stream in the general 

sxmrces, g-J"hter salrces, or recycled fm cooling panas. If geothennal 

vicinity of prrrFosed !gstkma deva2opnent. 

Cin"ities 081 the north end of the Forest are closely tied to the alpine ski 

inCktcy. Increases in alpine ski area capacity stirmilate population growth 

and, consequently, increase the demand for municipal water supplies. The 

"nt of water available for fish declines to the extent that increased 

municipal demand is mt by surface water sources. Due to the relationship 

between alpine skiing and ccnnnmity size, ski area capacity can be used as an 

(If groundwater is used as a &msstx .C 

water SOUTCB, inpacts on fish habitat will be mitigated. ) 

indicator of impacts on fish habitat. 

371 
Developed reaxation sites are typically located near streams or lakes, and 

the amunt of overall recreation use is concentrated in the area served by 

those sites. Developed site use is, therefore, an indicator of overall 

remeation use in the vicinity of lakes and Streanr;. Heavy recreation use 

tends to result in trampled riparian vqetaticm, carrpacted soils, eroded 

streambanks, andincreased stream channel sedimentation, all of which are 

detxhsntal to fish habitat capability. In additicm, resident tmut 

papulations near developed recreation sites are subject to depletion by heavy 

fistiing pressure. 

The demand for water to serve geothermal activities in Lease Blocks I and 11 

and for municipal use in wth Lakes will have mlative effeds on 

designated wild bmut waters in Hot Creek. 

Rewatering of stream and fish habitat/watershed improvement projects have 

the greatest potential to iIIpnm3 the overall quality and quantity of 

resident fish habitat on the Inyo. 

Habitat hp”nt pjects will take place alnrast entirely in streams. 

Habitat iq”ent for lakes is not a major cansideratim since lake water 

quality is geed overall, and most lakes on the Forest are within wilderness. 

Activities associated with timber harvest will have few impacts on fish. 

There are few stream in suitable timber, and as most lcgging is conducted 

wer the 9y3w, soil mion and sedimentaton are minimized. 

The vast majority of fim on the Forest takes place in waters steckd by 

the California Demnt of Fish and Gam. The stocking ~apgram is Outside 

the ccmbl of the Forest Service. It is therefore assmi& for analysis 

that stocking will remain omstant, and that only resident trout 

habitat, which is subject to FareSt management, will charge. 

The effects of livestock on fish habitat can be mitigated by reducing the 

amunt of time spent by livestock in streamside areas. This can be 

accanplished by fencing, salting, herding, water developnent, or deferring 

grazm. 

All XLmtim include FO&-wide Standards and Guidelines. Management 

Prescription and Management Area Direction which assure that, as a 

viable p3pulatims of all resident fish species will be maintained xi 

threatened trout will be “aged to at least meet recovery levels. Best 

Managment Pradices (Ws) and other protective measures are prescribed to 

mtml soil erasion and prutect water quality, mitigating potential fish 

habitat losses due to FareSt activities. 

Habitat iqmwwnt in ccmcentratsd recreation areas is assLnned to increase 

habitat capability. ’Rose inneases could, -, be offset by habitat 

1osseSduetoincreased recreation use of riparian areas. 

372 
Lake fish habitat capability will be ccostant urder all alternatives: only 

stream habitat is cvnsichred for i”ent. 

All potential fish habitat bpmmmznt in ths Golden Trout Wilderness (31 

miles) will be accanplished urder all alternatives. 

hy&celectric licenses under all alternatives. 

The likelihmd of energy caevelopnent is assunEd to be the same under each 

EffcartS Will be made to reWater fifteen miles Of Stream wkn iw 

alternative. There are fifteen applicaticns for new hy&celectxic projects 

cB1 FareSt -, SQne Of which CXd3i.n tmUt. mt in LeBlocks I and I1 north of Mamnooh Lakes p~&6.& for g€&hIlMl exploratim and 

developnent. Any aeVelopnent in that area poses a potential threat to Hot 

(seek wild trcut fisheries. Mditional prcpsals for geothermal leas- will 

be analyze3 on a case-by-case basis. 

AlthDugh ove?xll grazirg r-mlhrs vary by altsmative, most increases are 

pmjected for lands located away from sensitive fish habitat. Grazing in the 

Golden Trout Wilderness, CDBlCentrated recreaticn areas, and threatened trout 

habitat are expected to be rovgNy equal for all alternatives. 

Fotential wild txcut d” will mt be adversely affected by managwent 

activities urder any alternative. 

Threatened Lalwntan and Paiute cutthroat trauts will be managed to at least 

meet rfxmveq under all alternatives. 

Any activities that will affect water quality (sea Watershed: Water) will 

also affect fish habitat. 

-‘IhatvaryBy Altenntim 

Tables 72 and 73 display the effects of Forest activities on fish habitat 

capability by alternative over the next fifty years. 

373 
Table 72 

Indiratans of consequareS cn Fish Witat 

(by the ed of the fifth decade) 

Base Alternatives 

Livestockgrazcng 41.4 41.4 39.1 55.6 46.5 35.1 39.4 

(M Am) 

sl”=r deve.loped 

rezreaticm (M RWs) 1.8 2.9 1.9 2.9 2.9 1.9 2.7 

Watershed improvenent 

(M acres) 0 23.5 2.0 9.9 23.5 23.5 23.5 

imp”ent (acres) 

Fish habitat 

-direct i”vewlt 0 243 178 286 317 257 279 

-*-It induced 

franwatx3xhedvKJrk 0 227 27 131 304 304 304 

-notalinpmvenen t 0 470 205 417 621 561 583 

Table 73 

Fish Witat Inprwement by flteznatiw 

(by the ad of the fifth decade) 

~irect stream fish habitat imp”ent (acres) 

-c”.ntrated mcreaticm 

areas 0 137 72 180 211 134 156 

-GoldenT?xmtWilderness 0 56 56 56 56 56 56 

-threatened trout 

habitat 0 23 23 23 23 40 40 

-rewater- dewatered 

stream3 0 27 27 27 27 27 27 

Fish habitat nt induced €ran WatW23hd hpmV€ili€?nt hl Golden Trout 

Wilderness 

(StCeEnn acres affected) 0 227 27 131 304 304 304 

Stream trout (M pcinXb) 

- Other than T&E 132.0 174.0 151.0 173.0 189.0 179.0 182.0 

- (Tal 0.1 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.2 

ForeSt-wide change in stream fish habitat CaPabiLity 

N/A +32% +15% +31% +44% +36% +39% 

374 
PRF: (Preferred) Fish habitat and watershed inpavexent projects mll 

increase stream habitat capability 32 percent. Fishing and hipacts 

on resident trout habitat will incarease considerably on stream reaches in 

cm-xxntxated recreation areas in proportion to the 57 percent increase in 

sllmner developea recreation use. 

Inpacts related to livestock grazing will increase due to the nine percent 

increase in rqe cutputs. 

The net effect of beneficial and adverse effects on fish habitat will be a 

moderate improvement in habitat condition and a cov ' -ate 

hpxmmmt in recreaticolal fishing quality. 

m: (current- ) Fish habitat and watershed impnxrement projects will 

increase stream habitat capability 15 percent. Fishing pressure and impacts 

on resident trout habitat will remaul ' the same an streamreaches in 

cm-xxntrated recreation areas due to the lack of increased sumner developed 

recreation use. 

nearly double the current demand for -tic water supplies. 

Inpacts related to livestock grazing will increase slightly. Although 

outputs will decline over five decades, the adjusbnent of animal nu" will 

lag behind declining range dtion, forcing livestock to graze in riparian 

areas mre than uley do at present. 

The net effect of beneficial and adverse effects on fish habitat will be a 

-ate red~~ckicm in habitat dtim and a co- derate 

reduction in recreational fishing quality, due primarily to impacts 

associated with jnxeas& livestock grazing. 

CamNIity grawth in support of 39,000 m will represent 

RPA: (1980 RPA ) Fish habitat and watershed hpmvewnt projects 

will increase stream habitat capability 31 percent. Fishing pressme and 

impacts cm resident trout habitat will increase considerably on stream 

reaches in CcBlcentrated recreation areas in proprtion to the 57 percent 

increase in sumner aevelopea r%Xeation use. 

46,000 SADT will re-t nrxe than twice the current demand for municipal. 

water supplies. 

Impacts related to livestock grazing will inr;rease due to the 34 percent 

inaease in range outputs. 

The net effect of beneficial and adverse effects on fish habitat will be a 

substantial - 'on in habitat condition and a ' reductionin 

recreaticmal fishing quality, due to impacts associated with dramatically 

camnnsitygrowthinsupportof 

cxlmcaity". 

CEE: (Maximize Cost-Efficiency) Fish habitat and watershed hpmmwnt 

projeds will irmease stream habitat capability 44 percent. Fiand impads on resident trout habitat will increase considerably on 

stream reaches in ccmxntxated remeation areas in proprtion to the 57 

percent increase in surmrer aevelopea recreation use. -tygmwthin 

375 
support of 61,000 SPDT will represent three times the cuzrent demand for 

municipal watix supplies. 

Impacts related to livestcck grazing will inc- due to the 12 percent 

increase in range outputs. 

The net effect of beneficial and adverse effects on fish habitat will be a 

slight imprWement in habitat condition and a co- ' slight 

iqxovemnt in recreational fishing quality. 

AMN: (- A11 Amenities) Fish habitat and watershed imp"ent 

projects will inueasa stream habitat capability 36 percent. Fishkg 

pres- and inpacts on resident .trout habitat will main the same on stream 

reaches in omcentrated recreation areas in proprtion to the lack of 

increase in sumner aevelopea recreation use. eel" 'ty growth in support of 

31,000 SADT will represent a 50 percent increase over the current demand for 

municipal water supplies. 

Impacts related to livestock grazing will decline due to the 15 percent 

reduction in range outputs. 

The net effect of beneficial and adverse effects on fish habitat will be a 

substantial imprwement in habitat cadition and a comeqmduq . hp"t 

in recreatioplal fishing quality. 

.. 

AMB: (Ehph3.S Wildlife and Recreaticn) Fish habitat and watershed 

imprwement projects will increase stream habitat capability 39 percent. 

Fishirg pressure and inpacts on resident trout habitat will increase 

nuderately m stfeam reaches in CCBlcentratea recreation areas in proportion 

to the -ty growth in supprt of 43,ooO SAOT will represent mre than twice the current 

demand for eklwstl 'c water supplies. 

Inpacts related to livestock grazing will decline due to the five percent 

50 percent increase in sumner developd recreation us8. 

in range cutpts. 

The net effect of beneficial and adverse effects on fish habitat will be a 

&ate inp"mt in habitat ccsldition and a co"bq ' &ate 

hpmvemnt in recreational fishing opportunities. 

FuRRIERpLA"IEx:m 

The Forest act.i.de that has the greatest potential effect on Further 

Planning ?ueas is the reamnendaticpl of wildezlless designation or 

rcn-wiMemes xesouxe management (including, for example, timber 

"gment, intensive range managenent, wildlife habitat management, 

vehicle-based mcreatim, and energy and "xal exploration and develapnent) 

far specific FlJrum? Planning Areas. 

376 
The ccgwquences of these recarmendaticos ate c3qresd in ternrs of the 

integrity, ~t~~al appararxa, -tias for solitude, and opprhnu 'ties 

for prhitive recreatiopl) and the rwn-wilderness management and developnent 

op, 'tiesinthoseareas. 

Data sources for this analysis include --specific information Colledea as 

part of the RARE I1 study, planning records fran the 1983-84 mevaluatim of 

Roadless Areas, the Forest data base, "randa and co- files, 

Forest resour~e hV'elltO?&?S, the FDFK" allalFiS, and profeSSiCQal bledge 

and judgment about Further Planning Areas on the Forest. 

The following discussion addresses the amsequences of altanatives on the 

eighteen Furths P1armit-g Areas on the Forest, taken as a whole. Effects are 

examiwd in tarrns of effects both on wilderness characteristics and on 

m-wilderness resources and oppxtmities in those areas. me ~ences 

Of each altarnative on iradividllal Further PlaImiq Areas are discussed in 

detail in Appem3X c. 

Indicatars 

1. Selected resource outputs 

2. Manag-t ?'rescriptiom (Ex) applied. 

selected 

(WilaerneSS ntim IWk) Versus potential m-wi1d-S Outputs (such as 

timber WBF ~X~~wilderness IE?cTeaticBI RVDS) for Further Plw Areas 

wildarness CharaCteristiCS Of Further Planning hX?aS (MtLXd eCOlC@Cal 

outputs are an jndication of potential wildenless outputs 

taken as a whole. 

The varicm Managenent Prescriptions applied to Roadless Areas under 

different alternatives are a broad indicatim of potential consequences on 

the wilderness characteristics of those areas. Prescripticm describe the 

resnmxs aphasized and the standards and guidelines that apply to specific 

areas of land. For purposes of this discussion, Managamat Prescriptions 

have been grouped into four catepries: 

1. Wilderness Prescriptions: The Propeed Wilderness Prescription (Rx #2) 

applied to recomnended wildaness areas with the assmption that the 

Designated Wilderness ?'rescription (Ihr #1) will be applied once Corgess 

has acted on the recarmendation. Rx #1 prwides for primitive recreaticm 

use while enmrirg the perpetuatim of wilderness characteristics. 

Vehicular travel, mtorized equipwnt, timber harvest, road building, new 

mineral claims, energy developnents, and most vegetation manipulation 

will be prohibited in designated wilderness. Grazing and existing 

mineral claims will be r-qulated to minimize conflicts with wilderness 

values. Even the a"nt of wilderness recreation use will be limited as 

lpescription applied until Corgres designates the area, provides for 

traditimal uses of the area while protecting wilderness values until 

designatim has occurred. 

necessary to protect wilaemess resources. Rx #2, an interim management 

Values: Managmt 

Prescriptions #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, and #17%11 be expected b have 

2. Managmt Prescriptions izing Ameni 

few adverse effects on wilderness characteristics. 

377 
3. 

4. 

Natural ecological integrity will be affected cmly by vegetaticm 

trea-t for wildlife habitat enhancenent. Sua treatments appmxhate 

~t~~al pmc&ses, however, and the ecological effects are temporary (20 

to 70 years) arid lccalized. The natural appeara~~e of acres in these 

areas is likely to change cmly slightly. The visible impacts of mineral 

activity and vegetation treatments will be tenporary and/or localized. 

-ties far solitude will be rdua in proprticm to overall 

ccpasentrated recreation areas will receive the greatest impact. 

present. As M new roads will be built, the current mix of fcur-wheel 

increases in dispersed remeation cm the Farest. ThDse areas adjacent to 

Cpprhmities for primitive recreation will not charge mch fm the 

drive and run-mbrized -tion will be expest& to mntinue. 

Management prescn 'pticms Eqhasi zing mtGlted Recreation Use: 

Management -iptim #12, #13, #14, #15, and #16 allm for road and 

facility developnent and invite heavy visitation. They also prwide a 

moderate-bhigh level of visual quality proection. 

These prescriptions will have the greatest effects on opporhnv 'ties for 

solitude, due to .the h-hmity and density of recreation use. Effects on 

natural intqriw and primitive recreation opprhnu 'ties will also be 

noted as r" rads and facilities were developed and land c2isturbed. 

Effects cm naM appearance will be mdified by stringent Visual 

wity Objectives under nnst of these prescriptions. The alpine ski 

area prescriptian will have the greatest effect on M+J.U~ appearance. 

Managmt prescriptim Ehphas izing Ccmnxb 'typroduction: Management 

prescriptim #9, #lo, #11 and #18 allow for road building, energy and 

mineral develcpwnt, timbet hatvest, and vegetation manipulation for 

range i"en t. 

Natural integrity and natural appearance will be affected to the extent 

that land-disturbing activities actually cccur. The amnmt of actual 

acreage managed for timber prcducticm will represent a large percent of 

total acres under Timber Prescriptions. The amxlllt of actual Range 

treatmnt uder the Rarge Prescription or "l developnent & the 

Multiple Resource Area Presmipticm will probably be mall in Oanparisun 

with the tatal acreage under those Kescriptions. Opprtunities for 

solitude will not be greatly reduced under these prescriptions. 

Qxma3ty management dDes not tend to hcxease human use except in a 

temporary and locdlized manner. The greatest potential impacts of these 

prescriptions will be the loss of primitive recreation opprtunities on 

any lands accessible by new roads. Qxe vehicle access is established or 

imprmred, the character of use in the area SNed by that access shifts 

noticeably away fm the primitive. 

The coa~sequences of alternatives on Fbrther Plarmiq Areas are projected for 

the end of the fifth decade. The timirg of changes leacling up to that point 

are not especially important since significant effects on wilderness 

c%aracteristice are irrevers ible, the lag-term picture is the critical one. 

378 
It is asswed, due to the relationships discussed atme, that Manag-t 

Prescriptions that allow or @de for road building, land disturbance, 

vegetation manipulation, and/or CcBlcentrated human use will have the most 

a&- effects on the wilderness characteristics of Roadless Areas. It is 

also assLrmed that, if rrm-wilderness use and developnent oprhnities are 

available in Roadless Areas, they will actually take place. 

It is also assun& that prescriptions with an amenity emphasis represent a 

low probability of adverse effects on wilderness characteristices. The 

designated Wilderness prescll 'ption is assLrmed to represent the highest level 

of protedicm for such characteristics. These assmptions apply only in 

general terms. 

Although road building is allowed under many Prescriptions, the actual nmbr 

of road miles will pKcbab1y he limitecl by steep topgmptly and econanic 

consideratiom. The "br of acres & such prescriptions is, therefore, 

only a broad and indirect indicator of total miles of road likely to be 

consmctd on ttnse acres. 

Likewise, altbugh vsgetaticsl maniplation for range or wildlife may be 

pennitted or enwuraged & a given prescxiption, the amnmt of treatment 

is likely to be limited by technical feasibility and ecoxmic considerations. 

Althrmgh "zal developnent is permissible under most prescriptions, the 

amnmt and location of such developnent is very difficult to predict 

accurately. The location and extent of the IIFJSOUTCB and the relevant 

eccormic variable are highly speculative. 

There are always site-specific exceptions. 

As shown in Table 74, 

do rot differ greatly fnrn me alternative to another. This fact reflects a 

low level of COrmDdl 'ty ~c6-1 potential in such areas on a Forest-wide 

basis. Individual areas have pxkets of land suitable for timber managemnt, 

intensive range management, or intensive wildlife management, but ram of the 

Further Planniq Areas have alpine ski area or sumner developea site 

potential. See Fppendix C for a display of outputs for idiviclual areas. 

'ty resource outputs fm Further Plal-Elhg Areas 

379 
Table 74 

(average annual outputs - fifth decade) 

selected Resouece outprts for Planning Areas Taken as a Wle 

Alternatives 

output PRF (XIR RPA CEE AMN AMB 

172.6 

451.2 

0 

35.5 

15.5 

42.8 

9.6 

0 

0 

0 

1.9 

0.6 

1.3 

107.6 

516.2 

0 

37.0 

14.0 

42.6 

10.3 

0 

0 

0 

1.9 

0.6 

1.3 

0 

623.8 

0 

46.4 

0 

43.7 

10.4 

1.1 

0.1 

0.7 

2.0 

0.6 

1.4 

339.8 

284.0 

0 

7.9 

56.3 

36.3 

8.5 

0 

0 

0 

2.2 

0.8 

1.4 

510.8 

113.0 

0 

2.5 

72.5 

34.5 

8.1 

0 

0 

0 

2.1 

0.7 

1.4 

222.7 

401.1 

0 

15.7 

39.1 

35.1 

9.6 

0 

0 

0 

2.0 

0.6 

1.4 

380 
Alt€ZllatiVeS 

ManagI3En tPrescriptian(Rx) PRF (I1R RPA CEE AMN AMB 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

Designated Wilderness 0 0 0 0 

Proposed Wilderness 172.6 107.6 0 339.8 

"tairlskep 30.1 27.1 0 0 

Mule Deer 13.8 0 0 9.0 

Research Natmal Area* 11.8 11.8 11.8 3.3 

(8.5) 

wxxi Basin NF scenic Area* 4.8 4.8 4.8 0 

(4.8) 

Ancient Bristlecone Pine 22.3 22.4 22.41 16.4 

Forestx 

Wild and scenic River 

Vneven-aged Timber w. 

High Level Timber P@t. 

-I-w 

CaM'Rntrated Rec. Area 

Alpine ski Area 

potential Alpine ski Area 

Developed Rec. Site 

Dispersed Recreation 

Semi-primitive 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 1.1 

2.0 35.8 41.9 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

(6.0) 

0 

0 

0 

2.4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

510.8 

0 

12.1 

0 

(11.8) 

(4.8) 

16.4 

(6.0) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1.5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

222.7 

27.1 

13.0 

8.5 

(3.3) 

(4.8) 

22.4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1.5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Recreation 305.1 163.1 57.0 5.6 83.0 309.4 

Multiple Resource Area 121.2 251.2 484.89 247.3 0 24.3 

*Acres with dual designation (Koposed wilderness and RNA, Scenic Area, etc.) 

are displayed in the acreage total for -iaon #2 and indicated in 

parenthesea under the other applicable prescription. 

381 
PRF (Preferred): In this alternative, 28 perent of tatdl am in Further 

Planning Areas will be recarmended for wil-, resultirg in 38 percent of 

Of the four Further Plannirg Areas “md& for wildemass the area mst 

likely to be affected by wildezness designaticm will be the white r4nmtajl-l 

area. Opprhmities for wilderness recmatim in that area are mate, and 

trail-buila cppctum ’ties are available. Fecreaticn use will therefore be 

expctd to increase, and -ties for solitude to decrease sanewhat 

under wilderness designation. The Ticqa Lake and Table Mxmtain areas are 

already seen by the general public as part of existing wildernesses: use of 

those areas will be expected to increase under wilderness designation, but 

overall changes will be slight. The Paiuk-Mamurka afea cumntly recaives 

little use, and due to tbe lack of water in that area little increase in use 

will be expzted. 

Management Prescxipticns with an enghasis on dty values will be applied 

to 52 percent of Firther Plannixq Ateas. Wilderness characteristics on such 

acres will be expected to charge very little by the end of the fifth decade. 

Managenent- ‘pticns with an enghasis m corrm3dl ’ty proaldim and ease of 

access will be applied to 20 peroent of Further Planning Areas. wilderness 

charaderistics in these areas could be reduced over the plannirg horizan; 

opprtmities for solitude will be tbe characteristic that will be the least 

charged, as these prescriptions dD not faster intense visitation. 

total FareSt lands under wilderness Wgnatim. 

aJR: (aurrent prosram ): In this alternative 17 percent of total acres m 

Furber Planniq Areas will be for wlldim-ess, resulting in 35 

percent of total Forest lands under wilderness designation. 

Of the two Further Planning Fu-eas recarmended for wildemess, the area mt 

likely to be affected by wilderness designation will be the white hmtain 

area. Cpprtunitiies far wilderness recreation in that area are mate, and 

kail-builw cpp*tieS are available. R€Creation use will therefore be 

expected to -, and opprhsities for solitude to decrease sonewfiat 

under wilderness designation. The Paiute area currently receives little use, 

and (due to the lack of water in that area) little increase in use will be 

expeded. 

Management Pmasmiptions with an en@asis on a” ’ty values will be applied 

to 37 percent of Further Planning Areas. Wilderness characteristics on such 

acres will be expected to chaqe very little by the end of #e fifth decade. 

Management Pmasmiptions with an emphasis on “XTL ‘ty prcduction and ease of 

access will be applied to 46 percent of Further Plannirg Areas. Wilderness 

characteristics in these areas could be reduced over the planning horizon; 

cpprtuties far solitude will be the characteristic that will be the least 

charged, as these prescriptions a0 not foster intense visitation. 

302 
RPA (1980 RPA Progam ): In this alternative, 1y3ne of the acreage in Mer 

planrrhq Areas will be recarmended for wilderness. &is- wilderness 

rep-ts 30 percent of total Forest lands. 

Management Prescriptions with an a@asis on amenity values will be applied 

to 15 percent of Further Planning Areas. Wilderness characteristics in such 

acres will be expected to change very little by the end of the fifth decade. 

Managenent prescriptions with an emphasis on “KXII ‘ty plxduction and ease of 

access will be applied to 85 percent of Further Planning Areas. wilderness 

characteristics in these areas could be reduced over the planning horizon; 

opportunities for solitude will be the characteristic that will be the least 

changed, as these prexxiptions do not foster intmse visitation. 

CEE (- Cost-Efficiency): In this alternative 54 percent of total 

acres in Ek-ther Plar”g Areas will be “enk3 for wildemess, resulting 

in 47 percent of total Forest lands under wilderness designation. 

Of the six Further planning Areas recormended for wilderness, the areas mst 

likely to be affected by wilderness designation will be Coyote southeast and 

White muntains. aUrent use in the coyote southeast area centers on 

four-wlleel drive access. That type of use will be limited to road corridors 

in this alternative. prirmtive recreation opprtunities in the area are 

rmderate, and will increase a~lce vehicle-based recreation was excluded. 

opportunities for wilderness recreation in the White are derate, 

and .trail-building ’ties are available. Recreation use will 

therefore be expwted to increase, and opprhmities for solitude to decrease 

sonewhat under wilderness designatim 

The Laurel-McGee, Tiqa Lake, Hall, and LCCJ Cabin-Saddlebag areas are already 

seen by the general public as part of existing wildernesses: use of those 

areas will be med to increase wilderness designatim, but overall 

change3 will be Slight. 

Management Frescripticm with an emphasis on amenity values will be applied 

to 5 percent of Further Planning Areas. Wilderness characteristics on such 

acres will be expected to change very little by the fifth decade. 

Managwt Prescriptions with an a@asis on “rfh ‘ty prcduction and ease of 

access will be applied to 41 percent of Further Planning Areas. Wilderness 

characteristics in these areas could be reduced over the planning horizon. 

Oppalxties for solituds will be the characteristic that will be the least 

dmqed, as these prescripticm do not fester intense visitation. 

.. 

IiMN (Maximize All Amenities): In this alternative 82 percent of total acres 

in Further Plw rea as will be recomnended for wilderness, resultiq in 

56 peroent of total Forest lands under wilderness designation. 

Of the twelve Further Plw Areas recomnended for wilderness, the areas 

most likely to be affected by wilderness designation will be the Coyote 

southeast and White mtain areas. (See the CEE effects on Coyote listed 

ahnre. ) 

383 
The Table Wtain, Wheeler Ridge, Tioga Lake, Hall, and Lcg Cabin-Saddlebag, 

areas are already seen by the general public as part of eKisting 

wildernesses; use of those areas will be expected to increase under 

wilderness designatim, but mall changes will be slight. 

The Buttamilk, Horse Meadow, Benton me, hirews muntain, and Paiute 

areas currently receive little use. The lack of recreational attractions 

and/or lack of water will prevent use from increasing substantially under 

wilderness designatim. 

Managesent Prescriptions with an emphasis m amenity values will be applied 

to the radnirg 18 percent of Ruther Planning Areas. Wildemess 

characteristics on such acres will be expected to change very little by the 

end of the fifth decade. 

(mphas ize Wildlife and Recreatian): In this altanative 36 percent of 

total acres in Further Planning Areas will be for wilderness, 

resultirg in 41 prcent of total Forest lands mder wilderness designation. 

Of tbe six Further Planning Areas recarmended for wilderness, the area rnost 

likely to be affected by wilderness designation will be the White Mnmtajn 

area. CQ" 'ties for wi1deme.s~ recreaticn in that area are moderate, am3 

trail-building opportuou 'ties are available. Recreation use will therefore be 

expectedto- ,andq,. 'ties for solitude to dexease scmewfiat 

under wilderness designatim. 

The Westam third of Coyote Wtheast, Laurel-W, Ticga Lake, and Log 

Cabin-Saddlebag areas are already seen by the general public as part of 

existing wildernesses: use of those areas will be expected to increase under 

wilderness designatim, but overall changes will be slight. 

The Paiute-Mazourka area currently receives little use, and (due primarily to 

a lack of water) little haease in use will be expected. 

Management Prescriptions with an -is M amenity values will be applied 

to 61 percent of Further Planning Areas. Wilderness characteristics an such 

acres will be expcted to me very little by the fifth decade. 

Managemat Prescripticns with an emphasis on COrmDdl 'ty production and ease of 

access cculd be applied to 3 percent of Fbrther Planning Ateas. Wildemess 

characteristics in these areas will be reduced over the planniq horizon; 

opportunities far solitude will be the characteristic that will be the least 

cham@, as these prescriptions do not foster intense visitation. 

GmulGY 

Infzdwztl 'on 

Those el-ts of the geologic msxra subject to cimseq~emes under the 

alternatives are groundwater, mineral materials, Outstandrng ' geol@c 

features, and geolcgic active within the Forest boundary. Forest 

activities that cculd affect geolqic resources include facility 

384 
-In, gedhama energy prabcticn, recreatian management, and 

clmseql- of these activities are assessed in terms of the availability of 

wildarness recorrmendatlans. 

and "pticm rate for gnxu-dwater, the pmtect5cm afforded to outstanding 

geologic features, and the level of risk to Forest users fran geologic 

Ipocesses. Wal mamals are dim under the heading of M.inerals. 

Data sources for this analysis include an inventory of geologic hazards on 

the Inyo Naticmal Forest, an inventory of cc"gh 've water use 081 the Inyo 

Naticnal Forest, and the projected outputs for these elments under each 

alternative. 

Indicatars 

1. Gmwdwater 

- -thermal developnent 

- ski area aevelopnent 

- Recreation site darelopent 

- ca"ity size. 

2. ou- ' geologic features 

- Special interest area candidates 

- Wilderness "ET&tions. 

3. Geologic processes (Slope stability an3 seismic precesses) 

- New road 

- a&henml developnent. 

Recreatimal facility use, ski area use, geothermal pawer prcduction, and 

haneandbusiness~ 'on within cumumities are the major sources of 

demand for groundwa- c"pb 'on which could be expected on the Irryo 

NatianaZ Forest C7uring the next 50 years. The demand for groradwater to 

supply ski areas, nxxeaticm sites, and geothermal sites will be pmpox-timal 

to the anwunt of developnent. The demand for water to supply camunities 

will be roLlghly prqxrh. 'cnal to alpine ski area capacity, as the camunities 

with the greatest potential need for water fmn owForest groundwater sources 

are those with the greatest eszmanl 'c de- on alpine skiing. 

Geothermal power plants represent a wide range of possible water "ption. 

Clxxsmption can range fmn "e at all (for a small power plant) to 

app"ate1y 3,100 ac-ft/year for a very large power plant supplying all of 

its water needs fran outside sources. The cc"ption for mxt facilities 

will be less than the maxj" possible because andensate fm geothermal 

steam will supply saws of the demand. The needed water could be supplied by 

either gmundwater or surface saurces, or a "bjnation of the two. This 

discussion will assume that only groundwater sources are used. 

385 
geologic features included in &SigTlated wildemess will be 

prote&d fLUn inadvertant damage by heavy -ticmal use and 

will be lmnaged for p+Ze&icm of the featwe as well as for inixpretaticm 

land-n activities. Features included in a special ins illTea 

and pblic enjoyment. 

Geolcgic praoesses can result in events such as -es, landslides, rock 

falls, lava flows and ash falls. These event5 often dranatical1y change the 

land itself and adversaly affect people, tnth and after the event. 

Land uses are influenoed by the 1ocatia-I of seologic event5 and by the size 

of the area affected. Land uses also occasicmally influence the locaticm and 

timiq of geolcgic events. For example, road and facility ccmtructim 

ne&d to support tirrdwr harvest, energy developnent and developed recreation 

could hduca slope failure; gm energy pfcductim could increase 

earWquake act-i.de or hitiate g"d subsidence. 

People win use the land are subject to some level of risk when they enter 

use. In additim, 

amcentraticm of recreatim use can increase risks by interfwirq wia rapid 

evacuatim in case of a geolcgic event. 

As- 'als 

Grom&ater is considered a renewable resoutce since a yearly supply is 

available to replace or partially replace the water a"&. Over a long 

perid of time, however, grwndwater is a finite 1-esaurce and availability 

will depend cm the relaticaxhip of supply and demand. 

cu- ' geologic fea- are amsidered a IyHlrenewable resouroe. Once a 

feature is altared so that its uniqueness is gcne, the resource is 

irretrievably lost. 

"e of the alternatives will have any effect cn vulcanic prmeses. me 

alternatives will aff& neither the forces that cause a volcanic auptim 

MT the surface effects of an 

Forest-wide Staradards and Guidelines deal with the need to consider risks 

fran geologic ~nocesses, the need to assess groundwater supplies an a 

Forest-wide basis, the need to evaluate and make -ti- for geologic 

Special Inte?sxt Area candidates, and the need to consider geologic Research 

Natural Areas as a mnp=went of the Regid RNA ~arogram. There are however, 

Iy) standards or guidelines that directly protect ou- ' geologic 

features fm the impacts of Forest activities. 

areaS WhWX 0VentS OCCUI: M'hlI-ally or have been influenced by ED33JiOU.S land 

That level of risk could change with charges in land use. 

386 
Table 76 

Estimated Daoand for GroLu&a* 

by the end of the fifth decade 

(-feet/year) 

Alternatives 

Indicatars PRFm RPA CEE AMNAMB 

Developd rwxeaticm site use 

-existing use 105 105 105 105 105 105 

-coIIveTsi(311 fran surface 

-new sources for projected 

sourcesforexistingneeds 43 4343 43 43 43 

needs 81 0 99 81 3 47 

"rmnity 

-mez-sion frcm surface 

sources for exkting needs 1480 1480 1480 1480 1480 1480 

-new sources for existing 

needs 1480 1480 1480 1480 1480 1480 

-new sources for projected 

needs 3000 3000 3000 6000 750 3000 

ski area use 

-existing use 300 300 300 300 300 300 

-new sources for existing 

needs 300 300 300 300 300 300 

-new sources for projected 

needs 600 600 600 1200 300 600 

Total existil-guse 405 405 405 405 405 405 

Total increased use 6984 6903 7002 10584 4356 6950 

!mTAL-cxsE 7389 7308 7407 10989 4761 7355 

comnn to All Azternatives 

The oles st Service currently uses 105 ac-ft/year of groundwater to support 

existing facilities. a6diticmal 43 ac-ft/year currently beiq supplied to 

exisking facilities by surface surxes will be COIlverted to groundwater 

sxxuxes under all alternatives. 

Identified geologic special In- Area candidates will be evaluated, and 

-ti- made by 1990 Llnder all alternatives. 

A "ker of m"kg ' geologic features will be protected by their locatim 

in existing wilderness, Research Natural Areas, the Ancient Bristlecone Pine 

Forest, and the Mono Basin Naticmal Forest Scenic Area under all 

alten-latives. 

387 
The Tam of Marrm3th Lakes will improve its existjng water-supply base by 

. 2,960 ac-ft of gnxmdwalxx per year that are not currently 

current demand will be supplied fran surface 

wiw 

witl-drawn. The rc"q 

sources. Mannnth mtain ski area will withdraw 600 ac-ft/year to supp3rt 

existing needs under all alternatives. 

The amcwnt of estimated geothermal developent (six p3wer plants in Lease 

Blocks I and 11) and the a"t of g"&ater potentially used by those 

Geothermal develqmnt will also include increased potential for slope 

failure fron facility developnent and for seisnic activity induced by fluid 

injectim. 

The developnent of geothermal ?xx"es, which could cccur under all 

alternatives, could affect the thermal features in the Hot Creek Gorge. 

These features are identified as special geologic features and are candidates 

for a Special Interest Area classification. 

-wtvaryby Alternative 

.. 

plants (f- 0 to 18,600 ac-ft/p) will be to all alternatives. 

PRF: (Preferred) The demand for g"&ata relative to existing needs will 

nearly double by the end of the fifth decade due to new recreatim 

facilities, ski areas, and increased camnurity demand. 

Four recormended wilderness additims (172,600 acres) will constitute a 

mxkrately low level of protection fur oulsbnduq ' geological features. 

The potential for irKxes& Slope failure in areas with steep Slopes will be 

geothenual access), increased ski area capacity of 9,m SAm, and 

relatively high, due to the ccnstructim of 87 miles of new road (including 

ccnstructim of recxeation facilities to suppcnt 14,000 new PAOT. The rapid 

evacuaticm of CCBlcentrated recreation areas will be mre difficult with 

-=e, - ing the risk to Forest visitors represented by geologic 

events. 

CUR: (cllm3ltprogam ) The demand for grollndwater relative to existing 

needs will -1y -le by the end of the fifth decade due to new ski areas 

andincreased ca"ity denand. 

'I" recomnended wilderness additims (107.600 acres) will constitute a 

mxkrately low level of protection for outstmcbg ' geological features. 

The potenual for increased Slope failwe in areas with steep slopes will be 

mxkrate-to-low, as mly 33 miles of new road (including geothermal access) 

and m new recreatim facilities will be ccnstru-; ski area capacity will, 

-, innease by 19,000 SADT. -ties for rapid evacuation of 

mncentcated recreation areas will nst chqe, as "eation use will mt 

increase from current levels: the risk to Forest visitors represented by 

geologic events will, therefore, remain the 5ans. 

388 
RPA: (198oRPApJmrall ) The demad for grollndwater relative to existneeds will marly double by the endof the fifth decade due to new ski areas, 

new recreation developnents, and increased fxmnunity demand. 

As there will be Im recarmended wilderness additians, ou- ' geologic 

features outsida of existing wilderness or candidate Special Interest Areas 

will be Unpmteded. 

The potential for increased Slope failure in areas with steep Slopes will be 

relatively Ngh, due to the "&icm of 115 miles of new road (including 

geothermal access), new alpire ski area capacity nth3 to 26,000 SAOT, 

and new recreation facilities to serve 17,000 PAOT. Opprhmities for rapid 

wacuaticm of ccplcentrated recreation areas will be meed by increased use 

of those areas: the risk to Forest visitors represented by geologic events 

will, therefore, increase. 

m: ("lze ' Cost-Efficiency) The demand for gnudwater relative to 

existing needs will nearly triple by the end of the fifth decade due to new 

ski areas, new recreation developnents, and - cxmnuru 'ty demand. 

AS six Further Planning Areas (339,800 acres) will be recoRnended for 

wilderness, the level of protection for outstamiirg geologic features will be 

msderately high. 

highest under this alternative, due to the c"ction of 77 miles of new 

road (iracluding geothamd access), new alpine ski area capacity mting to 

41,000 SAOT, and new recreation facilities to senm 14,000 PADT. 

Opprhmities for rapid wacuaticm of collcentrated recreation areas will be 

reduced by increased use of those areas; the risk to Forest visitors 

represented by geologic events will, therefore, increase. 

The potential for ixxeazd Slope failure in areas with steep slopes will be 

AMN: (Maximize All Amenities) The demand for groundwater relative to 

existing needs will increase by a third by the end of the fifth decade due to 

hxeased ski area capacity and increased COmRllll 'ty demand. 

As twelve muther Planniq Areas (510,800 acres) will be reccmnended for 

wilderness, the level of protation for outstanding geologic features will be 

high. 

The potential for ir"3d slope failure in areas with steep slopes will be 

relatively lcw, as mly 26 miles of new road (including geothermal access), 

600 PADT of new recreation sites, and 11,000 new SAOT will be developed. 

for rapid evacuation of CQIlCentrated recreation areas will be 

unchanged, as use of those areas will remain the same; the risk to Forest 

visitors represented by geologic events will also, therefore, remain the 

Same. 

AMB: (hphas ize Wildlife and Recxeatian) The demand for groundwater will 

nearly double by the end of the fifth decade due to new ski areas, new 

recreaticBl developnents, and ir"3d cclmnmity demand. 

389 
As six Fwther Plarnrirg Areas (222,700 acres) will be reccmoended for 

wilderness, the level of prot€&icn for attstanding geologic features will be 

Ilpderate. 

The potential for increased Slope failure in areas with steep Slopes will be 

nodarate due to the cx"hicm of 50 miles of new mad (including 

geothermal access), new alpine ski area capacity al"tiq to 23,Ooo SAOT, 

and new reaeaticm facilities to SNB 8,300 PPDT. opporhnu 'ties for rapid 

evacuaticm of arcentrated recreaticm areas will be reduced by increased use 

of those areas; the risk to Forest visitors represented by geologic events 

will, therefore, incrsase. 

I" 

Forest activities that have major effects cm the lands prcr3ram include 

recnaticm managenent, *ais management, wildlife management, and energy 

developnent. 

~ands administratian activities OCCUT in respanse to resource needs, laws, - regulations, and policies regarding txnmdaq adj-ts, landline surveys, 

trespass, 1-P adjusdmmts, special land uses, 

rights-of-way, transpcatation and utility corridors, and withdrawals. 

"ecpemes of thase "g-t activities cm the lands prcr3ram are 

assessed in terms of changes in lanbnmddp adjustments and landuses undsr 

special use permit. The Fatest p1anni.q al-tives will not affect most 

other aspects of the lands prcgrarn. WitMrawals are discussed under the 

hsading of Minerals. 

1. skiareacapacity 

2. Altemativethem. 

L-p adjustments cm the Farest focus heavily on lands su"r&q 

the "mities of M"th Lakes and (to a lesser degree) June Lake. The 

an"t of 1- 'p adjustment associated with ca"ity needs is related 

directly to the size of those cu"ities and to ski area developrent as the 

Thedemandfcnca" *ty service land uses under special use et is also 

affected by "mini* size and, therefore, by ski area capacity. 

Cartah private lands within the Forest borrndary have significant recreaticn 

aeVelopnent or wildlife habitat values. Altbugh such lands are a high 

priori* for acquisiticm under any alternative, that priority is aphasized 

under alternatives with a recreatiosl or wildlife -is. 

major ec"ic stimulus for cc" 'ty gmwth. 

Cohsequences camnn to All Alternatives 

overall priorities for land acquisiticm and land disposal are stated in the 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines to all dtmtives. 

390 
 and acquisition will always be subject to the landcwner‘s interest in 

dispsi.rg of lands and the availability of funds for purchase (or National 

Forest land suitable for excharge). 

Rights-of-way and landline surveys will not differ amiably between 

alternatives except for the RPA alkxnative, which pn3pses to meat the RPA 

goal for landline surveys. 

m- developnent within existing or future leased areas could require 

pierline rights-of-way for low voltage ~ayerlines shouZd power proauction 

facilities be built. It may mt be possible to CO-locate these -line 

rights-of-way with existing rights-of-way. 

coasequences that vary by Altenlative 

pRF: (preferred) This altanative envisions mderately high levels of 

demand for 1-p adjustment and special use permits related to 

cc“ityneeds. Theernphasisonincreased sumner recreation opportunities 

places special imp- on the acquisition of lands mth recreation 

potential. 

m: 

adjustment and special use ats related to “ity needs. 

special -is on acquiring lands for that purp3se. 

(ClarentP” ) This alternative envisions nwrly twice the ski area 

As there are 

there will be M 

capacity as in 1982 and mderately high levels of demand for 1- ‘P 

no projected ixmases in sumner recxeation- ‘ties, 

RPA: (1980 RPA ) This alternative envisions more than twice the ski 

area capacity as in 1982 and mderately high levels of demand for 

landownershl ‘p adjustment and special use pwmits related to rx”ity needs. 

The faphasis on increased sumner recreation opportunities places special 

imp=atance on the amition of lands with recreation potential. In 

addition, landline surveys are projected at a rate of 33 miles per year in 

order to meet the RPA goal. 

ax: (Maxirmze ‘ Cost-Efficiency) This alternative envisions nearly three 

times the ski area capacity as in 1982 and extremely high levels of demand 

for landownershl ‘p adjustment and special use permits related to CarmnSLity 

needs. The mphasis on increased s~mner recreation opprhmities places 

special hq”a on the acquisition of lands with recreation potential. 

m: (W All Amenities) This alternative envisions a 50 ps”t 

increase in ski az‘ea capacity over 1982 and mxlerate levels of demand for 

1- ’p adjustment and special use permits related to “ity needs. 

RS few new “eation developnents are propcsed, there is M special enphasis 

on the aoquisition of lands with PXXC?&~~~ potential. The amenity aphasb, 

howwer,irmeasesthe- of acquiring private lands with wildlife 

habitat value. 

.. 

391 
AMB: (Ehphas ize Wildlife and Reaeatim) This alt-tive envisions l~xe 

than twice the ski area capacity as in 1982 and nrderately high levels of 

demand for landownerskl. ‘p adjht and special use dts- related to 

c”ityneeds. Asincreased sunnier recreatim opportumities are moderate, 

the importance of acquiring lands with recreation potential will also be 

-ate. The wildlife emphasis will increase the mrtance of acquiring 

lands with habitat value. 

MINERALS 

mtrductl ’cn 

Forest activities that have major effects on locatable mineral opportunities 

include “3al withdrawals and wilderness recarmendations. The Forest 

emphasis on aminity values, such as visual quality, wildlife habitat, and 

recreation, and on other - values, such as water quality, soil 

prductivity, and vegetation may affect specific mineral exploration or 

developnent proposals and site access. Activities with effects on saleable 

(mineral material) management include facility and road cxmstruction 

andamunitygrowth. 

Chxxquerses of these management activities are assessed in tenns of lards 

suitable for mineral exploration and developnent, gmthemal developnent 

scenarios, and the supply of mineral materials as it relates to demand. 

Data sources for this analysis include mineral ptential ratings in the 

Forest data base, apprwed -tal asssswnts for gmtbnnal leasing 

in Lease Blocks I and 11, and the Forest-Wide inventory of mineral materials. 

uldicataas 

The follw indicators were used to assess the effects of each alternative. 

1. Locatable minexals 

- Mineral withdrawals 

- Wildemass -ti-. 

2. Leasable minerals 

- Geothermal leasing decisions. 

- Road ~ction/~ction 

- Geothermal Plants 

- New alpine ski area capacity 

- New developed rwxeaticn site capacity 

- Other uses (county, state, private, etc.). 

3. Mineral materials 

Designated wilderness areas and lands that am withdrawn fmn mineral entzy 

both represent a lcss of mineral opportcnu ‘ty, as new mining Claims cannot be 

filed am3 develcpwnts on valid existing claims could be prahibited or 

Iestricted. Therelativeimportance of overall opportunity loss is indicated 

by-- -ptential raw of the lands withdrawn. The loss of lands 

392 
with low "l-potential ratings is of less cc" than those with high or 

medium mineral-potential ratings. 

Decisions to issue leases for geothermal exploration and developnent are 

based on site-specific envirckpnen tal analyses and documentation. The 

decisions to offer geothermal leases in Lease Blocks I and I1 of the 

made. Surface oz"y stiplations and other mitigation measures will 

limit developnent in those lease blocks to approximately 300 acres (an 

estimated six pmar plants). Any adLXticmal leasing mals will be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

The volume of materials ca"d will be proportional to the amnmt 

of projected ccmst~~ficm. Roads, pier plants, ski areas, recreational 

facilities, and uses by other private and pvwmnent entities represent the 

major types of "JckLon which will be expeded on the Forest over the 

next5oyears. 

MmY-Irmg Valley KGRA (north and east of Mammth Lakes) have area* been 

1. Roads are "G&I and rem"- for timber managemnt, 

developd Iwzreation Slte acoess, and geothermal per devel0pents. 

2. ski areas, other developea nxreaticm sites, and geoulermal Plants 

require mineral materials for facilities (such as pa&.iq areas and 

base facilities) in adLXtim to roads. 

The urban growth associated with new alpina ski area developnent will 

place an additimal demand m materials for county and 

private sz3zhr 

Depletion of ctmstructicm material sources will cccur faster on sane areas of 

the Forest than otbers because neither supply nor demand are uniformly 

distributed. Alternatives will differ in the availability of materials fran 

nay sources by impsing different patterns of Management Prescriptions with 

different constxaints. The effects of this difference will be reflected in 

thecostsofcx"&q ' facilities and mads in aceas adjacent to depleted 

sources. Manag-t PresQliptions could also change the availability and 

utilization of existing sites. 

Assunptions 

The public demand for locatable mineral exploration and developnent is 

projected to change little fran the 1982 base year level for all 

alternatives. 

Mxt locatable mineral exploratim and developmat mll take place in the 

white and Inyo mtain.53. 

3. 

'On within Mammth and June Lake. 

Exploration for oil and gas is not expected to take place on the Forest. 

The followirag assunptions are used in the calculation of mineral material 

supply fi-: 

393 
1. me average new or road is defined as a single lane with 

tumarts, 12-fOot top width, 3-f& &xzuI.W and 6-inch aggregate 

thickness wirg 2,640 tans of aggregate per mile. 

2. he avexage weight of cc"Han material is 1.8 tans per cubic yard. 

3. Average annual czmsuqh 'an is defined as tons-per-year needed to support 

road- 'm and amstructim. 

4. Supply life is defined as the inventoried supply (1.98 millim -) 

dividedby the average a"pticn in tons per year. 

Qhwquares camon to All Alternatives 

Mineral exploraticn and developnent proposals result fmn salrces beyund the 

ccnkol of the Forest service in respahlse to sanerjhat unpredidible minms 

market aditicns. These conditicpls are outside the scope of the plan and 

will cccur regardless of alternative. All forest land llot specifically 

withdrawn fron mineral entry is open to mineral activity including the right 

of the claimant to "able entry. 

Existing wilderness (565.100 atxes), the Amient Bristlezme Pine Forest 

(28,887 acres), the Mxn Basin Naticnal Forest Scenic Area (45,000 anes), 

and all existing and recarmended Rasearch Natural Areas (14,900 acres outside 

recormended wilderness acreage will vary by alternative. 

Geothermal developnent will take place in Lease Bl& I and I1 in all 

alternatives. 300 acres 

will actually be cccupied by facilities, while appraximatey 4,000 acres will 

be affected. 

-thatvaryby Alternative 

The followiq figures are helpful in understandbq the effects of 

alternatives an minerals management. Table 77 displays acres available for 

mineral en- by *al-pcrtential rating for each altemative. Table 78 

displays the relative dgMnd far mineral materials under each alternative. 

wilasmess) will be Closed to mineral entry under all alternatives. my 

Nl developnent is pmjected as six power plants; 

394 
Alternatives 

Lands withdrawn fran 

mineral =try (M acres) 

-Minerdl potential xgh 

-Mineral potential medium 

-Mineral potential low 

-Existirg wilderness" 

-ToTBL 

Lands available for 

entry (M acres) 

-Mineral potential him 

-Mineral potential medim 

-Mineral potential law 

-TDTAG 

26.6 26.3 23.5 50.6 10.7 72.3 

34.5 32.4 5.0 78.7 101.6 34.2 

195.0 132.3 55.0 289.1 381.0 194.9 

565.1 565.1 565.1 565.1 565.1 565.1 

761.2 756.2 648.6 983.5 1158.4 866.5 

108.2 107.5 110.4 84.3 28.1 62.6 

174.5 176.6 204.1 130.3 107.4 174.8 

825.8 888.4 965.8 731.6 639.7 825.9 

1168.5 1172.5 1280.3 946.2 775.2 1063.3 

XMineral-pkntial ratings are mt available for existirg wilderness. 

395 
Table 78 

DemmdfIx- mterials 

(end of the fifth decade) 

Alt€mlatim?s 

Type of D3nana PRF CUR RPA ax Am AMB 

(including geothermal access 

roads) (miles) 

Road- 'an (miles) 750 830 1280 1050 650 850 

Supply life (years - if 

materials were used 

dy for roads) 41 43 27 33 56 42 

GeothermdL p3wer Plants 6 6 6 6 6 6 

(-) 

New darelopea sumner 

Road- 'm 87 33 115 77 26 50 

recreatcn capacity (M PADT) 14.0 0 14.1 14.0 0.6 10.7 

Adjustea -1y life, 

including other uses 

(years) 22 31 20 23 39 28 

PRF: (Referred) oppoaunities for "xal exploraticm and developnent will 

be relatively high under this altarnative, as 90 percent of lands outside of 

existing withdmwals with high or *ate mineral-potential ratings will be 

available for mineral entry. 

Road- 'cm and - 'cm will deplete the Turrent inventoried 

supply of mineral materials in 41 years. Additional demand for materials 

in darelopea recreaticm, the constructian of six 

ski area capacity, and other uses. The 

will cam fron an increase 

geothermal plants, inneased 

additicmal caemand muld shorten the supply life by as much as 11 years. The 

ennJlasis cm developed and dispersed recreaticBl will restrict the location and 

dare1cgzm-k of rsplacment sites. 

m: (aarent F9" ) opportunities for mineral exploratim and 

developnent will be relatively him under this altemative, as 90 percent of 

lands outside of existing witkkawals with high or &ate mineral-potential 

ratings will be available for mineral en*. 

Road - 'cm and cxmskwh 'cm will deplete the current invent0 ried 

supply of mineral materials in 43 years. Additional demand for materials 

alpine ski area capacity, and other uses. The additional demand mud 

shorten the supply life by as mch as 12 years. 

will come fran the 'on of six geathennal p3wer Plants, iI"xd 

396 
RPA: (1980 RPA pnzgran) -ties for mineral exploraticn and 

aevslopnent will be highest undar this alternative, as all lands outside Of 

existing withdmwals with high or Wate mineral-potential ratings will be 

available for mineral entry. 

Road Wm and cmstmctim will deplete the current inventoried 

supply of mineral materials in 27 years. ?dditional demand for materials 

will ccme fm an increase in developea ?x€xeaticn, the c"lcticm of six 

ge3tln"l Plants, increased alp- ski area capacity, and other uses. The 

additional demand could shmten the supply life by as much as seven years. 

The aphsis cn developed recreatian will restrict the lccaticn and 

developnent of replacement sites in areas of wncentxated use. On the other 

hand, new areas ad beavailable for mineral material site develcpnent as 

new roads will be allowed in nkxt ~ously unroaded areas. 

a: (Maximize Cast-Efficiq) oppoaunities for exploratim and 

developnent will be m3derate under this alternative, as 76 percent of lands 

outside of existing withdrawals with high or &ate mineral-potential 

ratings will be available for wal en-. 

Road recawbxctim and ccmtmddcn will deplete the current inventoried 

supply of mineral materials in 33 years. ?dditional demand for ccBlStruction 

materials will fm an increase in darelopea recreation, the 

clmsb&Acn of six geotlleaml Plants, imXEL9d alpine ski area capacity, 

and other uses. The additonal demanl could shorten the supply life by as 

mch as 10 years. The emphasis cn develqd recreation will restrict the 

location and developnent of replacement sites in areas of coxentrated use. 

On the other hand, new areas could be available for mineral material site 

developnent as new roads will be allowed in nwst previously mded areas. 

?Mi: (Maximize All Amslities) oppxhml 'ties for mineral exploration and 

developnent will be relatively low ur&r this altemative, as ordy 66 percent 

of lands outside of exi- withdrawals with high or moderate 

mineral-potential ratings will be available for mineral entry. 

Road recc"ctim and r"ction will deplete the current inventoried 

supply of mineral materials in 56 years. The additicmal demand for 

amsbxctim materials for recreational dareloprent, the consbuctim of six 

geothermal Plants, incnasd alpine ski area capacity, and other uses will 

&acten the supply life by as mch as 17 years. The emphasis on wilderness, 

scenic values, and dispersed recreation will restrict the lccatim and 

developnent of replacement sites. 

AMB: (EkplYaS ize Wildlife and Reueaticm) Opportunities for mineral 

exploration and developrent will be derate under tius alternative, as 86 

pexent of lands outside of existing withdrawals with high or moderate 

mineral-potential ratings will be available for mineral entry. 

Road rwx"ction and construction will deplete the current inventoried 

supply of rcck and earth construction materials in 42 years. Additicmal 

demand for construdion materials will ccme fmn an increase in developed 

397 
reclreatian, the -cn of six geoifmmal plants, increased alpine SM 

area capacity, and otbar uses. -ti& deMnd cculd shorten the supply 

perioa by as niuch as fanteen years. The enphasrs cm recreatian and 

wilderness will restrict the locaticm and aeVelopnent of replacement sites. 

M3ND BnsIN mTIm FaREsT s(pyIC AREA 

n-lkudmtl ‘In 

Them am m Forest activities subject to the Forest planning process that 

scientific values within the Basin National Forest Scenic Area. 

Planrhg for the Scenic area, ircludirg a ccmplete and detailed analysis of 

al-ti- and emirmental consequences, is bsing “ducted autside the 

Forest p1annh.g pmc8ss. Activities cm Natirmal Forest lands neighboring the 

scenic Area have some potential for indirect impacts. Hmever, less than 

half of the area bandary adjoins lands urder Farest service mbl; the 

rest are aaninisteredbythe Bureau of Land Management. 

have the potential to substanually affect scenic. ?a?mxatica.lal, or 

Indicatcns 

Management Prescnlptions for Naticmal Forest lands neighbzciq the Scenic 

Area are an indicaticm of the resource management -is, includiq 

permitted activities and Standards and Wdelines for lands to which the 

pres&iptians are applied. 

Asslmpti als 

As the Scenic Area is a caqmsionally designated area with specific values 

protected by law, management activities within the area and those 081 

adjoining National Forest: land will be managed with consideratim for 

ptecting thDse values. 

Ccnsesuences camnn to All Alternatives 

The Management Prescriptions applied to Forest lands adjoining the Scenic 

Areaarevirtual ly the same for all al-ti-. The Jeffrey pine forest 

sxi5 of the area knmdary will be manage3 with a pimazy aphasis CUI timber 

proaudion. Shrublands almg the southwest tmndaq will be managed with a 

primary emphasis cm livestock grazing. Lee Vining Canym will be managed for 

amcentraw recreatiosl use. The steep Slopes of Lee vining Peak will either 

be recomnended for wilderness or manage3 under the Limited Access 

prescriptim. 

”e of these Managemnt Prescripticns will be likely to generate major 

inpacts cm the Scenic Area. As fuelwood gather- is pennitted within the 

Scenic Area, the likelihwd of that activity occurring 081 adjom 

timber-errq?hasis lands will mt be a problem. As grazing is currently 

permitted within the Scenic Area, the potential for livestock drifting into 

ths area fran adjoining raqelands will not represent a problem (if grazing 

were eventually excluded fran or limited within the Scenic P;rea, a conflict 

muld arise). wilderness, lllmited access management, and concentrated 

recreaticBl use are all capable with Scenic Area values. 

398 
Forest activities with the greatest potential to influence the pest 

manag-t prcgram include vegetation management and recreation management. 

(Xmequences of pest-related damage in forested ecOSyStemS are measwxd in 

ternr; of trea Irprtality, reduced growth, topkill, and defoliaticn. Such 

damage could result in uxkdduq ‘ , failure and/or delay of regeneration, 

reduced site pnxkctivity, recreation site -adati.cn, hcnased numbers of 

hazardous trees, and other ul-desm ’ able vegetaticn charges. Pest-related 

damage could ultimately have quantitative and qualitative effeds cn Forest 

outputs and savicas. 

oppxhmities to prevent or reduce pest-related damage and the potential need 

for direct pest contrul are indicate3 by the folladg factors. 

1. Timber-related: acres regenerated 

2. Remeation-related 

- Developed site use 

- Developed site capacity. 

Vegetation management, by creating and maintaining healthy, vigorously 

@-related damags. In gemral, increased opporturu ‘ties to bring timber 

stands under managawnt (including ccsltrol of stocking levels and species 

canpositian and the timely re“ of &ressed and/or diseased trees) should 

reduce the incidence of insed and disease damage. 

The appmpiate use of regeneraticn harvest is a mans of re”J stands 

that are aspecially susceptible to, or currently expriencing, unacceptable 

levels of pest-related damage. As harvested areas are regenerated, the need 

to protect plantatiam fm animal damage and cmipetirg vegetaticn is offest 

by the cpprhmity to maintain pest damage at ampable levels thraughout the 

life of the stand by silvicultural means. Interm& ‘ate harvest and selective 

cutting can also prevent or reduce damage by remxling s.tressed individuals or 

groups of trees and by reducing the stocking (density) of the stand to 

biologically appopriate levels. 

While the overall health and vigor of forested land is generally greater 

under timber “gawnt than under natural caditiom, the value of the 

timber (and importance of losses to pest-related damage) is also greata 

where trees are managed for carmercial wmd pxducticn than where they are 

not. The intensity of pest management in timber will, therefore, be rougNy 

propxticmal to the lurmber of farested acres regenerated wer the planning 

h0riZa-l. Altholigh silvicultural practices will be adequate to maintain 

pest-related damage at acceptable levels in most cases, direct acticn against 

pests could be necessary in specific situaticms. 

Pest mtml efforts ne&d to protect visitor l-ealth, safety, and enjoyment is my proKnticslal to the amxIllt of visitor use in aeVelopd recreation 

grawing stands of trees, provides the best OppI-hmity to prevalt 

399 
sites. New aeVelOpea sits capacity indicates #e additim of new areas ryst 

~ylw managed for intensive recreaticm use and the need to evaluate 

pest-related hazard situaticms associated with thDse new areas. 

RssmpD. 'oc1s 

'Ihe Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach will be us& under any 

alternative. "ever, We intensity of pest management will vary according 

to the objectives of each alternative, potentially resultins in different 

1-1s Of Forest-wide pest damage dt€Xnativ€+. 

The likelihmd of pest-related damge &penas both on climatic and 

enviraamental factors outside Farest Service cont?ml and on Forest premtion 

ad mitigatim activities. 

Farest pests are managed prharily throegh silvicultural treatments which 

imFarag the health, vip, and diversity of the forest. These practices 

reduce the susceptibility of the forest to pest infestation ad resource 

loss. Dired amtrol is usually limited to areas with high-value 

imp"ents such as adninistrativs facilities, areas where public safety is 

a c" such as developed -tim sites, and plantatim where rodent 

mbml and site preparation are needed to protect seedlings. 

cansequences lkt vary by Altenlative 

Table 79 displays the effects of alternatives on the pest managanent prcgram. 

Table 79 

Indicators of Pest -t Intensity 

and Fest-&ted I)arnage 

(by the end of the fifth decade) 

Alternatives 

Indicators PRF am RPA CEE AM" 

Timber regeneration harvest 

(M -) 10.0 40.6 65.0 29.4 16.7 20.8 

&vel@ site rmxeation use 

(average anrolal MRVDs) 2900 1940 2901 2903 1944 2675 

New dewloped site capacity 14.0 0 14.1 14.0 0.6 10.7 

(") 

managedf0rmaxi"mthand 

Tentatively suitable timber not 

dp (M m) 35.5 21.6 11.5 13.1 48.9 40.9 

pRF: The relative intensity of pest management cm the ores st 

will te high due to the rrpderate amxlnt o& timber management and the major 

increases in develcped recreatian site capacity and use. The relative 

(preferred) 
overall anmnt of pest-related damage will be moderate, as 37 percent of 

tentatively suitable timber land will not be managed for maxi" health and 

vi-. 

Timber-related pest "g-t will be relatively low, as only 10,ooO acxes 

will be regenetated in the first 50 years. 

The level of pest management required in developed recreation sites in the 

first decade will be similar to that experienced in 1982. By the end of the 

fifth decade, pest management needs will have increased inprcpx-h 'cm to the 

55 percent increase in developed recreation capacity and 57 percent increase 

in use. 

a: (current- ) The overall intensity of pest managemat on the 

ForeSt Will be moderate duf3 to the msderate anrxlnt Of timber management and 

pest-related damage will be mderate, as 20 percent of tentatively suitable 

Timber-rslated pest management will be moderate, as 40,600 acres will be 

regenerated in the first 50 years. 

The level of pest management required in developed nxmatim sites for this 

alternative will be similar to that experienced in 1982. 

the decline of dewlopea recreation site use. The overall amxlIlt of 

timber land will not be managed for "I health and vigor. 

RPA: (1980 RPA Program ) The overall intensity of pest managemat on the 

Forest will be high due to the high level of timber outputs and the major 

increases in developed nxreaticm site capacity and use. The overall amxnt 

of pest-related dan?age will be low, as cmly 10 percent of the tentatively 

suitable timber base will not be "aged for maximum health and vigor. 

Timber-related pest maraag-t Will be relatively high, as 64,990 a- will 

be regenerated within the first 50 years. 

The level of pest management required in developed recreation sites in the 

first decade will be similar to that experienced in 1982. By the end of the 

fifth decade, pest manag-t needs will have increased in pmprtim to 55 

percent increase in developed recreation capacity and 57 percent increase in 

use. 

CEE: (Maximize Cost-Effiuency) The relative intensity of pest managemat 

cm the Farest will be moderate, due to the moderate amount of timber 

managemat and the major increases in developed recreation site capacity and 

use. The relative anwnt of pest-related damage will be low, as only 12 

percent of the tentatively suitable timber base will not be "aged for 

maximum health and vigor. 

Timber-related pest managenwit will be relatively low, as only 29,370 acres 

will be regewated in the first 50 years. 

401 
The level of psst management lequired in devaloped recreation sites in the 

first decade will be similar to that exp€%dmced in 1982. 

fifth decade, pest managenent needs will have hxeased in gmprtion to 55 

percent increase in aevelopea recreation capacity and 57 percent increase in 

By the end of the 

use. 

m (- AZ1 Ihmities) The relative intensity of pest managenent on 

hueases in develcpd recreation site capacity and use. The relative amxnt 

of pest-related damage will be "te to high as 44 percent of the 

tentativaly suitable timber base will not be managed for maximum health and 

vigor. 

Timber-related pest management will be relatively low, as mly 16,660 acres 

will be regenerated in .the first 50 years. 

The level of pest managenent required in aevelopea recreatiosl sites will be 

similar to that experienced in 1982. 

.. the Farest will be low due to the low 1-1 timber management and the "al 

AMB: (Ehl&?ls ize Wildlife and Recreation) The overall intensity of pest 

managemnt m the Forest will be moderate, due to the &ate a"t of 

timber management and the moderate increases in develop3 recreation site 

capacity and use. The overall a"t of pt-related damage will be 

derate, as 37 percent of tentatively suitable timber will not be managed 

for maximum health and vigor. 

Timber-related pest management will be relatively low, as only 20,840 acres 

will be regenerated in the first 50 years. 

The level of pest manag-t required in develop3 recreation sites in the 

first decade will be similar to that experid in 1982. By the end of the 

fifth decade, pest: manag-t needs will have increased in proportion to 42 

percent increase in developed recreation capacity and 44 percent increase in 

use. 

Forest activities that can have major effects on the fire protection program 

include fire manag-t, recreation management, timber manag-t, wilderness 

designatim, road cnnstzuction, and prescribed fire projeds for other 

resources. 

of these actidties are assessed in terms of the expe&d. 

changes in the rnmker of fires, acres burned, damages, benefits, and costs. 

Data sources for this analysis include historical fire data and the 

applicaticsl of the National Fire Analysis System (USDA Forest Service, 1982), 

which predicts fire manag-t oosts and resource damage under various fire 

managanent oxyanizaticms. 

402 
While rrpst activities within and adjacent to the Forest have the potential to 

affect the fire management operation, only the following indicators were used 

to cnnpare the -tal cznsquences of the alternatives. 

1. Fire "agmt organization 

2. Appropriate suppression strategies used 

3. sumner recreation use 

4. Timber harvest 

5. Wilderness rea"%ticm 

6. prescribed fire for other "e maMgement 

7. New access &. 

The fire organization has a major effect on the "br of fires and acres 

bumed by alternative. The primuy elements of the fire organization that 

vary by alternative are staffing level relative to 1982 and the relative 

-is placed on prevention versus mppession. 

Another major potential factor is the ccmhinaticol of fire supression 

strategies applied. If the control strategy is applied on a Forest-wide 

can tainment stxategies were applied where appropriate. 

There are two reasms for this: 

1. when individual fires are allowed to bum lqer acreage under 

amfinemat or cnntairrment, the result is reduced fuels acclmnrlation and 

reduced likelihood of a later, larger fire. 

basis, -all acres burned will be greater than If the ccolfinement and 

2. when the fire supFaressicsl forces are focusirg their attention 

closely on those lands with the highest fire risk factors and highest 

resource values, they are mre likely to limit the size of fires on tbse 

lands (and, cxnmxpently, on -all acres burned) than if they were to 

focus equal attention cn all lands, regardless of risk and value 

wnsideraticm. 

The of recreation use is the third major determinant of wildfire in 

general, and the primuy determinant of human-caused fires. Historic 

patterns deimnstxate that the nuaker of fires and the acreage burned increase 

inpIqxxtL 'on to increased reQeation use of the Forest. The need for fire 

prevention prcgrams and consideratiom of public safety during suppression 

acticms are additional factnrs affected by the amxlnt of recreation use. 

Anincreased emphasis on regeneration hanrest in suitable timber will result 

in timber plantaticm requirirg intensive and well planned fire protection. 

The level of timber harvest and associated vegetation treabnent will also 

detm the fire hazard resulting fm fuels acmmulation on tentatively 

suitable timber land (apFarCmimately 100,ooO acres Forest-wide). Finally, 

untreated lcgging debris and tree plantaticms will affect the rate at which 

fires spread, fire resistance to cantrol, and the e"ic value of Wtential 

timber losses. 

403 
RS wilckmes designation restricts the use of “u ‘zed esuipnent for fire 

management, the mix of fire-pt&m resources and managemnt options may 

charge as the acres of land under wilderness designation changes. 

The a”t of prescribed fire for resource cbjectives such as wildlife 

habitat impmwmmt, range betterment, and timber site preparation can affect 

fuel types, rescxrrce protecticm needs, and msts. 

Imprwea road access both inmass the risk of human-caused fires and 

facilitates fire suppressicm. 

The ecc”ic analysis of fire management costs and benefits on Inyo National 

i ore st land indicates that the most cost-effective fire organization will 

entail a reductim relative to the 1982 organizatim. €O”, the raqe of 

desirable opticms for fire managewnt cm the Forest is limited by the fact 

Vining, June Lake, Mammth Lakes, Cmwley Lake, Swall Meadows, Paradise 

Estates, Starlight Estates, Aspemlell, and Aberdeen. Much of this manunity 

land is developd with valuable lnpnvmmts. The desire to prevent wildfire 

must be ccasidered, aloq with eccMmic efficiency, when 

that the Farest s3Jnwd3, adjoins, or neigi-kors the cumlunities of Le0 

originatiq on National Farest land fnrn damagiq or destnpq ’these 

sel- a fire organizaticm. 

Ccnsequences camon to All Altanatives 

=though the level of timber harvest varies by alternative, the public 

fuelwood program and fuel treatmnt as part of each timber sale are expzted 

to “ize fuels buildup and associated fire hazards; ccnsquently, 1y3 fuels 

treatment far fire hazard reduction in timber is prom under any 

alternative. The fire analysis indicates that costs and values related to 

timber hanrest vary little fran one alternative to another. 

All2mlgh wilderness recarmendatioas vary ccSlsiderab1y by alternative, their 

effects on fire management do not vary. Further Planning Areas cm the Forest 

-ally rate low in fire risk and resource values. hkxt of the vegetation 

is sparsely distributed brush, there are large barren areas, and most of the 

acreage is located at high elevations la- in oxygen and temperature. The 

effects of different wilderness -ti- cm overall recreation use are 

included in the recreaticB1-use indicator. 

The acreage of ve@.&j.cn treated with prescribed fire for other resource 

management purpwes will not be great emugh to significantly affect fuel 

conditims fm a wildfire management pint of view under any alternative. 

Althugh improves road access will aid with fire suppression, any gains will 

be offset by the increases in recreation due to inproved access and 

consequent haeases in human-caused fires cn mre accessible lands. 

Lightning acoollnts for about sixty percent of all wildfires on the Forest. 

These fires will mtinue to require s~ne kind of suppression action in all 

alternative9. 

404 
-'IhatvarylYy Altern3tiVe 

The managenent activities, objectives, and Lnogram directi OB1 for each 

alternative are discussed in CnrQan 'scn with base year 1982. The p5mary 

sources of variatim between alternatives are the fire managwent program 

&sen, suppressian stxatqies applied, and at of recreatim use. The 

primary variable affected will be acres burned by wildfire. 

Table 80 displays tbe effects of altematives cgl fire management. 

Fire management pxzgram 

Selected: 

-staff- relative to 1982 1982 

-percent preventicsl 17% 

-percent suppresicm 83% 

Suppression strategies all 

applied 

Average armual &welopea 

5th decade) 2900 

Use (M RVDS - 

Average armual dispersed 

5th decade including 3225 

wil-) 

recreatiOn use (M RVDS - 

Average armual acres 

(5th decade) 1224 

buzned by wildfire 

1982 1982 

24% 17% 

76% 83% 

mtr01 all 

dY 

1940 2901 

2290 3217 

1069 1224 

reduced 1982 

17% 17% 

83% 83% 

all all 

2903 1944 

3279 2601 

1410 972 

1982 

17% 

83% 

all 

2675 

3101 

1080 

!Cable 80 

Indicatcns of Cohsequences 00 Fire Managanmt 

AlteLnatives 

Indicatars PRF am RPA c5 AM" 

PRF: (preferred) This alt-tive staffs the fire organizaticn in 

accordance with the Forest work Force Plan. Suppression will receive 

increased aqhasis relative to -tion. The suppression strategies of 

ccslfinement, mtahmnt, and mtml will be applied when and where 

appropriate. Sumner reCreati.cn use will incmase app"ate1y 80 percent 

over five decades, aawuntiq for mxt of the 64 percent increase in acres 

burned. 

a: (current- ) This alternative will select the 1982 fire 

organization, with a 24 percent to 76 percent relative efilphasrs on prevention 

405 
and €nqpmsicm. entrol will be the ally smppresicm strategy applied. 

Sumner "ation use will increase 16 percent over five decades, accounting 

for lllost of the inrcease in wildfire acres burned. Fire organizatim and 

-ion strategies will also be amtribting factors. The potential of 

the Fcnest to protect the of neighbnr- camnmities fmn fires 

originatkg cm Farest land will be the sirme as in 1982. 

RPA: (1980 RPA -) This alternative will select the 1982 fire 

organizatim in mqase to camamity prol" nseds. The aphasis on 

-on will increase relative to prevmticn. The strategies 

of confinawnt, an-t, and mtml will be applied when and 

agqrcpriate. Reueaticn use will increase apprmrimately 80 percent over five 

-, acccuntbq for most of the 64 percent increase in wildfire acres 

burned. 

CEE: (Maxlrmze Cost-Efficiency) "his alternative will select a fire 

organization reduced fmn base year in respcplse to the them of "izing 

cost efficiency. There will be an hxeased emphasis on mppression relative 

to prwenticn. The suppression strategies of confinemnt, contaimient, and 

ccniz-ol will be applied when and wkere appropriate. The 89 percent increase 

in wildfire acres burned over base year is associated both with i"d 

recreatim use and a reduced fire organizatim. The prokction of 

neighbor- CDmrmnities frun wildfires o?ziginatbq on Forest land will be 

least effective under this alternative. 

.. 

m: (- All Amenities) This altemative will select the 1982 fire 

organization in respmse to cc"ity protedim needs. Suppn?ssicn will 

receive increased -is relative to prevention. The suppression 

strategies of csm€inment, containnent, and conk01 will be applied when and 

wher~ appropriate. As sumner recreation use will irmease only 33 percent 

(x7er five decades, increases in acres burned will be offset .?amahat by 

red~~Hcms arisirg fmn the applicatim of all appropriate mppresicm 

strategies. The net effect will be a 30 pr"t increase in acres bumed 

relative to 1982. 

.. 

AMB: This alternative will select the 

1982 fire organization in response to Mnmunity pmtectim needs. 

Suppressim will receive kcreas& emphasis relative to prevention. The 

strategies of confine" t, oontairnnent, and control will be 

applied when and where appropriate. Sumner recreation use will increase 

appxdmately 50 percent over five decades, accounting for rmst of the 45 

percent increase in acres burned. 

(hphas ize Wildlife and Recreaticm) 

406 
RmGE 

mtmductl '081 

Forest activities that have mjor effects on the raqe resource include range 

manag-t, timber manag-t, geothermal developnent, wildlife mgmt, 

watershed manag-t, and fire management. 

Outputs, acres available for range management, rangeland dtim and trend, 

and effects on rqe permittees. Data szurces for this analysis include 

range mg-t principles, pmfessicmal literature, and the Forest data 

base. 

Indicatars 

1. Range vegetation tz-eatmnt 

2. Wildfire 

3. Suitable rangelands on which grazing is reduced, limited, or eliminated 

Consequences of these activities are assessed in tenns of changes in grazing 

due to another primary res"= emphasis: 

- Mule deer winter range 

- Geothermal developnent 

Suitable rangelands on which forage production declines due to physical 

or biological processes: 

- Wet meadows susceptible to accelerated emsicm 

- Brush susceptible to decadence 

Suitable rangel- Outside allotments on which grazing is intxcduced 

Percent utilization of forage by livestock 

- Timber management 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. rrpuntainshsep~troducticms 

8. Grazingoutputs. 

Range vegetaticn tz-eabmnts increase overall forage prcduction by type 

ccanrersion (fmm less palatable and nutritious types to mre palatable and 

nutriticus types) or rejwmaticn (stimulating vig0mn.1~ growth in place 

of decadent stanas). Vegetation .treatments will typically use prescrited 

burning or mxharu 'cal methods. 

Wildfire increases forage production on suitable range by rejuvenating 

shrubby vegetation. The effect is enhanced if the burn is seeded with 

palatable species. 

When suitable rangelands are mt managed with a primary emphasis an grazing, 

the amxnt of grazing on thDse lands may be reduced or lost entirely by the 

fifth decade. For example, rangelands managed primarily for timber 

prcd~~cticm undergo vegetation changes. On the Inyo, the understory of a 

managed forest is less abundant and represents less desirable forage species 

than the urdaxbq of an "anaged forest. Cansequently, if timber lands 

that are currently managed primarily for grazirag were brought into intensive 

being emmanically infeasible. 

Mule deer and dcmestic livestock may ccmpete or conflict an deer winter 

raqe. If deer winter rae is managed wi~ a primary exqhasis cn deer, 

timber management, grazirag outputs will graaIal1y decline to the point of 

407 
cattle grazing under some altexnatives is held to current levels; in other 

alternatives, livestock are remwed entirely from winter rarge to benefit 

deer. - w- plants are built 081 rangelands, gazing declines in 

' to the Ermxtnt of land occupied by facilities such as buildings. 

d, fuel-, pipelines, and esuipnent staging areas. 

Forage producticm also declines due to physical and biological pswese~. 

Wet mdows are the nast pro&~ctive range types on the Forest; however, rrnSt 

of thDse meadows are damaged or threatened by acceleratd erasion. The 

Farest Watershed Inpmmwnt Needs (WIN) plan has identified meadows in need 

of restoration or pmtecticm. The wet me- acreage subject to erosion at 

the end of the fifth decade is inversely pmprti@nal to the watershed 

hp"nt work acanplished in the sirme time perid. 

BIush is the other main forage type for livestuck on the Forest. Many brush 

stands am mature and aplnoaching decadence, resultiq in a loss of forage 

prcductim. Decadence can be offset by vegetaticm treatmmt for rejuvenation 

plrpases (discusSea abwe). The brush acreage susceptible to decadence at 

the end of the fifth decade is inverse ly pmpxtional to the rejuvenation 

acreage accanplished in the same time period. 

ThDse suitable rangelands that are not in current graziq allotmnts can be 

brought into livestock management for an increase in AW. 

Grazing cu-ts are prcpxticmal to the percent utilizatim of forage by 

livestock (e.g., 60 percent utilization represents a one-fifth increase in 

forage over 50 percent utilizaticm). 

Grazing autputs are primarily a fmctim of acres available and range 

dtion. 

Virtually all of the suitable range on the Forest (388,848 acres of public 

lard and 10,448 acfes of waived private land) is currently mtained in range 

allotments and managed for livestock grazing. The remaining 6,600 acres of 

suitable rarge are not grazed due to the difficulty of distxibutirq livestuck 

to snall, scattered units; inability to control drift; difficult access; and 

lack of water. 

potentia ccnrpetition be- - 'c livestmk, recreation pack and saddle 

stock, and wildlife are addressed by ccsltrolling seascgls of use, livestock 

distributian, and utilizaticm standards that prwide at least the minimum of 

reserve forage even under "I livestock-mnagemnt scenaria. 

408 
The a”t of grazing in existing wilderness will contjnue at current levels 

under all al-tanatives. Althoplgh cpprhmities to increase grazing are last 

in Further PlW Areas recomnendsd for wilderness, thDse opprhml ‘ties are 

not great emugh to make noticeable differences in the overall grazing 

program by alternative. 

watersbd hp”nt will actually iMease forage prwkctim in 

damaged meadows as well as preventing further daterioraticm, the majority of 

wet meadows -&eat& are in wilderness. As grazing in wilderness is limited 

to current levels, cutputs will not increase with increased forage; they 

will, tmmex, amp with continuing loss of forage. The opprhmity to 

increase grazing in wet meadows cutside of wildernsss is not great agh to 

noticeably affect Forest-wi& outputs differently by altemative. 

The effects of ge&zkrml developnnt m livestock grazirg will be the saw 

for all attematives. Three-thxsand eight-hundred acres will be “ved 

fran the suitable range base for this purpcse. 

Consequences that vary by Alternative 

Table 81 displays the effeds of the alternatives an danestic livestock 

grazing. kbst of the grazing cutpts in this table represent 50-year 

avwages: cmly total outputs are also displayed in terms of the pmjeded 

fifth decade average taken by itself. 

409 
We 81 

Indicatars of Effects m Livestcck orazing 

(by the W of the Fifth Decade) 

Alternatives 

rndicatoas mcF aJR RPA CEE ?" AMB 

Base year 1982 outplts (M AW&) 

Range vqetatim treabnent 

41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 

-Total (M-) 42.9 27.4 76.6 62.4 34.8 41.5 

-Effect On mtplts (M All&) +7.3 +4.4 +12.5 +10.3 +5.9 +7.1 

Suitable ra-gelands bun-& by wildfire 

-TOW (M acres) 9.1 10.6 9.1 12.9 8.3 8.8 

-Effect On outplts (M All&) +1.1 +1.3 +1.1 +1.6 +1.0 +1.1 

-M (M acres) 21.9 21.4 43.0 10.0 6.2 0 

-Effect Q1 mtplts (M All&) -1.3 -1.3 -2.7 -0.6 -0.4 0 

-M (M acres) 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 

Rangelards managed for timber pAucticm 

Rangelands ozmpied by gam energy plants 

-Effect a Outputs (MAW&) -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 

Management of mule deer win- range (cattle vs. deer) 

-Total (M acreS) 0 0 96.4 0 96.4 96.4 

-Effects On outplts (MALE&) 0 0 +1.9 0 -9.6 -9.6 

-Total (Macre~) 6.4 21.5 13.6 0 0 0 

-Effect Q1 o~tplts (MAW&) -1.1 -3.6 -2.3 0 0 0 

Wet meadows subject to accelerated erosicm 

Brush in allotments subject to maturation 

-Total (M acres) 78.6 71.6 71.6 75.3 79.0 67.7 

-Effect outplts (M m) -1.6 -1.4 -1.4 -1.5 -1.6 -1.4 

Suitable rangelands added to allotments 

-Total (M acres) 0 0 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 

-Effects a Outpvts (M ALMS) 0 0 e.4 a.4 +0.4 a.4 

-Total (M acres) 0 0 257.0 0 0 0 

-Effects Outputs (M ALE&) 0 0 +5.1 0 0 0 

60 percent utilizaticn applied 

M3.m- sheep Z-einbxdLlCti~ 

Net change fran 1982 (M luails) 0 -1.6 i14.8 +10.5 -4.7 -3.4 

Total outputs 

-Effects a Outputs (M Al&&) -0.6 -0.6 0 0 -0.6 -0.6 

(MAW: 50-year average) 41.4 39.8 55.6 51.2 36.1 38.0 

(M AuErls: fifth dscade) 41.4 39.1 55.6 46.5 35.1 39.4 

410 
PRF? (Preferred) Grazing outputs will remain at current levels. There will 

be sone loss of grazing potential because of timber management, geothermal 

developnent, increasing decadence of range vegetation, a loss of wet meadows 

due to accelerated erosion, and the reintrduction of mtain sheep. 

The overall cxmditi.cn and trend of rangelands will imp" on the 52,000 

acres of treated or burned brush and the 23,500 acres of bated wet meadow. 

Condition and trend will remain stake or declme elsewhere due to increasing 

decadence or accelerated erosion. 

As many as nine existing pennittw could be affected by reduced grazing 

capacity on allohents associated with timber and geothermal developnent. 

Althugh sone of the affected permittees cmld be med to areas of increased 

forage, others could be put out of business by the change. The overall 

inaease in forage will allow sone existing pennittees to be relocated and 

others to expand. 

a: (cimx¶ltProgram ) Grazing outputs will drop 6 percent below the 1982 

base year level, over 50 years. Reductions in outputs will be due to timber 

mtajn sheep rejntrduction. Overall losses will be offset to some degree, 

primarily by minor gains from vegetation tceatxnt and wildfme. 

opporhrnities to inplmt an extensive vegetation treatxnt program and to 

fully inp1-t the watershed inpmmmnt plan for wet meadows will be 

limited by the wet restrictions of this al+"ative. 

Range dtion and trend will decline as efforts to reduce livestock use in 

response to reductians in capacity will fall behind range axxiition 

analysis. As many as ten existing permittees could be affected by reduced 

grazing capacity on allotments associated with timber, geothermal and wet 

meadow erosion. As few, if any, of the affected pxmi'ctees could be 

relocated, rmst will be put out of business by the change. The overall drop 

in raqe capacity will result in fewer permittees: any expansion of existing 

opratums could result cnly where other oprations went out of business. 

management, geothermal developnent, wet meadow erosion, brush decadence, and 

RPA: (1980 IlpA ) Grazing outputs will increase 34 percent wer the 

1982 base year level by the end of the fifth decade. The President's target 

of a 46 percent increase over the specified base level of 38,500 AuMs will be 

met, and the 1980 RPA target of 44,500 AUMs will be exceeded. 

Increases in grazing will result primarily fm Vegetation treainent, 

including rejuvenation of bitterbrush and widespread conversion of big 

sagebrush, pjnyon pine, and -al Jeffrey pine to desirable forage 

types: the application of a 60 percent utilization standard in place of 50 

percent utilization: and a reduction of deer habitat capability on key winter 

range. Smaller gains will c~ne from other smzces. Cve.rall increases will 

developnent, wet meadow erosion, and range decadence. 

The overall cxmdition and trend of rangelands will imprare on the 85,700 

acxes of treated or bwned brush and the 9,900 acres of treated wet meadow. 

be offset by the loss of grazing to timber management, geothermal 

411 
Ccmdition and trend will remain static or decline elsewhere due to increasing 

decadence or accelerated eToGi(H. 

As marry as ten existing permittees could be affected by reduced grazing 

capacity on allotments associated with timber, geothermal developwnt, and 

wet meadcw erasion. Although sane of the affect& permittees could be mved 

toareasofh€zeas& forage, could be put out of business by the 

charge. The overall increase in forage will allow sum displaced permittees 

added. 

to be relocated, others to expand, and perhaps sane new permittees to be 

CEE: (tkunuze Cost-Efficiency) Grazing outputs will increase 12 prt!ent 

abwe the 1982 base year over 50 years. Most of that bcrease will result 

fran vegetation t"?nt in bitterbrush and big sagebrush. Additional gains 

will come from other sources. 

grazing due to tinker management, geothermal develapnent, and rarge 

decadence. 

The overall condition and trend of rangelands will inypmve on the 75,300 

anesoftreatedor~~and#e23,5ooacresof treatedwetlmackw. 

Cbndition and trend will remain static or decline elsewhere due to increasing 

decadence or accelerated erosion. 

As marry as seven existirag permittees could be affected by reduced grazing capaciw cn allotments associated with timber and geothermal developnent. 

Althoughsaneoftheaffectedpezmitteescouldbemwedtoareasofincreased 

forage, 0- auld be put out of business by the change. The overall 

increase in forage will allow sane existing permittees to be relocated, 

atherstoexpand, andperhapsnew~tteestobeadded. 

.. 

overall increases will be offset by losses of 

AMN: (mphas ize All Amnities) Grazing outpts will decline 15 percent fmn 

the 1982 base year level over fifty years. Mxt of that loss will result 

from rennvjq cattle fran mule deer winter rwe: the remainder will be lost 

to timber and geothermal managmt, range decadence, and motah sheep 

rein.hrodudian. Overall losses will be offset SQneWhat due gains fran rage 

vegetation treatment and other sources. 

The overall dtim and trend of rangelands will improva on ths 43,100 

acres of -hreated or burned brush and the 23,500 acres of treated wet meadau. 

Cbnditicn and trend will remain static or decline elsewhere due to increasing 

decadence or accelerated erosion. 

As many as fourteen existirag permittees could be affected by reducedgrazing 

capacity. Few, if any, displaced permittees could be relocated, as forage 

ilp"b will be scattered and absorbed by permittees on affect& 

anotrnents; aalsequenttly, mast of the displaced permittees will go out of 

business. 

AMB: 

percent below the 1982 base year level over fifty years. 

will result fran cattle fran deer winter range. The remaining 

(Eblghas ize Wildlife ad Recraatian) Grazing outpts will drop five 

Most of that lass 

412 
losses will be associated with geothermal developnent, range decadence, and 

vegetation treatment, wildfire, the maintenance of current grazing levels in 

suitable tirruber, and other miror sources. 

The overall dtion and trend of rangelands will imprare 081 the 50,300 

acres of treated or burned brush and the 23,500 acres of treated wet meadow. 

Cadition and trend will remain static or decline elsewhere due to increasing 

decadence or accelerated erosicsl. 

As nary as seven existing permittees could be affeded by graz5.q capacity 081 allot”& associated with deer winter range and geatbnnal 

developnent. Few, if any, displaced permittees could be relocated, as forage 

iniplDv€men& will be scattered and absorbed by parmittees cm affected 

allotmnts; cxnsequently, most of the displaced penrcittees will go out of 

business. 

lTlxultain sheep reineon. mal1 losses will be Offset SDmewhat by 

Forest activities that have major effects on the recreation resource include 

recreation management, energy developnent, timber management, and wilderness 

management. 

Cansequences of the=a activities are assessed in terms of charges in the 

capacity for develop3 and dispersed recreation, charges in the amunt of 

various types of recreation use, and changes in the nmhr of acres available 

for different types of recreation. Data sources for this analysis include 

the Recreation Inf-tion Manag-t (RIM) system, the mcreaticm demand 

analysis for Forest pl-, Forest inventories of potential recreation 

sites, preliminary studies of potential ski areas, and the Forest data base. 

Recreation has been divided intn four categories to facilitate the discussion 

of consequwc&: develop3 recreatim, alphe skiing, dispersed recreaticol, 

and the Recreation Gpprhmity Spectnnn. 

Indicators 

1. DevelOpea Recreatim 

- Developed recreation site capacity 

- Developed recreation use. 

- Acres available for ski area developeat 

- Develapea ski area capacity 

2. Alpineskiing 

- ski- use. 

3. Dispersed Recreation 

- Acres available 

- Dispersed recreaticol use 

- Acres and miles of roads and trails available only for OW use. 

413 
4. Recreatian -ty Spectnnn (KIS) 

- Fomst-wide distnitutLopl of Ros Classes 

- chatqe in FOs Class distributicn. 

DBvaloped -ti- Site Capacity is measured by the personS-At--Time 

(PACX), the n" of people a facility is desi@ to serve. Recreation use 

is measured in recreation visitor days (RVDs) estimated use. Discussions of 

daraloped recreatim do not include alph skiing, as skiirg is aLwe%ed 

separately. Developed alpine ski area capacity is measured as 

(Rws). Acres available represent the total acres of existing and ptential 

alpine ski areas, including at least the full developent of Mammth Mxmtain 

and June Mollntain and at nnst the Sherwin Bowl, Mamnoth Kmlls, Minara t 

sMers-At--Time (Sprrr); skiirg USB is measured .b Rmtim Vi&- Dm 

Smt, Sari Jc~Kpin, and Whi- Wins mtial ski 

Dispersed recreatim areas are fxpresd In tixm of the acres available in 

each Recreational cpprhmity se (Ros) Class. Defhiticns for the FOs 

classes are fcwd in chapter VIII, Glossary . Remeatimuseis"3in 

(Rws). Miles of OHV roads and trails are mt displayed because the Plan 

requires that a new updated mtuc Vehicle Use Plan be prepared. 

The type of aevelopea and duspersea recreation Cpprhmities vay depnding 

upm the Recreatim Opprhmity Spect" (Ros) class of the lands on which 

they are f&. The seven RDS classes are Urban (U), Rural (R), Rwded 

Wfied (EM), Roadeii Natural (RN), Semi-Frimitive mbized (SFM), 

Semi-primitive Ncsl-Motorized (Sm), and Frimitive (P). The cmsequ- of 

altxxnatives were measured by the percent didxibtim of Forest lands by Ros 

Class. 

The projected changes in FOS Class acreage over time applied the following 

asslrmptiaa7s: 

1. New alphe ski area developnent will represent an irmease in the m 

Ros Class. 

2. New recreation developnents and new coM3entcated recreatian areas will 

represent an increase in the Roaded Natural, Roaded Wdified, or Rural 

Ros Classes. 

3. New road access for timber managerent or mineral develapnent will 

4. 

represent an increase in the Roaded Natural R€E class. 

Acres of remrmended wilderness or motor vehicle closure will represent 

anincrease in the Primitive or Semi-Primitive M-tbtm-ized R€E classes. 

The following tables display the cansequences of alt"tive.s on Forest 

recreation opporhnrities. 

414 
Table 82 

Indicatars of Consequences on Developed FkCreaticm 

(Public and E’rivate) (Dces not include alpine skiing) 

Alternatives 

~~ ~ ~ 

Inciicatars PRF am RPA CEE AMNAMB 

Developed site capaciiy 

(M Pm) 

Base Year 1982 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 

Decade1 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 

Decade 2 30.7 25.5 30.9 30.1 25.1 30.8 

Decade3 36.5 25.5 36.5 36.5 26.1 36.2 

Decade4 39.5 25.5 39.6 39.5 26.1 36.2 

Decade5 39.5 25.5 39.6 39.5 26.1 36.2 

Developed recreation 

site use. (M RVDs) 

Base Year 1982 1849 1849 1849 1849 1849 1849 

Decade 1 2229 1944 2325 2423 1944 2099 

Decade2 2517 1944 2708 2903 1944 2099 

Decade3 2708 1944 2900 2903 1944 2386 

Decade 4 2900 1940 2900 2903 1944 2483 

Decade 5 2900 1940 2901 2903 1944 2675 

Table 83 

Forest Lwds Available for Dispersed FkCreaticm 

by Ros Class (by tbe end of the fifth decade) (M -) 

Al-tiVes 

Ros class 1982 PRF aJR RPA CEE AMNAMB 

Primitive 870.6 

Semi-primitive 392.6 

Wm-bWorized 

Semi-primitive 189.2 

Motorized 

Faaded Natural 383.6 

Ftoaded Wdified 35.1 

Mal 11.6 

urban 2.0 

867.1 

404.9 

215.4 

335.6 

47.0 

13.1 

1.6 

867.1 836.2 865.7 869.8 867.8 

402.7 380.6 418.9 490.4 442.2 

238.1 230.7 183.8 152.7 195.9 

319.1 381.0 343.1 325.7 308.5 

43.3 39.8 48.1 36.6 51.5 

13.0 14.3 22.0 10.2 16.5 

1.4 2.1 3.1 1.3 2.3 

415 
Table 84 

Cl-mqes in Rc?S Class DistriWm 

by the end of the fifth decade (M acres) 

Alternatives 

ROs classes wa2* PRF CllR RPA CEE AMB 

PrjJnitive (P) 870.6 -3.5”” -3.5 -34.4 -4.9 -0.8 -2.8 

Sd-PrMtiV3 

r$zm-Wtorized (SM) 392.6 +12.3 +10.1 -12.0 +26.3 +95.8 +49.6 

Semi-PrMtiVe 

Motorized (SM) 189.2 +26.2 +48.9 +41.5 -5.4 -36.5 +6.7 

hded Natural (RN) 383.6 -48.0 -64.5 -2.6 -40.5 -57.9 -75.1 

Roaded Wfied (RM) 35.1 +11.9 +8.2 +4.7 +13.0 +1.5 +16.4 

Rural (R) 11.6 +1.5 +1.4 +2.7 +10.4 -1.4 +4.9 

W3JaI-l (W 2.0 -0.4 -0.6 +0.1 +1.1 -0.7 +0.3 

* 1982 acreage is adjusted to refled: the California WilaemeSs Act of 1984 

** Acreage changes are relative to 1982 

camnn to All AlteJmatiVes 

Developed Reu-eatim: The quality of the recreaticlnal experience and the 

opportrnrities provided by develcped facilities are, in part, related to 

specific attractions and desirable site characteristics. under all 

alternatives, the quality of the experi- and the Nanber and variety of 

recreatialal q3prhml ’ties are greatest in existiq cxmentrated recreation 

areas where stream, lakes, spectacular scenery, and screening vegetation are 

nast abundant. Althxgh attracticm and opprtum ‘ties in the oiyens River 

patential amcentrated recreaticn area are similar to existing areas, the 

Buttermilk and Parker Lake-Sawnill Canyrm areas rate lower on thoss factors. 

Outside of cxmentzated recreation areas, attrad5.cn and recreation wrtuniw levels range fran derate in areas with saeenhq vegetatim to 

lav in areas of apen brush. There are few, if any, water-related 

attracticm. Although many potential aeVelOpea sites with limited 

attractions and p3or site CharacteristiCS could be added to the inventory, 

use levels in such sites will be extremely lm. The BIM aperates many 

a“r& are virtual ly vacant & of 

the year. By the third to fifth decades, as recreaticmal equipnent, 

technology, and user intm change, these “entoried potential sites 

cauld become mne desireable. If so, they should be added to the inventory 

at that time. 

It is expcted that increasing mnnbers of remeatimists will recreate 

designd for year-- use. As seascms of use lengthen, the demand for 

a”& on such sites. Those 

Gutside of peak use seasons due to the developnent of notor- and campers 

416 
year-rmmi operation of many ovamight facilities will increase. Extended 

sea!" could @de for ccmsi&=rable additicmal us8 witbout greatly 

expard& site capacity. This qportudty will be available for all 

atematives umkr which facilities and services are provided at standard. 

Beiow-standKd operatiopl will entail the shortening of use seasms. 

Developed sites dghbrirg the Mimrrpth Lakes and June Lake camudtiffi will 

become m3113 valuable for day use and apen space as ski areas develop, 

&mnuriities irmease in size, and SLnrmer caumnu *ty oc"y rates innease. 

Recreaticm autputs and cgprhmitiffi related to overnight facilities will 

decline in proportton to increased day use. 

Geothermal developnent in Lease Blocks I and I1 will not directly affect any 

existing recreation sites. However, the attractiveness and use levels of 

sites near geothermal developnents will be expeded to due to the 

presence of large indusiz ial facilities in the area. 

New hydroelectric aevelopnents will also affect develcped recreation 

oppxbmites and use, even IkWJl-l rone of the existilq prolpsals will 

Wly eliminate recreation sites. The recreaticm loss associated with 

hydrceledric developnent cculd be even greater than that associated with 

ge&he"l, due to the popularity of watex-oriented recreaticmal facilities. 

ydroelectric projects reduce stream flows, affecting fisheries, scenic 

values, water play, and other riparian area-related recreaticslal values. The 

likelihmd of Ilew hydrOelf?&riC developnent is CaTllDn to all altanativFs. 

ZUpine Skiing: In all alternatives the approve3 develcpnsnt plans for 

Mamnoth Pbuntain and June I4zwnbi.n will be implemented. These plans call for 

Mamnoth Wnmtain to be developed to a capacity of 24,000 SAOT and June 

Wuntain to a capacity of 7,000 SADT. Any additional develop3 beyond these 

levels will require a clmollative impacts study that will be outside the 

purview of this Plan. 

Dispersed Recreation: In all alternatives, the ability of the Inyo Naticmal 

For& to met the demand for dispersed recreation is closely linked to 

mew the demand for develOpea recreation. The amxolt of Forest-wide 

diispersed recreation use is roughly proporticolal to the a"t of developed 

overnight capcity on both public and private lands in the area. Only 

wildemess use and hun- are &ly indepsndent of aeVelOpea overnigfit 

facilities, as wilderness users and hunters typically camp in dispersed 

areas. 

The general types of dispersed activities and cpprhmities will not change 

between alternatiw. All alternatives will offer a full range of activities 

in balanced pmpxtions with m me type of activity &"ting the others. 

Although some activities may increase considerably, -they will not exclude or 

substantially reduce oppxbmities for other activities. 

Wst of the changes that will "r urader a given dlternative will affect 

only snall acreages representing a fraction of the total Forest land base. 

For example, a five-fold increase in nordic skiing wer current levels on 

10,ooO acres will not affect the activities takiq place on the other 99.5 

percent of the Forest. In addition, as only 30,000 acres of suitable timber 

lie in currently areas, less than 2 percent of the Forest will be 

417 
affecked by 5Jnpmed aM3ess for timber I"t, even Ur&r altxxnatives 

that maximized tjna33r pxductim. Major changes in acreage in the different 

raos Classes, and thu!s in dispersed activities and czqpxhn 'ties Forest-wide. 

are not likely to change substantially over the next 50 years. 

Driving for pleasure will be expectd to increase a rm71l1~fll of 400,m to 

500,m RVDS al.ternat.lves in respanse to mmrmnity growth and the 

widening of US. 395, facilitating travel between the Los Angeles 

metropolitan area and the Fcorest. 

ThecY" * tim of reueaticmal activities and -ties in axmmtrated 

recreatian areas will remain. tha same under all alternatives. Water-oriented 

activities will mtinue to be central for most slnrmar ~ticnists. 

NardiCSkijngW 'ties will be expect& to innease a mini" of 140,ooO 

RVDS under all alternatives as the demand far that activity expands. 

Additicmal increases in demand will be associated with imxeasd alpine ski 

area capacity, due to the nardic &iiq associated with the attract;l 'on of 

rrnre alpine skiers to the Forest. 

-ties for wilderness recreatian m the Forest will not come close to 

meet.lng deMnd under any alternative, as the management of wilderness within 

capacity limits places a cell- m use that is unrelated to damxi, and as 

new wilderness areas will not have the attractions or the capacity to 

COntribLlte substantially to recreaticpl opprhnu 'ties. The al"t of 

ntim use varies very little by alternative, even th=ugh the acreage 

Lnoposed for wilderness varies widely. 

.. all 

developnent will eliminate dispersed recreation use 081 the am 

actually "pied by facilities under any alternative. In additim, a far 

greater area muld be Impacted, depending on the location of developmts, 

the road systeu designed, the amfiguration of pipelines and powerlines, and 

the security measures ckemsd necessary by industq. The effects of 

geothermal developnent in Lease Blocks I and 11 rru-th and east of Mamwth 

will be the same for all alternatives. 

Nay hydnelectric developnent could also affect dispezsed recreation under 

any alternative. The effects muld be even greater than the effects of 

developnent, as mlectric plants will conflict with popular 

water-oriented recreation. Sectioa7s of steam affeded by hydrcelectric 

prujeds will M lmger be considered oxcentrats3 mcreatim areas, due to 

the reduced density of use levels that will result. The likelihmd of such 

developnent is midered can" to all alternatives. 

mtim apporharity Spectrm (IEDS): The demand for recreation 

oppcatunitiffi in the primitive (primarily wilderness) ROS class will mt be 

met under any alternative. The supply available is limited by established 

wil- capacity limits and the limited potential of F'mther Plarmirrg 

Areas cm the Forest to provide for adclitimal use. The managmt of 

wilderness within capacity limits helps to ensure a high quality experience 

for the user and reduces the . that Often leads to resource 

Wadaticn. Such management also, hawwer, limits the a"t of use and the 

ability of the Forest: to meet wilderness recreaticBl demand. 

418 
The Farest will & meet the demand for the Rural ROs ClaSS 

(primarily alpine skiing) under any alt-tive due to the managanent of 

alpine ski areas within established capacity limits to ensure a quality 

experience for the skier. 

The supply of Semi-Frimitive Motorized and Roaded Natural opprhmities will 

exceed demand under all alternatives. The demand for activities in these ROS 

classes is limited by the availability of overnight lcdgirg, both public and 

private, to provide a ppulation base for dispersed activities. 

Sibcy-six percent of the Iny~ is already classified as Primitive or 

semi-mimitive Nm-Motorized; am- 11 percent is classified Semi-Primitive 

Motcaized. There will be little chrge in these w3s classes Forest-wide over 

50 years, even under alternatives with little or m wilckrness. 

The distribution of lands in the varicus ROs classes will generally shift in 

the mion of mre developnent under mxt alternatives. WXS shifts tavard 

to less developnent will be mre difficult to achieve. It is unlikely, for 

example, that a given area will charge fm Rural to Road& Natural, or 

Fioaded Natural to Semi-primitive mtorized within five decades witbut 

specific adninistrative cxmtrols. Q1 the other hand, Sa-primitive 

Motorized acres will shift to the Semi-primitive Nm-~torized w3s class as a 

result of wi1de.me.s~ designation or mtm vehicle closure. 

mat vary by Alternative 

DevelCpXi Recxeatian: This alternative will provide a wide rarge of 

high-quality develop& recreation activities and op~~rhzxLties. The user 

could expect well-maintained facilities in both rehabilitated and newly 

w"ted sites. The density of use in c"trated recreation areas will 

imrease. DevelOpea site 0psratk-g seasc~ls will be I-, and a greater 

variety of sites will be available. The pmjected demand for developea 

recreation will be met during the first through third decades. 81 percent Of 

demand will be met by the fifth decade, with approximately 2.9 million 

developedsiteRVDs. Appnxma ' tely 90 percent of inventoried potentral sites 

will have been developed. 

The opprhmities provided will shift fm the current caqgmund-dcminated 

situation to a mre bald cole with additional day use facilities, 

especially interpretive sites. Mast new developnents will still OCCUT in the 

public sector. However, privately develop& recreational vehicle park 

Forest. All &Sting sites will be brought to standard mce levels in the 

first -two decades. Sixty-six percent of new facilities will be located in 

existirg coplcentrated reaeaticm areas, 16 percent will be built in newly 

created c"txated recreatim areas, and 18 percent will be built elsewhere 

cm the Forast. 

DarelOpea recreation in exist- concentrated reaeation areas will mt be 

affected by other resource activities, except that recreaticn developnents 

will have to meet sta"3S for water quality and riparian area pmtection. 

In the proposed concentrated recreatiopl areas for the C" River and the 

oppxhmities and mrdic ski resixt OppJrhmities will increase on the 

419 
Walker Lake-Sawmill Canyon areas, exim graziq al1o-t directL .m will 

detennine the amcunt, locatim, and design of rezxeaticmal facilities. 

Recreatian sites located in key deer habitat will be subject to seasanal 

CloSLlres. 

Dispersed Reu-eatim: T?x quality of dispersed resreation activities and 

cpprhmities will increase due to a full canplement of well-maintained 

facilities which will disperse use, lessen cmcmtrations of people, and 

reduce adverse impads on sensitive riparian areas. Users will find -ate 

levels of mtml and enforcamt to reduce omflicts between activities. 

OHV users will find less freedan of "nt because of greater restricticns 

on travel, especially 081 lands adjacent to cn"ities. Fishing 

decline slightly under this altemative. 

projected demand for dispersed recreation will be met in the first 

through the third decades, while only 76 percent of demand will be met in the 

fifth decade with 2.4 million dispersed non-wilderness RVDs. 

An 81 percent haease in dispersed RVDs in concentrated recreation areas 

will be facilita- by the addition of 180 miles of trail, which will 

eMxxlrage a broader range of activities and oppxtunities. 

Dispersed use en cpen-roadd lands will increase 182 percent over 50 years. 

Vehicle-based opprtum 'ties will bcrease where new timber access roads 

entered the lands east of San Jcatpin =@e. Di- "ation use in 

UNOaded areas will increase slightly due to lccal com~llll 'ty gmwth. 

OHV opportunities will be defined in the Upaate of the 1977 Interagency mtor 

Vehicle Use Plan. OHV e 'ties cal the Forest are managed um3er this 

plan, darelopa3 by the Bureau of Land Management, Department of Water and 

power of the City of Los Angeles and the Forest. There will be extensive 

public participatim in the upaate of this Plan, which will display 

-ties for both OHV and osv use. 

All r3iSperSea re0reati.cn areas will be managed at standard levels of 

operation. Wails and trailheads will be maintained to levels identified in 

kail mainl33lamX plans. 

rkxeatim-ty specinm : Den!andwillb3mtandexceededinthesm 

arid RN classes, and will nearly be met in the SPNJI and RM classes thraghut 

the next fifty years. Cpprtunities in the primitive arid Rural ROS classes, 

m the other hand, will fall far short of meeting demand. Wilderness in the 

Frmtive Class and alpine skiing in the mal class will both be highly 

regulated under this alternative to e" a quality ?xcxeaticmal 

experience. The developmat of additicmal trails for hiking autside 

wilderness en sm lands and dc skiing on RN lands will ptwide 

additional OppOIhu 'ties to offset use limitations elsewhem. 

ROS class acreage will increase maFnly in the sm and sm prtion of the 

spectnrm because of additid wilderness and areas managed with an aqbasis 

cal primitive recxeatim oppxhml 'ties. An innease in concentrated 

reu-eation areas and sane aaaitimal ski area developnent will rep?x?sent 

substantial irmeases in roaded mdified and Rural ROS classes with 

opporhnsities will increase slightly, while hunting cpprtum 'ties will 

420 
reducticms in Roaded Natural acreage. The total acles shiftiq 

between EiX classes will repmsent 5.5 peroent of the Forest. 

am: (anrent- ) 

Developed Ihxeatim: This altamative will -ize ovenu 'sht qm. Day use facilities such as inteqretive sites, trails, parkiq, and 

informatim signs will be minimal . Userdensitieswill ra!aln ' atcun-ent 

levels, tut user dissatisfactim will increase as sites deteriorated. Use of 

many facilities will be restrided to peak seasc~~s cmly. 

DevelOpsd ".-eaticm outputs will be macntained near current levels 

throughout the plarmiq him. In the fifth dscade, cmly 54 percent of 

estimated demand will be met with 1.9 millicm develqed site RVDs. 

lsppraximately 59 pe"t of the total potential supply will have been 

developed, with 113 new canstruction over the Planning brim. 

Management of Forest Service will ocsltinue at low-standard levels 

for most sites. Facilities will deteriorate to the point that atename 

could mt provide needed repairs. The quality of services, facilities, and 

site dtim will decline to UnsatisfadOIy levels. Use will be expected 

to dtiop below existing levels in the mxe ply maintained sites. A "al 

rehabilitaticn program will keep facilities open while preventing excessive 

resource damage. 

Wst resorts and cut"zial uses will remain, with a slight imrease in 

aesresprivate RV facilities offsetI5.q the declining use of public sites to scme 

The manag-t of existing developed sites will not be affected by other 

resource management objectives except for the need to meet water quality, 

riparian area, and visual quality standards. 

Dispersed Recreation: The quality of dispersed recreation activities will 

decline. Lack of ccmtrols and facilities will lead to ovemowdirag, 

&lids between activity groups, deterioraticm of sensitive riparian zcoles, 

and user i.nm"ience. Hunting and fishkg opprtunities will decline with 

&t.eriora+Aq habitat capability for game species. 

Dispersed RVD Outputs will increase slightly in this alternative, meeting 

demand through the first decade. This ixrease will result fran increased 

nordic skiing and drivw for pleasure, though even those 'ties will 

be provided at low-standard levels. By the fifth decade, only 49 percent of 

projected demand will be mt, with approximately 1.6 million m-wildemess 

dispersed ms. 

By the fifth decade, dispersed recreation use in c"trated recreation 

areas will drop approximately 20 percent due to the deterioraticm of 

developed sites. No new m-wildemess trails will be built under this 

alternative. 

421 
Dispersed recreatian use in rwded amas of the Farest will innease ahout 65 

pexentduebthe~ . of U.S. 395 and the talildjlq of new timbar roads 

The qpmhmities available to OIN USBIS will basically raMin mchrged, 

except that 107,600 additional acres in new wilderness will add sum clased 

areas bath s~mmar and win-. Timber managenent in Mnache will reduce the 

opp”ity for c%N ZEaeation in mt area.. Illegal cmv USB will probably 

increase over time with a lack of effective law enforcement. Physical and 

visual disturbances, ccmflicts with other users, and general polarization of 

feelings and loss of enjoymant by other user groups will result. especially 

on lands adjacent to local -ties. 

Nordic skiing will inrJrease 115 percent by the fifth dscade. App” . tely 

325 miles of marked trail and ka&s will provide for 366,000 RVDs. All 

Mc ski trails and facilities will be developed privately e special 

use permit. MZst will be located in the Mamnoth area. 

laecreatian93porhn+ity spechun : Demand will be met and exceded in the sm 

and 

m. 

m Classes, but cppxhml ‘ties in neither the sm or m Classes will meet 

saneov“eq will be experienced durirg peak use perioas in the 

RM Class. Bath Primitive and Rural Class cg”l ‘ties will fall far short 

of meeting denand due to capacity ljndtations placed on wilderness use and 

alpirY3 skiing. However, as wilderness quotas will mt be enfarced with 

reduced SBTviCBs, the quality of the Prjndtive recreatiopl vielY=a will 

decline. There will be m additialal trails built in other Iios Classes to 

offset .zrudiq in tbe himitive Class. 

into the IIOW-- lulslacsre and Sari JoaquIn 

Iios class acreage in SPNJI, SFM, and FM will increase. The largest increase 

in SpM will result fran the large rarmber of acres in the white, Inyo, and 

developnents. The slight hcrease in RM acres will mt result in increased 

use, The Rurdl Class will 

between classes will represent 7.2 wt of the Forest. 

Excelsior Mountains that will be apen to primitive madkg or mtorized trail 

increase in response to ski area developnent. The total acres shifting 

as there will be M new ?xc?X?ation developents. 

Developed Recreation: This alternative will provide a wide range of 

high-quality developed “ation activities and ‘ties. The user 

could expect well-maintaind facilities in both rehabilitated and newly 

cx”cted sites. l‘he density of use in mncentrated recreation areas will 

irmease. Developd site operating seasc~ls will be lager, and a greater 

variety of sites will be available. Thae will, kwever, be potential for 

reduced recreatimal quality in forested setvlngs &e to a heavy emphasis cm 

timber prcduction. Ccnflicts and m dissatisfaction will focus on the 

suitable t.inuber lands be.tween the ”th Lakes and June Lake bmp recreation 

areas. 

The pjected deMnd for develop3 recreation will be mt the first 

through third decades. 81 percent of demand will be met by the fifth decade, 

of inventoried potential sites will have been developed. 

with appmxhately 2.9 million &velapea site RVDs. PpproxuM . tely 90 peroent 

422 
Theopprhml 'ties provide3 will shift fm the current -ted 

situation to a m balh one with additiaml day-use facilities, 

especially interpretive sites. kst new developnents will still OCCUT in the 

public sector. Haever, privately develOpea RV parks and nordic ski resorts 

will haease on the Forest. All existing sites will be brought to standard 

service levels in the first txm decades. Fifty percent of new faciliiaes 

will be located in existing collcentrated recreation areas, 11 percent will be 

built in newly created ooncen-trated recreakion areas, and 31 percent will be 

built elsewhere on the Forest. The overall quality of developed sites wll 

be slightly lmer than under the PRF alternative, as mxe of the new sites 

will be located away fran water. 

Although developd sites in the existing Deadman and Inyo Craters 

ancentrated recreation areas will be maintained, there will be M expansion 

or developnent of ptential sites in those areas due to the heavy emphasis on 

timhermanagmt. opprhml 'ties for full developnent of the potential Owens 

River cancentrated recreation area will also be f0rep-e. 

The expansion of alpjne ski area developnent in the Mamnoth area will result 

in a amnnmity mxe than twice the current size. mch mxe day use will be 

expected in develop3 sites durirg the sumner, as the cn"ity continued to 

develop as a full four-season destination resort. Di.~-e&icm for existing 

Lake-Sawnil1 Canyon coreatrated recreation areas will determine the a"t, 

location, and design of recreation facilities in thDse areas. 

Dispersed Recreation: "he quality of dispersed recreation activities and 

-ties will increase due to a full canplement of well-maintained 

facilities which will disperse use, lessen ancentxaticms of people, and 

reduce adverse impacts on sensitive riparian areas. Users will find &ate 

levels of contml and enforcemnt to reduce cmflicts between activities. 

C€lV users will find mre freedan of "nt due to a increase in opn areas 

and in open roads and treils. Fishing and htiq opprhnu 'ties will decline 

mnsiderably unda this alternative, due to inpad on gam species by 

intensive COrrmDdl 'ty prdLlction. 

The projected denand for dispersed recreation will be met in the first 

through the third decades, while only 76 percent of demand will be met in the 

fifth decade with 2.4 million dispersed m-wilderness RvDs. 

An 81 percent increase in dispersed RVDs in concen.trated recreation areas 

will be facilitated by the a&iition of 180 miles of trail, which will 

enmurage a broader range of activities and oppzd" 'ties. A timber 

management -is will eliminate the Deac3na1-1 and Inyo Crater omcentrated 

fecreation areas, reciucilq RVDS in those areas. 

Disperses use in the Ioaded prticas of the Forest will increase by 210 

percent CiLIrirg the next 50 years, the highest of any alternative. 

Vehicle-based oppzd" 'ties will increase where new timher access roads 

en- the lands east of San Joaquh Ridge and the Wmache area. Dispersed 

use of unroaded lands will hcrease due to day use associated with 1cca.l 

-ty growth. 

gra2i.X-g all0trnents in the proposed Buttermilk, Owens River, and walker 

423 
Nordic skim cpprhmities will be expctd to expand, with a 200 percent 

increase in use by the fifth decade. rrpFanxlma ' tely 450 miles of marked trail 

and track will be in use, accormodating 382,000 RVDS. 

Sumner Open-OHv areas will increase by 62,200 acres to include the narth end 

of the Inp mznmtains and part of the Excelsior range. The priicss of the 

Jeffrey pine forest currently open will becane restrided to protect 

PlantatiCms. the same as the caEr?ant OIN Plan. 

The expected growth in "th Lakes andother local ca"l. 'ties will trigger 

an increase in OIN activities. OHV use could a major Sumnertime 

recreaticnal activity, recpmq additicmal lvbtorized trails and activity 

areas. Winter Open-OtIv area9 will be reduced by nK?re than 40,oOo acres to 

reduce ccmflicts with developed ski areas. 

All aspects of dispersed recreation will be administered at staradard levels 

of opwatim. 

Recreation o€qmAmiW sJp3nml : Demand will be met or exceedsd in the sm 

and RN Classes, but will not be met in arry other R(3s Class, as capacity will 

be reached in all cases before the fifth decade. Prhitive and sm 

-tes in particular will be affected by the lack of additiw 

wilderness and the lcw level of acreage retained for Rm-bWmr5zed f- of 

re". !R-m greatest potential will be folrnd for activities relating to 

the Fbaded Natural. ROS class, as USB of lands in that class will not &li& 

with intensified timber "gem?.&. Increased hikirg trails in RN and SPM 

cmflids could OCCUT with greater frequency &e to increased densityof use. 

Timher management will cause a redudian in RM RCX class acreage. Use an 

these acres will mt be trawfemd to m-tirkxmd RN acres, as mxt of the 

activities and uses in RN are day-use and disparsed rather than developd. 

The greatest irlwE2 ase in acres will be found in the sm Class, with snall 

additions in .the RM and R classes. The additim of acres to Rural, though 

mall, will represent large increases in RVDS, as alpine skiing will be the 

mjor activity represented cm tl-ose lands. The greatest: losses in acreage 

will be found in the primitve and SPN+ classes, as m new wilderness is 

added and because large UNOaded areas in the White and Irryo Mxmtains and 

the ooyote plateau will be made available for increased vehicle-based 

mtes. The major shift Forest-wide will be tawards the Rural end of 

the spclrum. Hcwever, only 5.2% of the total Forest acres will change 

Classes. 

The Closed areas will TxnFUn . 

.. 

Classes will help offset the limited capacity in Prhitive and sm, tut user 

CEE: (- Cost-Efficiency) .. 

Developed Recreatim: This alternative will prwide a wide rqe of 

could expect well-maintained facilities in both rehabilitated and newly 

amst" sites. The density of use in ccncentrated recreation areas will 

incease. DevelOpea site qxxatiq seascsls will be lqer, and a greater 

variety of sites will be available. The Mann~th and June Lake areas will be 

mch mre crawded, and usezs will be subject to mxe cont~~ls and regulatims 

to reduce ccslflids between activity gmup. 

high-quality developea recreatim activities and opg"I 'ties. The user 

424 
The projected demand for developed recreaticm will he met dur- the first 

tiuoqh third decades. 81 percent of demand will be met by the fifth decade, 

with app”te1y 2.9 millicm developed site m. APp?”telY 90 percent 

of irrventcaied potential sites will have been developed. 

The oppmtunities pmvided will shift frcm the current c“d-daniM% 

situation to a mxe balanced cme, with a&Xticmal day-use facilities, 

especially intapretin sites. Most new developrwts will still “r in the 

public sector. Hayever, privately developed FW parks and mrdic ski resorts 

will increase on the Forest. The type of use in the Mamuth and Eea&an 

mqcme to the greatly increased sumnar population of Mamnoth Lakes. 

All 

existing CCBlcentrated recreation areas, 16 percent will be built in newly 

created CCBlcentrated recreation areas, and 13 percent will be built elsewhere 

on the Forest. The quality of the develapea site experience will be Mgh due 

to the attraction level and site corditions faund in concentrated recreation 

areas. 

areas will shift markedly toward day use and away frun overnl ‘ght use in 

c3xiSw.q sites will be tmxght to standard SeLVice levels in the first 

two decades. smtym parcent of new facilities will be located in 

In this alternative, developea recreation OpFo*ties will be affected 

primrily by the substantial alpine ski area developnent in the Mean” and 

upper Deadman (seek areas. The population of mth Lakes will be expected 

to triple in supprt of a canparable increase in alpine skiing, and the 

private land base for camunity needs will also expand. Private developnent 

will met likely expand to the east and north into the Shady Rest area, 

eliminating the use of that omcentrated recreation area. Mxt of the new 

recreation facilities in the Mammth Lakes Emsin and Reds Meadau area mll 

serve day-use activities in resp3nse to an j.lxmx& year-rolmd resident 

@ation base. 

The developed site potential in the Deadman area will be precluded by 

access routes and base facility developnents associated with San Joaquin and 

Overnight facilities will be reduced accordingly. 

mte Win3 ski areas. 

Dispersed Recreatim: The quality of dispersed recreaticn activities and 

opportunities will increase due to a full canplement of well-maintained 

facilities which will disperse use, lessen ccolcentratians of people, and 

reduce adverse inpacts on sensitive riparian areas. Users will find -ate 

levels of control and enforcemmt to rechce conflicts between activities. 

OHV users will find mre freedan of “ent with new open areas in the Inyo 

Wumtahs, the base of the Sierra -t south of Big Pine, and the 

Excelsior area. OHV use will be mre regulated and ccsltrolled on lands 

adjacent to cx” ‘ties. Fishkg oppnhmities will increase under this 

alternative, while hur- oppztum ’ties will decline. 

“he estimated demand for dispersed recreation will be met in the first 

through the third decades, but only 77 percent of demand will be met in the 

fifth decade with 2.4 million annual mn-wilderness RVDs. 

An 85 percent increase in dispersed RVDs in cazenkated recreation areas 

will be facilitated by the additian of 180 miles of new trails and new 

ccolcen.trated recreation areas in the Owens River and Parker Lake-Sawmill 

425 
canycpl areas. It is possible, however, that rrast of the Shady Rest-Sbmin 

ccwentrated recreatiDn area will have to be eliminated due to cnnnunity 

grawthDispersed us8 in rwded @CElS Of the FOE& will increase 165 percent 

the next fifty year^. The San J- and upper Deadman crsek-D.ry 

Timber harvest will stimulate ths devalopnent of new W into 

(seek areas will become muchnrore accessible due to intensive alpine ski area 

the San Joaquin ad Mmache areas. Dispersed “atifn activities in 

access. 

develapnent. 

blmache will shift toward the use of tm-wheel drive vehicles wi* hrpnved 

use of the unroaded areas of the Farest will increase slightly with 

local a”ity growth. 

Nordic skiing use will be greatest under this al-ti- with a 300 percent 

innease by the fifth decade. FpprOximate1y 575 miles of trails and trade 

will accorrmodate 500.o0o ENDS of skiing use. mxeased use will be supportea 

by the greatly expanded SM rescat cx”ity inherent in this albnlative. 

Nast e.xpansim will take place in the Deactnan and Dry cceek areas mrth of 

Ma”*. 

alv cgen areas will increase by 45,800 acres. All3mgh porucns Of the 

Jeffrey pine forest IYJW open will be restrided, new acreage in the Inyo 

mntains, sierra fmwlls, and ncathern Inyo mw will be open to 

use. Closed OHV areas will innease by 339,ooO acres due to nxam~&& 

wilderness areas. cXW use cm the rest of the Forest will be restcicted to 

roads and trails. Thirty-Seven miles of OHv-Cprly routes in the Mmache area 

will be eliminated due to impwed access required for timber harvest. open 

areas for .%“bile use will decrease due to new wilderness and ski 

developnentS. 

Recleeaticn-ty spectrua : Danarid will be met or exceded in SFM, RN, 

and ml IEDS Classes throughout the %-year period. cpprhml ‘ties in the Rural 

Class will cone Closest to meetirg demand lmdex this alternative. 

oppxhmities in the Primitive and SPEM Classes will not meet demand. 

Howwer, with the additim of trails of all types in SPM and RN Classes, 

could be Shifted from SFTW to those classes. Gpprtmu ‘ties in the Primitive 

class, as in all other alternatives, will be limited by capacity controls in 

wilderness. 

users will fhd both the m and FUml IEOS Classes intensively developed. 

User contact will be high, and -ties for solitude will be low. 

Extensive trail systems will facilitate the dispersal of people and 

activities. Activities in these classes will be highly regulated wie 

visible controls, particularly as related to motorized activities. 

However, the sm Class will also increase with wilderness -tifor the Coyote Plateau area and msst of the northern White bkxmtains. Even 

though there will be mre acreage in established (M7 open areas, the SFM IEOS 

class will be reduced due to wildemess recomnendatons and alpine ski area 

developnent. and R will also 

percent of the Forest. 

use 

Forest-wide acreage Will Shift mainly toward the mal end Of the Sp&nnn. 

Substantial shifts of Roaded Natural towards 

occuz‘. The total acres shifting between Classes will represent my 5.4 

426 
AMN: (Maxlnu * 'zeAz1Amenities) 

Developed -tirm: This alternative will provide a wide range of high 

quality developed recreation activities and opprtunities, but in limited 

quantities. The user will enjoy utlcrowded conditions and well-main- and 

totally rehabilitated facilities, includjq a full package of day-use and 

interpretive facilities. Al- controls and enfo"t will rarely be 

visible, canflicts between users will be low. chances to find solitude, even 

for developd site users, will be the greatest. under this altemative. 

However, many people will mt be able to find a recreaticol site during the 

peak season and will have to vacation elsewfiere or schedule their visit for a 

different time of year. 

In this altemative, developed remeation will hccease very slightly over 

current output levels over five decades. By the fifth decade, 60 percent of 

inventcried potential sites will have been develop4 and 53 percent of 

estimated demand will be met with appmxhately 1.9 million annual develop4 

site ms. 

The opprismities provided will be similiar in quantity to the existing 

situation, but a better balance will be achieved between avernight and day 

use due to increases in interpretive site developnent and other day-use 

facilities. The attraction level and site conditions of exist- facilities 

will be imprwed umk standard levels of opration for a higher quality 

recreational mi-. 

Developed recreation managemMt will be limited hy the eqbsis on riparian, 

visual, and wildlife objectives. N3 new cancentrated recreation areas will 

be develop4 under this altemative, in order to avoid impacts on wildlife 

and riparian values. These values include key deer winter range, key deer 

holdiq areas, the unroaded character of the San Jcaquin area, and mall 

riparian areas that currently receive little recreation use. 

Dispwx& Recreaticn : Because this altemative has a low level of develop4 

site capacity, it will also have a law levels of dispersed use. Haever, 

facilities, the quality of the experience will be the greatest of any 

altemative on all areas of the Forest. primitive forms of recreation will 

be at their highest levels, due to the vast acreage of additional wilderness 

and limited access management. Capacity controls on wilderness and the 

top3graphy of recoTmended areas will I-&, however, provide for substantial 

increases in use. Solitude, challenge, and isolated ca@q situations will 

be eqbsized. Users will find only limited evidence of on-thew 

controls. Fishing and hunting 'ties will be at their highest due to 

impmved habitat dtions for fish and deer. OHV use will be the nnst 

severely restricted under this altemative, and cxn+xols and enforcemnt will 

be readily apparent. OHV enthusiasts will mt cone to this area, but will go 

elsewfiere, particularly for major events. 

The estimated demand for dispersed remeation will be met through the first 

drxade and & of the seamd deade. By the fifth decade, however, only 54 

percent of demand will be met with 1.7 millim annual dispersed 

IYm-wilderneSs ms. 

with full developnent of dispersed trails, parking, and jnfom?ation 

427 
AS the slight rductim of developea sites in amcentrated recreation areas 

will be offset by baeases in lccal rx"i* use, dispersed recreatiosl in 

thase areas will remain at current levels over the platmirg horim. At 

least 80 miles of new trails will be cxa-lstLua to better disprse use and 

pt& Tesources. 

sane developwlt in maded prticms of the Forest, as well as improves 

highway access to the Eastern Sierra, will generate a 77 percent increase in 

dispersed use on macled lands. Dispersed recreation use in UNOaded areas 

will increase slightly. 

Nordic skiing will irmease 220 percent by the fifth decade. Appmxma ' tely 

425 miles of additicmal trails and track, mzst of that privately developed, 

will accarmodate 405,000 mal RvDs. 

Off-highway vehicle use will be de-aphasized in this alternative. Most 

existing and potential open areas will be recarmended for wilderness or will 

be managed under limited access guiaelines with an -is on wildlife, 

visual, riparian, or primitive recreatim opprhmities. This alternative 

will have the largest acreage closed to sumner OHV use, and most of the rest 

of tbe Forest will be restricted; only 14,500 acres will be open. Winter 

cmxE1ict.s with nordic skiers, and potential inpacts on wildlife. OHV use of 

the Mcolache area will be retained to the degree "ptible with deer habitat 

Opn-OHv areas also will be redud because of wilderness -ti-, 

management in that -. 

All forms of dispersed recreation will be "aged at stan&d levels of 

operaticxi. 

Recr-eatim~tySpectnm : Demand will be mt or exceeded in the sm, 

SFM, and RN w3s classes. As the Primitive class will be limited by capacity 

mtrols, projected demand could Ilot be satisfied. Even the 510,800 acres of 

new wilderness will mtribute little in the way of recreation opportuIll ' ty, 

as these acres have limited capacity for use. The slight &line in Rural 

and irmease in RM reflect: the low level of new developnent key to this 

alt-ti=. 

The major shift of a- is fran RN and SFM to SPNY due to wilderness 

any altwmative, but still involves only 10.3 percent of the Forest. 

?X€"Qtims. This Shift represents the greatest change of acres UPder 

AMB: (hpbas ize Wildlife and -tim) 

Developed Recreation: This altemative provides a wide range of activities 

andopprtlm 'ties. The user will find well-maintained sites, available space 

during mast seasms, and little resource damage &e to overuse. Densities in 

corcentrated recreation areas will have increased overbaseyear. 

The estimated demand for developea recreaticBl will be met into the third 

decade. By the fifth decade, altbugh 80 percent of inventoried sites will 

be developed, only 74 percent of estimated demand will be met with 2.7 

millim annual aeVelOpea site RVDs. 

428 
The -ties available will represent a quality balance of overnight and 

dayuse facilities and activities provided by both the public and private 

sectors. All sites will be 

brought to standard levels of service in the first two decades. Of the newly 

c“&d facilities, 75 percent will be located in exi- cmcentrated 

recreation areas and the Other 25 perOent Will be in 0- roaded portionS Of 

the Forest. No new concentrated recreation areas will be created. The upper 

Deadvan Creek potential concentrated recreation area will be reserved for 

future use, but will not be developd in the first 50 years. Nl recreation 

developnent in concentrated recreation areas will not OCCUI: because of 

potential impacts on riparian area-dependent wildlife. 

Dispersed Recreatidn: Moderate levels of dispersed recreation will be 

available in CCHacentrated recreation areas and roaded p0r-ticm.s of the 

Forest. The concentrated recreation areas could have perids of high-density 

use, with increased rates of -tact between users. Well-defined trail, 

par-, and informatian systems will help to pull use away fran developea 

sites and to increase carnrenience for the users. 

Semi-primitive and primitive fonns of recreatim opprtunities will be at 

high levels of use due to the large amoLlllt of acreage under the wilderness 

and limited access prescriptions. !&en though mzst of the acres on the 

Forest will be available for primitive fonns of recreation, however, the 

total a”t of use in those categories will not hccease greatly due to 

capacity controls on wildexness and limited physical capacity els”. 

opportunities for solitude, challeqe, and isolated camping situations will 

be emphasized, with little evidence of on-the-- mtxols. OW users 

will be severely restricted during the sumner, with major reductions in open 

areas. Restrictions and enfo-t will be highly visible. Organized mstor 

vehicle events will be discouraged. Fishing and hunting opprhmities will 

be enhanced by the emphasis on game species habitat manag-t. 

The estimated demand for dispersed recreatim will be met in the first decade 

through the third decade, but only 70 percent of demand will be met in the 

fifth decade with 2.3 million annual rnn-wilderness dispersed ms. 

By the fifth decade there will be a 51 percent increase in dispersed ms in 

concentrated recreation areas. App” ’ tely 120 miles of trail wiii be 

built to help accarmodate increased use and to broaden the range of 

activities and opg”ities. 

Dispersed recreation use in other roaded portions of the National Forest will 

increase 131 percent by the fifth decade. Dispersed recreation use in 

unmade3 areas will increase slightly due to lccal “ity growth. 

Nordic skilllg will expand, resulting in a 180 percent increase by the fifth 

decade. pppraxlma ’ tely 475 miles of trail and track will accoRllodate 360,000 

RVDS of dispersed skiing, mostly in the Dry Creek-Deachan area. 

OW use will continue in all existing open areas except the southern white 

Wnmtains. As no new areas will be added, open acreage will be reduced 

50,100 acres Forest-wide. The mche area will still be orlented towards 

dispersed OW recreation. Closed areas will increase by 222,700 acres 

RV parks and nordic ski restarts will increase. 

429 
because of wildmms reamnendatlcns. S"bile use will be restricted due 

to wilasuness IE"r&-, nmdic and alpine ski areas, and ptential 

impacts OPI wildlife. 

All dispersed recreatLon will be managed to standard levels of operation. 

Recreation -* spectcm : All Ros Classes except primitive and Ihnal 

will meet or exceed demand in the fifth decade. Prjmitive 'ties will 

be capped by quotas jn wilderness, as in all other alternatives. 

Class needs could be partly absnkd in the RM Class whare there is SQne 

exoess of supply over demand. This will not be true for the alpine &er, 

Rural Ros 

however. 

primitive acres remain essentially the same. otbar classes will have 

substantial increases generated by reductions in the Rwded Natural Ros 

class. The total shift in acres mpresents 8.3 percent of total Forest 

acres. 

"AnlRALARGRs 

nltcdwzticn 

There are rn Forest activities that have direct effects on the seven Research 

Natural Areas (FWAS) 011 the Farest. Those RNAs are: Harvey "ra Hall, 

Flat, and Last chance Meadow. 

Diff-t alternatives could, howevet, have diff-t "=LA effects on 

RNAs. Since RM\s are mgd with the objective of maintaining natural 

ecological pmceses, any activity that altered those pmcese~ will 

Indirect effects will typically be generated by the Forest activities 

lands had the potential to affect ~~al ecolcgical po%sses, 

and if there were a reascslable chance of those activities illegally or 

inaaveaently crmrring within the RNA, the risk of indired effects will be 

Indiana sumit, sentinel Meadow, wee Meadow, white "tajn, whi~nd11 

.. 

represent an impact. 

occurrw on lands inearately swrmdug an RNA. If activities on 

present. 

Indicatars 

The indired effects of alternatives on RMIS are exaMLned in tanL3 of the 

following indicatcns of land uses imnediately san"&q . RNAs: 

1. Danesla 'c livestock grazjng 

2. Wilderness designation 

3. public fuel- gather4. Mineraladivities. 

Grazing animals could trample native vegetation; and due to the tendency of 

grazing animals to favor palatable species over unpalatable ones, natural 

vegetative species distribution and ab" could be altered. 

430 
Wad gathering remsves dead, dmn I-, which are an inprtant canpcowt of 

MWal f& ecosystefiuj. 

Dispersed “ation could involve the .trampling of vegetation, soil 

disturbance, and/or an increased risk of human-caused fires. The primaq 

potential SOUTCB of increased dispersed recreation will be wilderness 

designation superimp3sed on RNA designation. As m3st RNAs are lccated in 

Further Planning Areas, wilderness designation is an optim cansidered in the 

Planning Kocess. 

Mineral activities include the use of MAorized qyipnent, ground 

disturhn3, andincreased human use of an area, including the increased risk 

of fire. 

Forest-wide standards and Guidelines and the RNA Frescxiption will apply to 

these areas under each altwmative. It is assLnned that these sources of 

direction will “ize the Wibility that any alternative will have a 

mticeable direct effect on any individual RNA or on RNAs cansidered as a 

group. 

Grazing, canping, wood ga-ing, and mineral activities are prohibited in 

RNAs: daytime dispersed use is discouraged. Although there is m “ble 

means of enforcing those prohibitions perfectly, it is assLrmed that the RNAs 

m the Forest are unlikely to attract such uses. Where RNAs are amtained 

within grazing allotments, they lie on the edge of the allotment or on steep, 

high-elevation l& with pmc forage. The few RNAs with fuelwood s”es 

are mostly inaccessible by vehicle. All but the Hall RNA are lccated away 

€ran ?xcz-eational dest;ma ‘ tim pints and travel routes. Mineral-potential 

ratings for most RNAs and mm“g . landsarelow. 

In the Forest planning w, candidate RNAs have been treated as if they 

were already established. The D*rmber of RNAs does mt, therefore, vary by 

alternative. For this reas.cn, and because of the assmpticms discussed 

abwe, e”mtal CcmsquerlceS will mt be expected to vary by alt-tive 

for RWLS. The follawing figure illustrates the low level variatim between 

altwmatives in terms of overall effects on RNAs, when “sidered 

collectively. 

431 
Table 85 

Indicatars of Effects an Research Nafxral Areas 

ResearchNaturalArea potentially ccnflicting uses of . lands* 

1982 PRF aJR RPA m AMN AMB 

RIPARIANARFAS 

rlltlmdmtl ‘an 

Forest activities that have major pobzntial effects 081 riparian areas include 

livestock grazing, energy developnent, recreaticsl. stream rewateriq, and 

watershed management. 

(3onsequeM-Rs of these activities am assessed in terms of surface water 

availability, amunt of riparian ameage lost or gained, and overall 

dtim of riparian vegetatim. 

Indicataes 

1. Livestock grazing 

2. 

3. Developdsumnerrecreatimuse 

4. Alphskiareadeve10pnent 

5. Streammilesrewatered 

6. Watershed imprwement (wet meadar restoratioa). 

Livestock spend a disprqmrb “ate anuunt of tjme in riparian areas. Ttae 

a”t of graziq affects the quality of riparian areas, primrily due to the 

mergY developnent (hydrcelectric and g-) 

432 _. 
tram@- of vegetaticm, soil disturbance, and stream s&imntaW.cn The 

primarv Inpacts of gr- on riparian areas will be associated with the 

1,000 to 2,000 acres of scattered wet meadaws found in areas an which grazing 

bmeases sane alternatives. Areas with the greatest potential for 

Glass Mmntain area, most of which have little in acreage in stream or 

lake-related riparian vegetation. The effects of livestock on riparian areas 

can be mitigated by &ing the amnmt of time animals spmd in those 

areas. This can be acccmplished by fencing, salting, herding, water 

developnent, or deferring grazing. Range managBnent guidelines for riparian 

area pMcm will be inwrprated in allotment management plans as they 

are updated. It is unlikely that potential livestock impacts can be 

hxeased grazing are alq the base of the si- Escarpnent and in the 

canpletely mitigated, however, so potential inadverten timpadsare 

represented by the overall level of grazing on the Forest. 

Given the soils on the Inyo, when headcutting and streambank cutI5.q Occurs 

as a result of grazing or other impacts, the water table drop and the 

characteristics of the meadow change to m dry-site ”nities. When this 

-, remnral of livestock will not suffice in the restoration of meadaws. 

Watershed restoration wD1-k can raise the water level and shift the meadow 

back to mre wet-site plant cc”ities. Methods: that can be used include 

fencing, revegetation, gabim cbeck-dams and modified grazing practices or 

r€al& use. 

Hydnxlectric projects “ve some or all of the water fran affected reaches 

of stream, reducing the amnmt available to support riparian vegetation. 

Geothermal developuent rquires water for cooling and recharge, reducing 

water availability for riparian area-de-t resources. Althxqh the use 

of either surface water or cJ”3water sources could affect riparian areas, 

the depletion of surface water will have the mx;t inediate and direct 

effects. In addition to water depletion, spills fmn broken pipes could 

pllute nerby water sources, potentially affectiq riparian values. 

Sumner recreation use is typically greatest in amcentrated recreation areas 

associated with lakes and stream Heavy recreatim use tends to result in 

seibentation, and disturbance of riparian area-depe”t wildlife. The 

mall amnmt of recreation use is difficult to oontrol. The potential 

impacts of that use can be mitigated by developing facilities, such as trails 

and sigrs, that improve the resistance of riparian areas to hermy use or that 

direct and educate the user. As dispersed use of riparian areas is 

proprticmal to developed site use in ccolcen.trated recreation areas, 

developed site use is an indicator of total use. 

Alpjne ski areas cc81s~nne water for The a”t 

of walxz cx“W, and the “sequent reduction in water available to supp3rt 

riparian vegetation, is proprticnal to ski area capacity. 

Where dewatered streams are matered, riparian habitat can be 

reestablished. The opprtunity to rewater streams arises when new licenses 

are issued for exim hydrcelectric projects. 

Of the 26,000 acres of wet meadows on the Forest, 23,500 acres have been 

damaged or are threatened with damage triggered by the mimanage3 grazing of 

trampled riparian vegetation, eroded -, increased stream channel 

‘c uses and irrigation. 

433 
30 to loo years ago. Altlnugh g?xiziq has been tiL-amatically reduced, and 

-e “g-t practices have improved, the accelerated erosion resultirg 

fmu past abuses amtinues to be a prcblem needig attmtion. Watershed 

jnlpn”t work in wet meadows arrests the precess of accelerated erosian 

and enables eroded areas to heal. wet meadows that are not treated are 

susceptible to cantinued arosiOn, resulullg in the eventual 1- of the 

water table and replacanent of riparian wetation wiI3 -land species. 

Assurptions 

Rewatar- of streams and watershed improvement wxk have the greatest 

potential to maintain, enhance, and/or i”ase riparian vegetation on the 

Forest. 

The relatiaxhip bekeen lmpacts on riparian areas and impacts on fish 

habitat (discussea separately) are clcsely related. z63wever, in sone cases 

the impact can seriously affect riparian areas witbut affecting fish, as the 

riparian areas affected do not supgnrt fish habitat. Q1 the other hand, fish 

habitat imprwement within the stream channel itself does not have notewxthy 

effects 081 the riparian area. 

The relatimship between impacts rm riparian areas and impacts on soil and 

water are closely related. However, sam activities that affect soil 

stability do so away frun water, “izing the effects on riparian habitat. 

The potential impacts of timber management on riparian habitat are minor 

since few riparian areas are located within suitable timber, and those within 

suitable timber are gumtectd by Forest-wide Standards and Guideljnes. 

Implenentation of the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines will “ize the 

lag-term impacts of new activities on riparian areas under all alternatives. 

Impacts fm energy developnent can be mitigated by msderatirg the size and 

location of developnent. 

The camiulative effects of geothermal fluid remval cn surface gnxlndwater 

supplies are p=orly “3 and difficult to predict at this time. 

comnon to All Alternatives 

The likelihmd of energy developnent is assLrmed to be the same under all 

altanatives. Them are 33 applications for new hyazoelectric projects 011 

aplaaxuM ’ tely 60 miles of stn?am. Six per plants in Lease Blocks I and I1 

represent geothenual developnent under all alternatives. 

Fifteen miles of stream will be rewatered under all alternatives; 345 acres 

of riparian vegetation will result fm rewa-k-m. 

cansequences that vary by Alternative 

Table 86 displays the effects of alternatives rm riparian areas. 

434 
Table 86 

Indicatars of Effects an Riparian Areas 

(end of the fifth decade) 

Base Altenlatives 

Year 

mdicatnr 1982 PRFOUR FfPA CEE AM" 

Livestock grazirg 

(M Am) 41.4 41.4 39.1 55.6 46.5 35.1 39.4 

Ewelapea sumner 

recreation use 

(M RVDs) 1.8 2.9 1.9 2.9 2.9 1.9 2.7 

Wet meadows subject 

to accelerated 

erosicol (M acres) 23.5 0 21.5 13.6 0 0 0 

Watershed impnmmmt 

WCaJc (la-) 0.04 23.5 2.0 9.9 23.5 23.5 23.5 

Streams rewatered 

(miles) 0 15 15 15 15 15 15 

m: (Preferred) The potential impads of livestock grazing will decrease 

on riparian areas. Riparian 

areas will be managed in a manner that will inprove the amdition of these 

areas. Various livestock managakznt methods will be utilized to protect or 

enhance the quality of riparian areas. If suitable managmt stxategies 

CannDt be utilized or fail to improve riparian habitat amditims, reduction 

or eljmination of livestock use on these areas will be viable optians. 

Watershed impnmmmt within meam cammities will be an integral part of 

subject to watershed impnmmmt. The net effect of this alternative will be 

an in riparian area dtim and grazing practices associated 

with these areas. 

am: (anrentprogram ) The potential impacts of livestack grazing on 

riparian vegetation will charge little in the first ism decades. Damage will 

-ase &ately in later decades as brush became decadent and animal 

nu" exceeded the overall carryiq capacity of the dry range, forcing 

livestock into riparian areas. The impacts of recreation use in cc"trated 

recreation areas will charge little, as there will be very little increase in 

use by the fifth decade. The lack of new site pmMon facilities will, 

however, allow for existkg inpacts to ccoltinue, and riparian dtim in 

caxentrated use areas to mrsen over tim. The c"ph 've use of water by 

ski areas will nearly double with increased capacity. 

These adverse effects will not be offset by the "l a"t of watershed 

improvment in wet meadows; 21,500 acres of untreated wet meadow will ccmtinUe 

No inaeasa in livestock numbers are planned. 

riparian habitat improvement. Appmxma . tely 23,500 acres of meadow will be 

435 
to be damaged by accelerated arosicm. The net effect of this alternative 

will be a substantial red~~cticn in the quality and quantity of riparian 

correct past problenrs and mitigate potential recreation impads. 

vegetation bcause budget limitaticm will limit the irnresbnen tneededto 

RPA: (1980 RPA Program ) The potential impacts of livestock grazing on 

riparian vegetation will hczease sutstantially, primarily in those areas on 

which the 34 percent increase in grazing will occur. Livestock forage 

utilization will average 60 percent in roSt areas, in ccu-~irasto 50 percent 

at present. Increased utilization of riparian vegetatim could affect 

riparian ccdition. The impads of recreation us8 in cmcentrated recreation 

areas will be high, with a 57 percent innease in use by the fifth decade: 

These impads will be offset SQneWhat by the 5mstJslction of new trails, 

signs, and other site-protectian facilities. The c"&L 've use of water by 

ski areas would rmre than double with increased capacity. 

These adverse effects will be offset slightly by watershed inpvm" t inwet 

the quality and quantity of riparian vqetatim, as the irnrestrnen tin 

repairing past dalnage will not be great enough to Offset ths potential 

inadvertent impads of greatly increased COrmDdity proauctian and recreation 

meadows; however, 13,600 acres will still be subject to accelerate3 erosion. 

The net effect of this alternative will be a mderate overall reduction in 

use. 

ax: (W Cost-Efficiency) The ptential impads of livestock gcazirg 

cn riparian vegetation will irmease noaerately, primarily in those areas on 

which the 12 percent increase in grazing will cccur. The potential impacts 

of reaeation use in omcentrat& recreation areas will be high, with a 57 

percent increase in use by tha fifth decade: these impads will be offset 

sanewhat by the cGnskuction of new trails, signs, & other site-glrukkion - facilities. The cx"@iw use of watez by ski areas will triple with 

CaPaciDI. 

These advefie effects will be offset by full watershed improvement in wet 

meadows. The net effect of this alternative will be the overall maintenance 

of quality and quantity of riparian vegetaticn. 

.. 

AMN: (r%ximze . All -ties) The potential impacts of livestock grazing on 

riparian vqetation will decline with an overall 15 percent 'on in 

g~&ing out&ts. he potential impacts of recreation-use in concentrated 

recreation areas will be low, as total use will increase cmly slightly and 

any residual impads will be offset by the construdion of new trails, signs, 

and other site-pmteztl 'on facilities. The consqkive use of water by ski 

areas will inccease 50 percent with inneased capacity. Any potential 

adverse effects will be mx-8 than offset by full watershed impme" t inwet 

meadows. The net effect of this alternative will be a suhstantial 

inp"mt in the overall quality and quantity of riparian wgetatioa. 

(mize AMB: Wildlife and Recreation) The potential impads of livestock 

grazing on riparian vegetation will decline with the overall five percent 

436 
r&Ucticn in grazjng outputs. The potential impacts of mueaticn us8 in 

ccplcentrated recreaticm areas will be mdemtely high, with a 44 percent 

increase in use by the fifth decah: these impacts will be offset sanewhat by 

the- 'on of new trails, signs, and other site-pmtection 

facilities. The CoBlSLrmptive we of water by ski areas will - than double 

with increased capacity. 

These potenual adverse effects will be - than offset by full watershed 

hp"nt in wet meadows. The net effect of this al-tive will be a 

moderate impmvenent in the quality and quantity of riparian vegetaticn. 

Forest activities that have major effects on sensitive plants include 

facility cznsbxctim, energy and minerals developnent, fire managem&, 

range management, reaxxtion management, manag-t, wildlife 

management, and wilefm-ess area recarmendaticsrs. 

f3msquence.s of these activities are assessed in tams of relative potential 

threats to sensitive plant habitat. Data sources for this analysis include 

existing field inventories, literature, and sensitive plant species status 

rep*. 

1. 

2. 

3. Timbar site preparatim 

4. Wildfire suplpession 

5. 

6. &c~&=nual andmineral developnent 

7. Alpineskiareadeve10pnent 

8. Developd recreation site capacity 

9. Wildernesses recarmendatians. 

The first eight indicators represent land-disturk q activities and 

associated potential threats. The greater the "nber of acres of land 

disturbed, the greater the likelihood of inadvertently damaging or destroying 

sensitive plant habitat. Wildfire suppression activities, including the 

mechanical wnskuction of fire lines and base camps, will have the greatest 

potential for impacting "in sensitive plant habitat. Planned projects 

requiring analysis and sensitive plant clearance will have the 

least potential to impact "in habitat. 

Indicator nine represents a reduction in potential threat based on the 

restricted amunt of use and type of activities allowed in wilderness. The 

greater the acreage reccmnended for wildemess, the lower the likelihood that 

sensitive plant habitat will dve adverse impacts. 

wail Ccu-Lstruction (other than nordic ski trails) 

Road amstruction (other than "g/geothermal) 

Vegetation treatment for range and wildlife 

437 
AssmptiUllp16nentatia of Farsst-wide stardards and QJia3lines and Managenent 

-*Qn - 'on will "ize the likelihood of Forest activities 

3- the viability of sensitive plants or resulting in damage or 

destruction of their essential habitat. 

Any Lsopassd Forest-initiated or -autbrized project with the potential for 

e"mtal impacts requires an emkcmental analysis with pparatim of 

-ate -tal darrrments. Sensitiva plant habitat needs are 

always - in such analyses; hventories are cxx&ckd and mitigation 

prescribed-necessary. 

that vary by Alntive 

Table 87 diisplays h the indicatars of effects on sensitive plant habitat 

will vary by altemativa. It also displays the relative p3tentia.l threat to 

Sensitive plant habitat. A high threat raw applies to tbsa alternatives 

where the anrnmt of projected land disturbance is high (top 1/3) relative to 

other al-tives and the al"t of recQrmended wilderness is low (battan 

1/3) relative to other alternatives. Law relative disturbance and high-level 

remx~&& wilaernesS will proauCe a lm threat raw. 

438 
Table 87 

Indicatars of Irrpacts co Sensitive Plant Habitat 

(end of the fifth decade) 

Alternatives 

Indicatar PRF aJR RPA QEE AMN AMB 

New trail czmsmction 

(m-rrJrdic miles) 285 28 263 325 179 209 

(M acres disturbed) 0.3 <0.1 0.3 0.3 <0.1 0.2 

(miles) 87 46 103 65 14 38 

(M acres disturbed) 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.1 

New mad constxuction 

Timber site preparation 

(M acres) 20.5 30.0 55.6 18.8 7.4 11.5 

Wildfire (M acres burned) 53.2 52.9 53.2 64.5 48.2 48.2 

Vegetation .treatment for range 

and wildlife (M acres) 114.7 85.6 118.5 116.6 111.3 109.0 

G&AenMland-al 

developwnt (M acres disturbed) 

6.1 6.1 7.0 3.9 3.1 4.8 

New recreaticn site capacity 

(M acres disturbe3) 1.0 0 1.0 0.9 0 0.4 

Total land distuzb” 

(M acres) 196 175.3 235.9 205.2 172.0 182.3 

Relative d~sturbance level M L H H L L 

Recarmendedwilderness 

(M acres) 112.6 107.6 0 339.8 510.8 222.7 

Relative protection level L L L H H M 

Relative potential threat MH M H M L ML 

H=high M = “ate L = low 

439 
PIG: (Prefd) The moderate relative level of projected land disturbance 

and low relative level of recomnended wilderness will provide a msderately 

high-level threat of adverse impacts on sensitive plant habitat. Wildfire, 

suppression and a lack of oppzrhmity to analyze and mitigate effects, will 

represent 27 percent of total disturbance. 

which poses the greatest threat to sensitive plant habitat due to “rn ‘Cal 

am: The low relative level of projected land disturbance 

and low level of “wd& wilderness will provide a mate-level threat 

of adverse impads on sensitive plant habitat. Wildfire, which poses the 

greatest threat to sensitive plant habitat due to mcharu ’cal supForession and 

a lack of opportutll ‘ty to analyze and mitigate effects, will represent 30 

(cxment- ) 

percent of total di-. 

RPA: (1980 FWA Prugram ) The high relative level of projected land 

dishxbnce and low level of recomnended wilderness will provide a high-level 

threat of adverse impam on sensitive plant habitat. Wildfire, which poses 

the greatest threat to sensitive plant habitat due to m&am ‘cal mppressicm 

and a lack of opportuIll ‘ty to analyze and mitigate effects, will represent 22 

percent of total didxrbame. 

CEE: (- Cost-Efficiency) The high relative level of projected land 

disturbance and high level of recarmended wilderness will prwide a 

mderate-level threat of adverse impacts on sensitive plant habitat. 

Wildfire, which poses the greatest threat to sensitive plant habitat due to 

"Leal sqpresicn and a lack of opprtunity to analyze and mitigate 

effects, will represent 29 percent of total disturbme. 

.. 

AMN: (Maximize All Amenities) The low relative level of projected land 

di- and high level of recarmended wilderness will pmvide a low-level 

threat of adverse impacts on sensitive plant habitat. Wildfire, which poses 

the greatest threat to sensitive plant habitat &e to “L ‘cal -ion 

and a lack of opportuIll ‘ty to analyze and mitigate effects, will represent 28 

percent of total disturbance. 

AMB: (mphas ize Wildlife and Recreaticm) The low relative level of 

projectea land disbrbawe and moderate level of reccrmwded wilderness will 

provide a lrpaerately low-level threat of adverse impads m sensitive plant 

habitat. Wildfire, which poses the greatest threat to sensitive plant 

habitat due to mechanical SupFneSsion and a lack of qprtum ‘ty to analyze 

and mitigate effects, will represent 26 percent of total dist”x. 

are IXJ Forest activities that will have major effects on the ane 

existing special interest area m the Forest, the Arcient Bristlm Pine 

Forest Botanical Area. 
rssmptim 

FareSt-wia Standards and Guidelines and mt PKeSUZfPthl- .m 

applied to the Special Interest Area will be the - for each al-tive. 

1tisisthattbosesources0f~ 'cm will protect M~UTXI~ integrity 

and natural features fmn threats to damage or 

It is that the armunt of visitaticm to the Bristleccsle Pine Forest 

will, llnder all alternatives, be influenced pimarily by its ~tiOMl and 

international iqorbme, rather than by variaticm in Farest managewnt. 

Ccnsequences camnn to All Alteratives 

Altematives do mt differ in the xu" of Special Interest Areas or the 

acres included in these areas; the established area will be retained, and In 

new areas will be established. Candidate Geologic Special Interest Areas are 

proteCtea Uncaer the Forest-Wi& Standards and Guidelines cQrm3n to all 

alternatives, and provisions are made to evaluate them and make 

recomnendaticBls regardirg their establislment. 

Ctnsequ- cm the Ancient Bristlecme Pine Forest are expected to be 

negligible under all alternatives. The area is with3rawn from mineral entry 

and is isolated gecgraphically fran timber harvest, intensive range 

management, and major increases in reaeation use. The people who visit the 

area are tkse specifically attracted by the bristlecone pines, typically 

those who have a scientific interest in the trees and their ecology. Due to 

these fadors, and due to limitations stipulated in the Management 

Prescripticm for the Botanical ma, there is little c" that Forest 

manag-t will have adverse effects on the area under any alternative. 

'm. 

TIMBER 

Intrductl 'on 

The Forest activities most likely to affect timber management are r-xxeation 

management, wildlife habitat management, visual quality management, and 

geothemml energy develapnent. 

Timber management activities on the Farest are guided by three principal 

factors: the need for ecananic gmwth and timber yield, the need to provide 

for vegetative diversity in the Forest enviraaynent, and the need to maintain 

forested lands in healthy cwndition on those lands where timber harvest is 

not a prima^.^ objective. 

Ctnsequmces are measured in terms of total timber p"ticm, fuelwood 

available for public use, and the overall health and condition of forested 

-=FYs-. 

Indicators 

1. Acresbyregulaticmclass 

- Size of ows 

- Rotaticm age 
2. Regeraaratanharvestmethod 

3. TimberoutputS. 

Q1 the Irryo National Forest, a bstal of 110,700 acres of forested land is 

esthated to be capable, available, and tentatively suitable fcc gnx&q 

Forest stresses different sets of lesource values; tentatively suitable 

timberlandsaremanagedundervario~~~resaurce~. Thetjmber 

managgnent strategies associated with different cqhases are called 

regulation classes. 

Regulation Class I is applied to lands 081 which timber growth and yield are 

the principles of aptimizing growth and yield. 

Regulation Class 11 is applied to lands an which the total amxlllt of 

regeneraton harvest during any *le decade is limited by a need for mxe 

physical clispersicsl of that harvest than allowed for in Regulatian Class I. 

This strategy results 5x1 lager rubtion ages, a broader range of timber age 

classes, and nure vegetative diversty than Regulation Class I. 

Regulatian Class I11 is applied to lands 081 which tx)th the number of acres 

and the size of regeneraticn harvest openiqs are Limited by a primary 

aphasis on other resoume values. This stcategy applies to areas where 

timberharvestvolmisoflesslmpcatancetharthsmainknanceofahealthy 

farest ernrirokment. 

Unregulated lands are tentatively suitable timber lands excluded fran annual 

lands, cuily occasimal timber harvest entries will be made for the p~npose of 

salvaging dyiq trees and maintain@ general stand vigx when eammically 

feasible. 

of the alternatives project tinter hatvest ar silvicultural activity csl 

all of the lard that is physically suitable and tively available 

for timber managmat. The mDst suitable land is used by those alternatives 

that stress cYxmwxial prcducts, and ths least is Usedwhexeather resource 

values or ecananics are limiting factors. 

craps of industn. 'al quality wood. As each altenmtive far management of the 

-1Y - . byotherresourcevalu~. Proauctioaisguidedbyby .. 

programned harvest because Of M €i@Ed.S 081 Other resourCe Vi3hE.S. ChI those 

lulost of the land manag& for annual timber harvest is managed um%r 

Regulation Classes I1 and 111. Regulation Class I1 represen.tS the even-aged 

system of timber managanent under which regenexation harvest creates openbgs 

five to forty acres in size at some point in the growth cycle of each stand. 

Stands are generally no lcqex than twenty acres. Regulaticn Class 111, on 

the 0the.r hand, wts "ter managanent activities that will create 

openings M larger than .two acres in size, and that will not noticeably 

affect ths appearance of the lands managed. (other uses of tlnse lands, such 

as alpine skiing or other recreaticBl developnent could, hawever, affect their 

appearance.) Regulation Class I11 represents uneven-aged management on the 

Inyo Natimal Forest, with mall-sized openings and minimal effect 081 natwal 

appearance. However, this Regulation Class does not represent the classic 

442 
form of uneven-aged managemnt wder which a mixture of tree ages and sizes 

is maintained at all times within all stands. 

Rotatiogl age, when analyzed fm a timber management point of viw, is the 

age at which the m annual grcwth of a stand reaches its maxi” value as 

measured in cubic feet. Hawever, rotaticn age also influences the armunt of 

forested land being regenerated at me time, the range in tree sizes, and the 

maxi” size attained by crop trees. The lager the rotation age, the fewer 

the acres regewated at rme time and the larger the final crop tree. 

Rotaticol ages are 140 years for Jeffrey Pine, 120 years for lodgepole pine, 

and 180 years for true firs. Tree size can be expected to reach 30 inches 

or mre in diameter and 100 feet or mre in height. The increase in the 

acreage managed under Class I11 can be used to acccnmodate resource values 

such as natural landscape appearance and wildlife depndent on older seral 

stages of forest. 

All alternatives rely cm the use of artificial regeneration (planting of 

seedlings) to regenerate stands harvested using even-aged techniques. 

Natural regeneration is not reliable on the Inyo National Forest because lorg 

pericds elapse between the occurrence of adequate seed crops “ent with 

the mi- adequate for SUIvival of natural seedlings. Under tb even-aged 

methDd of clam, tree seedlings are planted after final harvest and 

site pparatim. Under the shelteniccd method, tree seedliqs are planted 

fo1lmi.q site preparatim but prior to final harvest. Oversto- raoval 

means that adqlate natural reem is already present in the stand, 

thus the stand will be fully stocked after removdl of the OverStOry trees. 

Mxt of the suitable Jeffrey pine stands m the Forest are “ked due 

to the past practices of partial cutting and relyirag on unreliable nat~~al 

reg-atim. Red fir has not been actively managed in the past, due to a 

lack of lolowledge atout regeneration in that type and the low level of demand 

for red fir cm the wood prcducts market. Ccmsequently, suitable red fir on 

the Forest varies frcm the stands that are omr&xbd with ymmg trees to 

tbse with highly decadent old growth. The managercent of ldgeple pine has 

becane feasible due to an expanded market for fuelwood. Mxt suitable 

lodgepole pine stands on the Forest are poorly stocked and decadent. 

The lavlwledge necesaq to grw Jeffrey pine, red fir, and lodgepole pine 

favor5r-g the marketing of thase species also exist. Consequently, timber 

lands cm the Forest are expeCted to beccme mre heavily stocked and mre 

vi- in grawth due to active timber managercent. 

Timber Outputs are meafllred in terms of annual Allowable Sale Qmntity, 

lcmg-term E4ushrd ’ yield, timber stand improvement, and refomstation. 

currently exists an3 is in practice on the Forest. F”u ‘c dtioIls 

ws lhat vary by Alternative 

The following table displays the effects of altematives m timber 

managemnt. 

443 
Table 88 

T-OuQutsbytheWof theFifthDecade 

Azternatives 

1982 PRF am RPA CEE AMN AMB 

(fifth decade) 

Allowable Sale 

Quautity 

MVBF 10.5 7.1 13.4 19.8 10.1 6.3 9.2 

Fuelwwd (M cords) 4.0 4.2 4.2 7.2 5.0 3.0 4.7 

yield 

L@ng-- 

WF 

- 

- 14.5 24.7 29.9 24.7 15.6 18.9 

(50-~ear averasel 

Timber stand 

i”ent (acres) 374 212 187 233 186 182 

200 600 1113 376 147 231 

PRF: (-fen.&) This alternatives will utilize app”tely 75,200 acres 

for timber proaucticsl. The even-aged managemat system will be applied cm 

62,483 acres of these lands, which will be managed primarily for timber 

yield% The remabiq 12,750 acres west of U.S. 395 will be managed under 

the uneven-aged manag-t rqhm described in Regulatim Class I11 to 

minimize conflicts with semi-primitive developed recxeaticsl, 

alpine ski area potential, and scenic quality. Appnxum ’ tely 35,500 acres of 

lands that wDuld be suitable for timber pm&ctim will rot be managed 

because of overridirg wildlife and rezmaticm values. 

An average of 7.1 MVBF of timber will be sold csl an amual basis by the fifth 

decade, mpreenting a 32 percent reducticm fran base-level outguts. The 

wilcaemesseS and Research Natural Areas. 

health and vip of farested lands will iniprwe m those acres managed for 

timber outputs and decline m urmanaged timber lands and lands inside 

aR (canEa-lt- ) This altemative will utilize approxlma * tely 89,100 

acres for timber prc&ctim. In the first decade, regeneraticm harvest will 

cccur on 8,570 acres and intenwdiate harvest cm 8,700 acres. This will 

shift to 8,420 acres of regenexaticm harvest and 29,100 acres of inte“3iate 

harvestbythefifthdecade. 

Umlex this alternative, the even-aged managemnt system will be applied to 

about 85 percent of the land used for timber pmducticm. Of that total, 94 

percent will be managed primrily for timber yields and 6 percent will be 

managed for timbet yields to the rieqea rxnpatible with Visual Quality 

Objectives. Theremainder will be managed under the type of uneven-aged 

444 
“g-t described in Regulatitm Class I11 tn “ize conflicts with 

recreatian aevelapnent and scenic quality. PgPrmdmatelY 20 percent of 

tentatively suitable timber land will be unregulated due to a prhary 

euphasis on recreation developwlt, gDshawk habitat, and geathermal 

developnent. 

An average of 13.4 t&BF of timber will be sold on an anmal basis by the 

fifth decade, rewtirq a 28-percent imrease relative tn base-level 

those acres managed for timber outpts and decline on unregulated lands and 

lands inside wildernesses and Research Natural Areas. 

outpt-s. The overall health and vi- Of forested lands will inpmvf? on 

RPA: This alternative will utilize app”tely 99,200 

acres for timber pmduction. In the first decade, regeneratian harvest will 

OCCUT m 8,280 acres and in-ate harvest on 8,100 acres. This will 

shift to 14,100 acres of reg-atim harvest and 18,600 acres of 

int%rme& ‘ate harvest by the fifth decade. 

Under this alternative, the even-aged management system will be applied to 

about 94 percent of the land used for timber p”kL ‘on. Of that total, 98 

percent will be managed primarily for timber yields, and 2 percent will be 

managed for timber yields to the degree mnpatible with Visual Quality 

Objectives. The remainder will be managed under the type of uneven-aged 

management described in Regulation Class I11 to “L ‘ze conflicts with 

?xYXeatimdeve1opnent. App” ’ tely 10 percent of tentatively suitable 

timber land will be unregulated due to a primaq emphasis on recreation 

wrhmities, goshaw* habitat, and gee- devel0pnent. 

An average of 19.8 WF of timber will be sold m an annual basis by the 

fifth decade, repmsentiq an 89-percent inaease relative to base-level 

outputs. The overall health and vigor of forested lands will inprove on 

those acres managed for timber outputs and decline on unregulated lands and 

lands inside Wildernesses and Research Natural Areas. 

(1980 RPA progam ) 

CEE: (Maximize Cost-Efficiency) This altemaixve will utilize app”te1y 

97,600 acres for timber prcductim. In the first decade, regeneration 

harvest will occur on 8,850 acres and interm& ‘ate harvest m 5,000 acres. 

This will shift to 5,580 acres of regeneration harvest and 19,500 acres of 

intdate harvest by the fifth decade. 

Under this alternative, the even-aged management systm will be applied to 

about 70 percent of the land used for timber pxductim. Of that total, 97 

percent will be managed primarily for timber yields and 3 percent will be 

managed for timber yields to the degree wnpatible with Visual mality 

objectives. The remainder will be managed under the type of uneven-aged 

managmt d-iW in Regulatim Class I11 to minimize CCeLflictS with 

recreation developnent. Fpproximately 12 percent of tentatively suitable 

timber land will be unregulated due to a prhary mphasis on recreation 

developnent (especially alpine skiing), goshawk habitat, and geothermal 

developnent. 

445 
An average of 10.1 lvMBF of timber will be sold on an ar“l basis by ths 

fifth dacade, mpesentiq a 4 percent reduction relative to base-level 

tbse acres managed for timber outpuk- and decline cm unregulated lands and 

lands inside wildernesses and Research Natural Areas. 

outputs. The overall health ard vigor of farested lands will imprare on 

Amc (muuuze All nIlEdties) This alternative will Utilize app”te1y .. 61,800 acres for tinbr pnxhckion. In the first decade, regemraticm 

harvest will 0” on 5,710 acres and intemdiate harvest on 4,700 acres. 

This will Mft to 3,320 acres of reg-ticm harvest and 17,600 acres of 

illte?Jwdl ‘ate harvest by the fifth decade. 

mdw.- this alternative, the wen-aged “ent system will be applied to 

abxt 83 percent of the land used for timber prcducticm. Of that total, 96 

peroent will be managed primarily for timber yields and 3 percent will be 

managed for timber yields to the degree cmiptible with Visual Quality 

managenent described in Regulaticm Class I11 to “ize cimflicts with 

tmtatively suitable timber land will be unregulated due to a primary 

habitat for wildlife species dependent cm older serdl stages of farest. 

An average of 6.3 WF of tirrdwr will be sold on an annual basis by the fifth 

decade, representiq a 41-percent re&cMcm relative to base level outputs. 

The -all health and vi- of forested lands will iqpme cm thDse acres 

managed for timbar outputs and decline cm unregulated lands and lands inside 

Wildemeses and Research Natural Areas. 

Objectives. The redrder will be managed * the type of uneven-@ 

lxxxeaticm deVE3lopent and dc quality. ApproxuM * tely 44 percent of 

emphasis 081 sani-Eu.inlitive disparsed recreaticll, geothemal develcinlent, and 

AMB: (hphas+ze ’ Wildlife ad Recreation) This alternative will utilize 

app”tely 69,200 acres for thber prcducticm. In the first decade, 

reg-ticm harvest will occur on 6,540 acres and interm& ‘ate harvest m 

6,200 acres. This will shift to 4,210 acres of reg-aticm harvest and 

21,600 acres of inbxmdx ‘ate harvest by the fifth decade. 

Under this altsmative, the even-aged managemst system will be applied to 

abart 91 percent of the land used for timber pmducticm. All of those lands 

will be “aged primarily for timber yields. erwill be managed 

under the type of uneven-aged management described in Regulaticm Class I11 to 

minimize &lids with recreation developnent and scenic quality. 

ApEnoximately 37 percent of tentatively suitable timber land will be 

unregulated due to a pr- -is on semi-primitive dispersed recreation, 

geothermal developnent, and habitat for wildlife depndent on older seral 

stages of forest. 

The “d . 

An average of 9.2 WF of timber will be sold an an armual basis by the fifth 

decade, representing a 13 percent reductian relative to base-level outputs. 

The mall health and vim of forested lands will improve on those acres 

managed for timber outputs and decline an unregulated lands and lands inside 

wildernesses and Research Natural Areas. 

446 
VISUALIntrductl " 

Forest activities that have major effects on visual resources include the 

developnent of new ccolcentrated recreation areas, alpine ski area 

developnent, geothermal dewlopent, timber harvest, and facilities 

co€lstnlction. 

Ccmsequences of these activities are assessed in tenns of the following 

el-b of the visual resource management system (for a more detailed 

discussion of each el-t, see chapter 111): 

1. ReE"d& Visual Quality Objectives 

2. Future Visual Cmdition 

3. Changeinvisualcmdition 

4. VisualeualityIndex. 

Basis of Compar iscm: These indicators ccmpare the alternatives to ism 

baselines: Initial Visual Quality Objectives and Exist- Visual "cion. 

Visual Quality Objectives (m) in general set standards for future 

landscap? appearance. Initial Visual Quality Objectives were derive5 fran an 

inventory of physical and social -tal factors; they set prelirmnary 

objectives for acceptable an?nmb of landscaps alteration based an those 

factors. Existing Visual Ccmdition measures and describes the present 

appearance of the landscape. 

The Initial Visual Quality Objectives and Existing Visual Condition of a 

given area are not necessarily the same since the former sets a preliminary 

standard for the future, and the latter displays the current cxmdition. 

However, the landscape appearance described by the six VQO levels wmaspmd 

to the six visual condition levels. 

Recarmended Visual Qudity Objectives: Rea"&d VeOs are based 081 the 

theme of the alternative and the resulting mix of Management Presxxiptim 

andresaurceprogrirm~ 'on. The acreage for each by 

variety class are displayed by alternative in Table 89. Variety Class A 

lands are the mz& inters-, and therefore itnprtant as a visual resource; 

Variety Class C lands are the least inrportant. Initial Visual Qxdity 

Objective acreages am also shown, in order to illustrate the distribution of 

acres by variety class that will maintain an acceptable level of landscape 

alteration based solely on the factors considered by the Initial Visual 

mality Objective inventoq. 

Ftrture Visual conditian: Future Visual condition describes the projected 

appearance of the landscap fran natural to allltered & each alternative by 

the fifth decade. Table 90 displays the acreage estimated for each visual 

dtion class by variety class by alternative. Acreages for Existing 

the present sibtim and future sibticms under different alternatives and 

Visual Gmditmn by variety class are shown as a basis for canpan 'scB1 between 

447 
as an indicator of the relative importance of predicted alteration, using 

variety class as an indicator of importance. 

predictians of Future Visual Condition are based for the nnst part 081 the 

projected visual impacts of alpine ski area developnent, energy developnent, 

and timber harvest in stands that are not yet accessible by road. As these 

inpacts will affect less than 2.5 percent of the Forest land base, !Future 

Visual condition shows little charge, even uxbr the nnst corm3dl. ‘ty4enm 

alternatives. 

charage in Visual ccnditian: (3-mqe-s between Existing Visual Ccnditi081 and 

Future Visual Ccmditicm are based on charges in the human alteration of lands 

in each Existing Visual Cknditi081 level. The acres in each Existing Visual 

Ccmditi081 level will either remain the same in the Future Visual Mtion, 

or they will shift to a 1- level though alteration or a higher level 

through rehabilitation. The degree of change can be determined by canparirg 

the Existing Visual Ccndition level of a given area with the Future Visual 

Ccmdition level to which it will evolve. The largest clrop in visual 

dtion (41,410 acres) represents only 2.1 percent of total Forest am. 

Visual Quality Index: The Visual Wity Index (VQI) is a carppsite rating 

of visual quality for the entire Forest. Ths VQI varies little fran one 

alternative to another. 

448 
PreservaticPlX A 364.7 453.4 445.6 371.5 552.4 628.4 493.2 

B 212.0 235.9 238.7 205.2 353.5 439.5 297.8 

C 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 5.3 11.0 8.5 

Retenticgl A 290.9 327.2 286.0 283.6 198.4 175.6 306.6 

B 38.8 304.1 172.1 45.6 108.6 250.0 339.7 

C 0 29.6 13.8 3.6 18.0 78.7 37.9 

Partial A 176.3 51.4 100.2 176.7 81.0 27.8 32.1 

Retentim B 410.2 276.6 410.8 514.6 280.5 195.2 228.9 

C 59.7 100.1 112.7 124.0 54.5 46.7 88.7 

Modification A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

B 223.5 89.9 82.6 139.0 159.8 20.7 39.3 

C 41.3 13.2 16.2 14.8 67.1 9.2 11.1 

A 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 

Modification B 22.2 0 2.4 2.2 4.1 1.2 0.8 

C 41.8 0 0.3 0.5 1.3 0.5 0 

% Initial Visual Wity Objective inventory applies the -tim VQ2 

cmly to lands classified or pmpzsed for Wilderness or Research Natural Area 

designation. 

449 
El&ting Al-tiVisual Variety Visual 

undititnclass caditian PRF am RPA CEE mAMB 

Level I A 732.5 702.4 735.7 754.8 728.2 

633.4 655.0 675.7 638.6 

( 1982) (fifth decade) 

B 639.5 

C 58.6 

Level I1 A 30.2 

B 95.4 

C 43.5 

Level 111 A 38.1 

B 117.8 

C 31.9 

Level Iv A 22.3 

B 39.4 

C 9.2 

Level v A 8.1 

B 10.2 

C 1.1 

Level VI A 0.9 

B 4.2 

C 2.0 

734.2 731.2 

637.7 631.7 

57.9 59.4 

41.1 42.8 

109.8 110.9 

53.7 44.9 

29.6 29.1 

111.8 108.2 

25.3 30.7 

26.4 27.1 

42.0 49.7 

7.4 8.8 

0.8 1.8 

5.2 5.4 

0.6 0.6 

0 0 

0 0.7 

1.4 1.8 

58.6 

29.1 

86.3 

43.7 

41.4 

115.3 

30.0 

56.3 

64.6 

11.6 

2.7 

6.0 

0.6 

0.2 

1.0 

1.7 

60.8 66.7 67.2 

25.6 89.7 47.5 

81.3 97.3 133.5 

42.5 50.7 46.6 

35.1 21.5 28.6 

111.1 93.2 90.5 

29.3 24.9 27.8 

31.9 25.1 26.0 

51.3 36.9 39.7 

11.1 2.7 3.3 

3.5 0.9 1.8 

5.5 3.1 4.3 

0.8 0 0.1 

0.2 0 0 

2.3 0.2 0 

1.8 1.2 1.2 

cormon to all Alternatives 

The Inyo National Forest includes 1,884,700 acres wkide the Wirn Basin 

Naticmal Forest Scenic Area. The Scenic Area is not cansidered in the visual 

resamx analysis becawe inventories for that area are not canplete, and 

because pl- for that area will be rxiniucii=d outside of the Forest 

planning precess. Of that total, 565,100 acres (30 percent) are designated 

wilderness and 873,000 acres (51 percent) are currently UNOaded and 

-loped. ~ently, mm than 81 percent of the Forest is currently 

natural in appearance. 

Natural-appearing acreage will not change significantly under any 

allmmative. Ekcept for the Mmache and San Jcaquin areas, UNOaded lands 

Potential impacts will be associated mainly with scattered 

exploration. Most of the potential visual impacts 081 the Forest are site 

specific. Taken together, they will change the visual dticm 081 less than 

2.5 percent of the Forest. 

are mostly steep and lacking in resource developnent cpprtuu ‘ties. 

450 
Bdsting ccolcen.trated recreation areas will appear the same in the fifth 

decade as they do today. Altl-xmgh - areas will be rmre intensively 

developd with recreation facilities, the -all visual character of those 

areas will not change substantially. 

Shrub vegetation trealmsrIts for wildlife habitat and range imp"mt will 

mt affect visual cxmdition to a that will be noticsable to the casual 

ObSIver, especially as seen in middleground or bckgruund distances. Any 

visual impacts that did OCCUT will be shcat in duration (cme to five years) 

vegetation trealmsrIt in pinyon-juniper ("chaining") could have a mre 

shcat-term visual impact. Cn the Inyo, kw-, the acres affected will be 

negligible, (less than 50 acres/year) and can therefore be considered canmn 

to all alte?matives. 

Increased alpine ski area developnent on Mammth and June Mxmtains is canmn 

to all alternatives, and tb visual impacts of that developnent and 

associated m"ity growth will also be to all alternatives. About 

1,500 acres over the current level will be affected. These acres IY-JW range 

fm natural-appearing to lrpaerately disturbed cxmdition classes. After 

developnent, they will range fm mxlerate to major disturbance classes. 

Proposes developnents will daninate middlegnxlnd views as seen fm U.S. 395 

and scme foreground views alorg State Highways 203 and 158. Visual cxmdition 

could fall below assigned W. 

New hydmelectric projects have been propxed adjacent to and within the 

forq"d zunes of marry Sensitiviw Level 1 mads, nxxeati081 sites, and 

corcentxate3 recreation areas. The likelM of specific projects 

developing is cansidered ~3rrm3n to all ali"tives, as the decision to 

c"ct is made outside of the Forest planning process. These projects 

could fail to meat assigned W and will always change the visual cxmditiun 

fmn natural appearing or minor disturbances to major disturbaMJes as viewed 

in forqxmd and middleground u3nes. 

ConseguencesThatVaKyby Al-termtin 

rmF: (Preferred) This alternative will improve visual quality on 3.3 

percent, maintain current visual quality levels 081 95.8 percent, and reduce 

visual quality on 0.9 percent of the Inyo Natimal Forest. The Visual 

Wity Index will increase 0.31 (0.2 percent). 

Most foreground zcnes along Sensitivity Level 1 roads and trails will be 

natural appear%. Exceptions include existing facilities related to 

ccmnunity developnent such as the Mammth-June Lake air~~~rt and the existing 

concen.trated rezreaticm areas, new pmerljne corridors north and east of 

Mammth, and alpine ski area facilities. 

Alpine ski area and geothermal developnent will create dcminant .TtrU&mal 

and/or vegetation patterns in middlegmund and b&grcund views. Both types 

of developnent will create changes of several dtion classes, cofiverting 

Mtural-VW lands to disturbed cxmditions. Cl"XU 'ty growth t"rd 

Sherwin Bowl could also affst lands that IY-JW appear natural. 

with negligible effects over the 50 years. In mtrast, mecharu "1 

waste trealnlerlt Plant, existing and new rIXxeatiO81 developnents in 

451 
The ~tural--jng ccnditicu~ of red fir stands east of San Joaquh Ridge 

will be re* because these stands will not be entered for timber 

n!anag-t during this planning period. New lwds and use sites will create 

new fcxegmnd zones and Closer middleground views. 

The creation of new concentrated recreation areas, wi~ attendant roads and 

facilities, will change the visual crmditicn in porticHls of the 0" River 

and Walker Lake-SWll area^. New Sensitivity Level 1 roads, trails, 

and maeation developnents will me ve3s in fonqmwd zones from Partial 

visual dtion will charge cmly slightly. 

Retention to Retentim. As these areas already have "r disturbances, 

am: This altemative will inppove visual quality on 2.4 

percent, maintain current visual quality levels on 97.0 percent, and reduce 

visual quality on 0.6 percent of the Inyo Naticmal Forest. The Visual 

euality Index will irmease 0.23 fm base year, a change of less than 0.2 

percent. 

Most foregmud zcnes alq Sensitivity Level 1 and 2 roads and kails will 

be natural appearing. J3xceptim include existing facilities related to 

Camnrnity developnent (such a~ the "-June Lake airpcOrt and the existing 

waste mtnent plant), existing "eation developnents in amxnkated 

reQeatian areas, new powerline corribrs mrth and east of MarmrJth, and 

alphe ski area facilities. 

The visual ccmdition of red fir stands east of San Joquin Ridge will change 

as seen fm on-site due to timbar activitias, as that area will be managed 

with a primaxy e".sis on timber p?". The timber managemnt 

disturbances will appear "r in the middleground as seen fran met 

obsenmticH1 points, especially due to the 20-acre limit on size. As 

seen from cmcentrated recreation areas alcmg upper Dsadxan creek, hawever, 

disturbances will appear mderate. The for?q"d zones of Sensitivity Level 

1 and 2 viewpoints will appear natural. 

Geothermal energy developnent in Lease Blocks I and I1 will also affect 

visual quality, txt at slightly lower levels than in PRF due to - 

stringent V#s. Geathermal developnents will appear as a major disturbance 

in middl€grmad 242ne.3. 

Alpine ski area developnent will create daninant structural and/or vegetaticm 

pa- in "d and background view. These impads will alter the 

visual cadition of approximately 3,900 acres in the she" . Bowl, Minaret 

dishrrbeddti-. cc"l 'ty growth toward Sherwin Bowl could also affect 

lands and ZKU-IS that rnw appear natural. 

Becauee "ation aeVelopnent and use will continue to operate at low 

dtim cm a SMll number of acres. The gmwing a"ts of dispersed use 

-wheel drive End CHV use in particular will create highly visible 

(cxrrrentprogeam ) 

smt, and/or Mamuoth Knolls areas, cztmrhg ' MtUral-EQparbg lands to 

standard levels, some recreatiopl sites will be eliminated, improving * visual 

will, however, have nnre impoaance for visual resource management. 

disturbances, particularily near cc"ities and on steeper Slopes that are 

restricted the current OIN Plan. The acres impacteawill increase over 

452 
t%m and could me the visual dticm on 10 to 30 thousand acres by the 

fifth decade. 

the west slopes of the White ”ntajns east of Bim is already beyana the 

capabilities of the Forest. 

Finally, wil- and unroadsd lands currently ~*al in appearance will 

progressively decline in cmdiki.cn due to tha increasing inability of the 

Forest to enforca regulatim, qwtas, cz management directi cn. 

htzol of current c%N activity adjacent to Mamnoth and alcq 

€PA: (1980 RPB ) The RPA alternative will inprove visual quality cn 

0.3 percent, -=current visual quality on 97.6 percent, and reduce 

visual quality on 2.1 percent of the Inyo Naticnal Forest. The Visual 

Quality Index will decline 1.42 fmn base year, a ma peroent charge. 

This alternative will generate the greatest visual dishrrbance due to timber 

activities Of any alternative. Timber management in the foregrcpIlld Zones Of 

state-designated scenic highways will meet the VQO of Partial Retenticn. 

However, the mi- zones of scenic highways and the fo?xxJ”d Zones of 

other Sensitivity Level 1 travel routes (including trails in the Monache 

area) will include moderate dishrbame. Timber harvest in general will 

create roderate di- on 30- to 6O-percent slopes, failing to meet 

inventoried Veos. Opnhqs could loutinely approach the 40-acre maxi“ 

size. Condition classes will be lowered from base year on 13,000 acres in 

the fo?=q”d zmes of Level 1 and 2 roads and trails Outside of 

CCBlcentrated rcxxeaticn areas and on 11,OOO acres of suitable timber cn 30- 

to 60-per~ent slopes. 

Alpine ski area dewlopnent will create &“nt structural -/or vegetation 

and background zanes. The visual dticn of app”tely 5,200 acres will 

beaffected. Associatedcamanu ‘ty grawth in the Mammth area could impact 

1,500 to 2,500 additid acres south and east of town that are 1y3w natural 

appxing or have only mimr disturbances. 

Geothermal enepQy developnent will affect the visual CTditim of m3X-e than 

4,000 acres in Lease Blocks I and I1 mrth and mrtheast of ”Ah. 

structures, roads, and powerlines will create changes of several dtim 

classes. Major disturbances will be visible in miam zcmes. 

New CCBlcentrated recreation areas, roads, and recreaticn facilities will 

change the. visual condition of 1,500 acres in the Buttermilk and walker 

Lake-Sawmill Canyon areas. 

Designated Open-OIN areas muld also change the visual amlitim class 

slightly on 62,200 additional acres. However, due to the. location of these 

areas, only minor disturbances will be visible on steeper slopes in 

mid&eground and background zcoles of Level 1 roads and trails. 

This alternative represents reduced visual ccmdition on the greatest nmbr 

of acres found in any alternative. 

patt- in the sl-” ’ Bowl and Minaret SUmnLt areas seen as mimegnxmd 

453 
CeE: (Maxuolze cost-Efficiency) TNS alternative will imprrcxle visual quality 

cm 2.0 percent, main- current visual quality levels cm 96.7 percent, and 

reduca visual quality on 1.3 percent of the Inyo Natirmal Farest. The Visual 

Qmlity Index will decline 0.9 fran base year, chaq+q less than 0.6 

.. 

percent. 

appearance of the foregnad zones of scenic highways. The mim- of 

scenic higfiways and the forqrmds of other sensitivity Level 1 kavel 

routes could be wtely disturbed . openingscouldroutinelyappmachthe 

&acre ” size. The visual dtion of red fir stands east of san 

Joaquh Ridge and olrtside of alpim ski areas will champ due to timber 

activities, as that area will be managed with a primary aptasis m timber 

prc&cticm. Timter harvest in the Wnache area will create moderate 

disturbances cm lands seen in the mickllegcnml fran main access and use 

areas. Initial VQaS for Mmache will not be met due to imprwea rwd access 

Timber management add.vitifX?S Will IXk nOti&ly affect the MtUIEll 

andchangeduse. 

The greatest a”t of visual change will result fnrn full alphY3 ski area 

developnent on 14,000 acres in the Sherwin Bowl, MarrmDth Kmlls, Minarat 

S&t, Sa JoaqUin, and ”k? Wins areas. Visual dtim (HI those 

will change fxun natural-apparing to mfied. Assigned VeOs might not be 

met, especially m Slopes with heavy timber in the Marmpth Knolls, san 

Joaquh Ridge, and White Wing. Base facilities could becaae daninant 

Stnlctural features in foregnxlnd and middleground za-les. 

Gnnnmity growth in the Mammth area will also be the nust intensive under 

this altemative, requiring expansim cmto lands that are mw in public 

ownership. Visual impacts will increase significantly on 1,000 to 2,000 

acres alcq the base of Sherwin Bowl and east alorg Highway 203 into the 

Shady Rest omcentrated -tion area. Natural-awing areas will becane 

disturbed. 

Geothermal developwnt will create daninant structural and/or vqetation 

patterns in middleground and backg”d views, affW the visual canditicsl 

of 4,000 acres or more. This dwelopnent will create changes of several 

condition Classes, cconrerting natural-appearing lands to disturbed 

conditions. 

Designated apen-oHv areas cauld also change the visual dtim class 

slightly on 45,800 additional acres. Hcwtmx, due to the locaticn of new 

-. “?2 di&”es will be visible on steeper slopes in the 

The creation of new ccolcen.trated recreation areas, with attendant roads and 

facilities, will change the visual dtion on 1,500 acres in the Chem 

River and Walker Lake-Sawinill can&xm areas. New Sensitivity Level 1 roads 

and sites will change VQOs fran Partial Retention to Wtenticn. As these 

areas already have minor dishrbams, overall visual andition will change 

only slightly. 

middleground and backg”d zclnes of Level 1 roads and trails. 

Alm (”lze All Zmmities) This altemative will improve visual quality 

cm 6.9 percent, mahtain cuzrent visual quality levels on 92.6 percent, and 

.. 

454 
reduce visual quality on 0.5 percent of the Inyu National Forest. 

Quality Index will increase by 1.24 fran base year, a change of 0.9 percent. 

The Visual 

The least 2"t of new visual di- and the greatest a"t of visual 

rehabilitation are found under this altwmative. Timber "gemat 

activities will meet the Retention VQO on mre then 7,000 acres of foregnxtnd 

zones alq Sensitivity Level 2 loads, eventually raising the visual 

condition to natural appearing. openusgs ' will be limited to twenty acres in 

size or snaller. There will be no timber harvest or road builm into the 

Mcslache area. Many recreational facilities will also be rehabilitated to 

reduce visual impacts in foIXg"3 zanes. 

Gtzathwmal developnent in Lease Blocks I and I1 will create .sbuctmal 

disturbances which could daninate certam ' middlegroundviews. Thevisual 

condition will change several classes on mre than 4,000 acres. 

The fact that this alternative has the least acreage in Open-OHv areas will 

also mkribute to inproved visual dtion. 

AMB: (hphas ize Wildlife am3 Receeatian) This alternative will improve 

visual quality on 4.7 percent, maintain current visual quality levels on 94.5 

percent,- and-reduce visual quality on 0.8 percent of the Irryo National 

Forest. The Visual Quality Index will increase 0.56 fran base year, a 0.4 

percent we. 

There will be no timber harvest or load building into the Mxzcl-e area. 

mderate timber hazvest impacts in red fir will create some minor 

disturbances as seen in middleground on the n-ore visible lower slopes of San 

Joaquh FficQe, but Opening size will be limited to ten acres or less in that 

area. 

Geothermal developnent in Lease Blocks I and I1 will create structural 

will change mal classes on - than 4,000 acres. 

Visual condition will change on appnmimately 8,100 acres due to -ti& 

alpm ski area developnent in the Mamnoth Knolls, Minare t smt, and!&ite 

Wing areas. These areas will me fran natural appearing to highly 

mxlified. Ski area developnents, especially those resulting in vegetatim 

charges on the forested slopes of Mamnoth Knolls and White Wing, could fail 

to meet assigned &Os. Cunnuru 'ty growth south of i"wth Lakes could also 

affect lands that 1y3w appear natural. 

disturbances that &Ininate certam . middlczY3"dviews. The visual dtion 

WATEXsHEn: SOILS 

lil- 'an 

Forest &vitiffi that have major effeds on the soils resource include 

timber management, facilitiffi c"&ion, OHV use, recreation develcpnent, 

Wals and energy developnent, range managmt, fire management, watershed 

managenent, and fish habitat manag-t. 

455 
ct.u=ew- of these activities are assessed in terms of Soil Fnoauctivity. 

lost or threatened produdivity by a?xe&iq the erosicm process. 

Accelerated erosion reduces soil proauctivity; watershed iq"mnt restores 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

Timber managenent (site preparation) 

Road and trail rzonsbxction 

New alpine ski area developnent 

New SUmneT reneatian developwnt 

New off-mad vehicle (OHV) use 

Wildfire 

L.ivestock srazing New mineral and energy developnent 

Watershed restoration and fish habitat hpmwment. 

Machinery used for timber site preparation disturtxs the fragile and fertile 

sail surface layer. Vegetation is also rem3ved dmiq site mtim, so 

that ccnp?tition between ~rass or tnush and young trees is minimized. The 

dination of - bymachinery and the removal of vegetatim can 

easily lead to accelerated erosim and a cansequent loss of soil 

proauculvty. Timber harvest itself is mt generally a prcblen for soils on 

the Inyo because m3st harvest is candudedover the 9yIw in winter. 

The buildjng of new Iwds and trails also dishrrbs the soil and remsves the 

vegetation, resulting in high potential for soil don. 

Alpine ski areas are especially subject to accelerated dcm because 

vegetation is re"d fran the nms, the slopes are steep, and it is 

difficult to reestablish pMve vegetation as runs are frquently 

reshaped by heavy equipnent. 

Reaeation devel0pents (such as c"u&. restroanrs. and paadng areas) 

disturb the soil and accelerate enxsim by meham 'cal removal of vegetaticm 

and reshapirg of the soil. Large stzucb~~ and parking lots cwer large 

areas of soil, takirg it out of pnx3.cEm. 

Off-highway vehicle (QHV) use anpacts and displaces the soil. These effects 

are especially destnnh 've when they wax cm large open areas, ra.ther than 

being restricted to designated roads and -&ails. 

Wildfire has the potential to increase soil ezosim and is difficult to 

mitigate. High intensity fires lpmove all vegebtim, create an impermeab le 

soil layer at or near the surface, and can affect large areas. 

Livestock affect the soil resourc~ by trampling the soil and by lpmoving 

protective vqetaticm. the soil to 

accelerated erasion, with a consequent loss in soil productivity. 

The developnent of sites irrvolves shaping, vegetation mwval, and 

other soil di- that increase the potential for accelerated eon 

and loss of soil prcduch 'vi*. 

The loss of vegetative cover can 

456 
meqy aevelopnent also entails soil shaping, vegetaticm rernvdl, 

displacement (by cover- with buildings or other structures), and other soil 

di-. ~thrmal developnent entails the buildbg and maintaining of 

me or mpe power plants, numerous drilling pads, miles of pipeline and power 

lines, and a canplex of associated roads. Wind fanns include a ne-& of 

winchill pads, powerlines and roads. Nyrhroelectric developent entails the 

installation of pipelines and transmission lines. In addition, as water 

diversion will result in a lower densi@ of vegetative covar, mpe soil will 

be exposed to the forces of erosion. 

Activities that restore and protect the soil resource include tkea that 

ptect or restore vegetative cover, arrest accelerated arosion, and rebuild 

the soil. Watershed restoration arrests soil mion and loss of 

prxductivi+q usiq struchral and vegetative means; fish habitat hpmmmnt 

projects often include the planting of vegetation on stream terraces and 

~ofexposedshreambanks. 

All of the alt0nlatives are analyzed with the assuniption that Forest-wide 

standar& and Guidelines and Management prescription directl ‘on p?mVi.de for 

the maintenance of lonag-term Soil produdivity. 

my nzw soil-disturbing activities are used as indicators of -tal 

changes under the v2xious altemat.ives. 

cc~tseqlm. Existing disturb” represents the basis of canparim for 

Vegehticn treatmnt for range and wildlife will have “al effects on the 

soil resource, as such projects are ccwduded wider controlled caditiom 

including ernrircoarw tal analysis and mitigaticn. 

camnn to All Alternatives 

The likelihood of energy developnent is as“d to be the same wider all 

alternatives: for planning purp3ses, developnent scenarios based on current 

agreements are cormy3n to all alternatives. 

Tables 91 and 92 display indicators of potential inipacts an the soil resource 

under each alternative. Table 91 displays potential adverse and beneficial 

effects of the indicators by alternative in the first decade. The adverse 

effects reflect the acres which will be exposed to accelerated soil erasim 

under each alternative; the beneficial effects represent the number of acres 

which will be restored under each alternative. The net potential effect 

rep?s%3ents the difference of the ames disturbed minus those restored. Table 

92 displays the net potential effect by alternative by decade for five 

decades, the 50-year mual average, and the relative effect rating. 

457 
Table 91 

Idicators of Eff& an sail PMdm=tiVi* by Alternative 

(firstdecade- averageanmnlanes) 

Azternatives 

nxiiatQr PRF aJR RPA CEE AMB 

Actidties that have potential adverse effects: 

Timber Site Preparation 200 817 714 307 32 96 

NewIoadsandWlS 4 5 11 10 7 8 

Newalpimskiareas 44 44 44 44 44 44 

New Ixmalpjne reu-eatim 

developnent 16 0 16 16 0 10 

Newopensumnerc%Nareas 0 0 1,244 916 0 0 

Wildfire 918 1,011 918 1,134 927 918 

New 5- 0 0 193 0 0 0 

New mheral developnent 105 105 117 81 51 78 

lwlnL 1,287 1,982 3,257 2,508 1,061 1,154 

Activities that have potential beneficial effects: 

New watershed restoratiopl 

and fish habitat i”ent 593 42 189 503 504 505 

Net potential Effect 

(adverse minus beneficial) 694 1,940 3,068 2,005 557 649 

458 
Table 92 

Net Effects ma Soil ‘vity by Decade 

(a- annual net effect in acres) 

Alternatives 

Decades PFtF aJR RPA CEE ” AMB 

Decade1 694 1,940 3,068 2,005 557 571 

Decade2 525 1,280 2,761 2,027 586 655 

Decade3 790 1,377 3,293 2,129 745 770 

Decade 4 899 1,513 3,672 2,305 905 860 

Decade5 947 1,804 3,935 3,039 1,021 1,283 

Total net effect 

(5 -) 38,550 77,914 167,290 115,050 38.140 41,390 

Relative effect 

rating IM IM H M L L 

PRF: (Preferred) Under this altw.native, the potential degradation of the soil 

resource over the next fifty years will be low-moderate. These effects will 

result fm a moderate level of timber site preparation, a large irmollllt of new 

road and trail CcBlstrUcti on, a moderate level of new alpine ski area 

developnent, a large amxtnt of new recreation developnent, a high level of 

projected mineral activity, and a moderate anKnmt of wildfire. There will be no 

new open OHV acreage and M new areas managed for grazing. The large a”t of 

watershed restoraticsl and fish habitat improvement will offset sone of the 

adverse effects CBI a Forest-wide basis. 

am: (cxlrrentm ) Under this alkmative, the relative potential 

degrachtion of the soil resource over the next fifty years will be 

low-moderate. These effects will result fmn a high level of timber site 

preparation, a snall mt of new mad and trail construction, a moderate level 

of new alpine ski area developnent, a high level of projected mineral activiby, 

and a large a”t of projected wildfire. There will be M new m-alpine 

recreation developnent, new open OW acreage, or new areas managed for grazing. 

The mall anKnmt of watershed restoration and fish habitat iq”mt will only 

slightly offset the adverse effects. 

RPA: (1980 RF’A l?rqpdm ) Under this alternative, the relative potential 

degradation of the soil resxrce over the next fifty years will be the highest 

of any alternative. These effects will result frun a very high level of timber 

site preparation, a large amxtnt of new mad and trail cnrsbuction, large 

acreage in new alpine ski area developnent, a high level of pmjeded mineral 

activity, and a moderate a”t of pmjected wildfire, considerable new acreage 

managed for grazing, and substantial additions of open OHV acreage. The 

moderate level of watershed restoration and fish habitat imprmrement will only 

slightly offset the adverse effects on a Forest-wide basis. 

459 
CEE: (Maxuruze Cost-Efficiency) Under this alternative, the relative potential 

degradation of the soil resource over the next fifty years will be seccnd only 

to WA. These effects will result fmn a moderate level of timber site 

preparation, a large mt of new road and trail c"&i on, maximum new 

alpine ski area developuent, a large a"t of new remeation developnent, a 

Wate level of pmjeded mineral activity, a large amount of wildfire, and 

substantial new op=n OIN acreage. There will be M new areas managed for 

grazing. Full jnplementatian of watershed restoration and fish habitat 

i"ent - 'ties will offset sane of the adverse effects on a 

Farest-wide basis. 

.. 

AMN: (Maximize all Amenities) under this aldtive, the relative potential 

dq~adation of the soil resource over the next fifty years will be the lowest of 

any alternative. These effects will result fm a low level of timber site 

preparation, a small amunt of new road and trail constzuction, "l new 

alpine ski area developuent, a lcw level of projected mineral activity, and a 

moderate amxllTt of wildfire. There will be m new nmalpjne recxeation 

developwnt, new open areas managed for grazing, or new open CHV acreage. Full 

inplementatian of watershed restoration and sane fish habitat iquwwmt 

AMB: (Emha!s ize Wildlife and Recxeatim) The relative potential degraaaticsl of 

the soil resanxe wer the next fiftyyexswill be the second-lowest mder tfus 

alternative. These effects will result fm a lcw level of timber site 

preparation, a moderate a"t of new road and trail cxcstmction, a high level 

of new alpha ski area developnent, a moderately high level of new "alpine 

remeation developwmt, a nuderate level of projected mineral activity, and a 

moderate amount of wildfire. There will be 1x3 new open areas managed for 

grazing or new open OHV acreage. N1 iniplmentatim of watershed restoratmn 

and nuderate fish habitat improvement will offset many of the adverse effects on 

a Forest-wide basis. 

will offset many of the adverse effects on a Farest-Wide basis. 

Forest activities that have mjor effects rm water quality and water yield 

include timber management, road -on, recreation use, lnineml sand 

energy developmat, range managmt, watershed manag-t, and fish habitat 

management. 

Ccmsequences of these activities ate assessed in tenm of overall watershed 

condition as reflected in water quality and water yields, includirg cumulative 

effects. 

Data sources for this analysis include watex resmmxs records for the Inyo 

Naticnal Forest (1929 to the present), pfessicnal literature, psxsoxd 

ca"icatims with adjacent Natimal Forests, and prof&& jucQment. 

460 
1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

Timber managerent (site preparation) 

Road and trail - 'on 

New sumner recreation developnent 

r"lheral and energy deve1-t 

Alpine ski area developnent 

muse 

Livestock grazing 

Wildfira 

Watershed and fish habitat impmvenent 

Activities associated with the first eight indicators all affect water 

quality bu disturbing, exposing, and/or ' soils and channelizing 

water, providirg an opportunity for soil to erode and to enter stream as 

sediment. Sedimntation can rcxiuce reservoir capacity: lowar water quality 

for irrigation, hylhropower and bnestx 'c use; and reduce fish habitat 

quality. Acres of soil disturbed are used to quantify the relative impacts 

of the altematives on overall watershe3 condition. The asmnuxl relationship 

is that the mre acres disturbed, the greater the effects on watershed 

omdition. 

Water yield is also altered by land-disturbing activities because soil 

disturbance trigg-azs charges in the hydxologic reginn? (the tinrkg, volume and 

quality of mff). As runoff volumes during the spring increase with 

increased soil disturbance, the duration of mff decreases. Increased 

runoff volumes over a shorter time period result in less soil water for plant 

grawth, a lower recharge rate for gmmdwater basins due to && 

percolation through the soil mantle, and increased stteam channel erosion. 

in water yield are generally of benefit to municipal water users 

but the tradeoff of increased sediment yield impacting beneficial water uses 

can be high. Altematives which emphasize activities that increase water 

yield also increase the potential for sedimentation. 

Machineq used for timber site preparatim disturbs the soil sttuckre and 

protective vegetation. The results can include reduced infiltration rates 

and capacity, water channelization, overland water flaw, and increased 

susceptibility of the soil to detachment and displacement under the inpact of 

raindlrops. Ground disturbance is the first step in a process that evmtually 

leads to soil lrrnrement and reduction of water qwality frcm sedimentation. In 

general, suitable timber lands on the Forest lie away €ran bodies of water. 

only those timber activities on lands that could contribute to water quality 

problems are used as an indicator. Timber harirest itself is not an 

indicator, as logging on the Inyo is conducted in winter over the 41ow to 

minimize soil disturbance. 

Road and trail oonstruction, OW use, --alpine recreation developnent, and 

mineral and energy developnent all disturb the soil ~II much the same way as 

that described abave for timber activities. 

Alpine ski area developnent has especially high potential to increase water 

yield, p-ce sediment, and reduce water quality. Ski runs lie on steep 

461 
slopes ard are cut parallel to l3-e slope. causilq SBVere water 

Channelizaticm; they are ccmpctd, altering soil permeahi1ity: and neatly 

all the vegetative covar is rmuved, causiq a drastic shift in the 

hydhrologic cycle. As sM areas are managed to "lze skiirg 'ties 

even with mi" 913w covar, slopes are sculptured to el*-- 

pjectims and to follcw % fall line as dfoxmly as possible. Such 

Umditions facilitate soil amsion and cx"t !s&imXltaticm. Finally, 

ski areas lie in areas wia high levels of pmcipitation, at high elwaticm 

with sbrt growing seascms, and on infertile soils. ccslditica7s are mt, 

therefare, favorable for establi- protective vegetaticm axe native 

shrubsandtreeshavebeenremoved. 

Livestock spend a diqmpmh 'at0 aluxmt of time in wet meadows d other 

riparian areas. anin?als can impact water quality by -1- 

d"b&s, canpacting soils, nsducbq vegetative oovar, dinc==i% 

sedimentaticm. Past grazing has impactea appXdmate1y 23,500 - Of 

meadows cm tha Forest. aOntinued grazig~, while not generally immasiq 

effects of grazing cm water quality can be mitigated by varicus measures such 

as herding, salting, water developnent, and delying ths 5T-L seasan, 

fenciq will be the caily effective mitigatim measure for grazing in oeatain 

sensitive - 'de zones. 

sedimentatiCaI, may Vd.1 SloW the Course Of MM recoVeay. the 

Wildfires typically remve or * pzwkctive vegetation, Create 

watar-repellant sails, imrease mff, arid accelerate soil erosiosl, 

affecting both water yield and water quality. 

Watershed lestoratiopl includes the CcBlshUctiDBl of eroGicBI mkol 

sb~ctures, stabilization of gullies d channels, obliteration of unneeded 

roads and trails, and p1antiI-g of vegetative gr"d cover. These measures 

help to arrest soil eZn5im, thareby l-duciq sedimentation of Stream and 

retarding mff. Fish habitat iwpwment wark includes such practices as 

willow planting arid soil rehabilitatim to stabilize stream channels and 

?zealce 5xdiment- . Acres of watershed and fish habitat impmvea are 

used to quantify the beneficial effects these activities by alternative. 

Water quality 081 the Irryo NatiCxlFil Forest is pimarily affected by sediment 

proauction. Although Forest activities are managed to minimize impacts cm 

wa-, sediment yields will increase as new gr"d disturbing activities 

Altlnugh sediment yield cwrmspmk broadly to the a"t of grorrnd disturbed 

Forest-wide, the relatiomhip varies fmn one locaticm to another depending 

on soil characteristics, the preseme or ahsence of shrearns, streambank 

characteristics, slope, precipitation, vegetation type, and om prUsica-1 

and biolcgical factcors. 

vegetation treatment for large and wildlife will have "al effects cm 

water quality, as treatments mcur under carefully controlled conckitims. 

pzescriptian dir%zb 'on which protect or restore watershed condition. For 

OCCUT. 

All alJ"tl 've~ include Folest-wide Standards and Guidelines d Management 

462 
example, Best Management practices (BMps), a ccmprehensive set of guidelines 

designed to “ize adverse impacts on water quality, will be applied under 

any alternative. 

Bs Ca” to All Alternatives 

Appmxhately 7,000 acre-feet of surface water per year are presently needed 

for Forest activities. This a”t will be expected to increase by less than 

70 acre-feet over the next fifty years under any alternative; cansequently, 

the Forest’s need for additional water rights is considered ccnnrm to all 

alternatives. 

Increased ski area capacity is expected to result in cnnnunity growth, which 

will in turn result increased demands for municipal water supplies. tbn 

County land use plans project a 100 to 200 percent increase in the demand for 

water. As the onptition for water uses is intense, these Conditim will 

be expected to result in water rights adjudications under any altexnative. 

Table 93 displays the relative indicators of on water quality for 

each alternative for the first decade. The potential adverse effects reflect 

the potential nunhr of acres disturbed, which could in turn impact water 

quality. The potential beneficial effects represent the nunhr of acres that 

will be restored under each alternative. The net potential effect is the 

difference of the projected disturbed minus restored acreage. 

Table 94 displays the net potential effect of each alternative, by decade, 

wer the next fifty years, the fifty-year total effect, and the net effect 

rat-. 

Table 95 displays anticipated increases in water yield in the first decade. 

This figure was calculated primarily on the basis of acres of vcgetatim 

rermnral for timber harvest and ski area developnent. 

463 
Table 93 

Irdicatars of Effects cm Water Wity 

(first decade - inrecage d acres) 

Alutim 

Indicatars PRF UJR RPA CEE AMN AMB 

Activities that have potential adverse effects: 

Tinba site pparation 

(only an lands near water) 30 65 131 

New roads and trails 4 5 11 

New alpine ski areas 44 44 44 

New --alpine mtim 

developnent 16 0 16 

NeWOHVapenareaS 0 0 1,244 

Wildfire 918 1,011 918 

Newgrazing 0 0 193 

30 65 131 

TOTAL 1,042 1,190 2,688 

Activities that have potential beneficial effects: 

New watershed restoraticn 

and fish hahitat vork 593 42 189 

Net potential effect 

(adverse minus beneficial) 

effects 449 1,148 2,499 

24 

10 

44 

16 

916 

1,134 

0 

24 

2,168 

503 

1,665 

1 13 

7 8 

44 44 

0 10 

0 0 

927 918 

0 0 

1 13 

980 1,006 

504 505 

476 501 

464 
Table 94 

Net Effects a Water Quality by Decade 

(average “al acres) 

Alternatives 

PRFCUR RPA CEE AMB 

Decade1 695 1,148 2,499 1,665 476 501 

Decade 2 837 1,228 2,645 1,782 557 619 

Decade3 

Decade4 

941 1,225 2,746 1,904 559 726 

1,011 1,235 2,847 2,033 559 735 

Decade5 1,085 1,234 2,910 2,258 538 1,026 

Total net effect 

(5 -) 4,569 6.070 13,647 9,642 2,689 3,607 

Relative effect rating IM IM H M L L 

Table 95 

Projected Incrsases in Water Yield by Decade 

(M -feet) 

Alternatives 

PRF CUR PA CEE AMB 

Decade 1 7.0 11.0 15.0 7.0 0 1.7 

Decade2 

Decade 3 

0.2 4.0 0 0 0 0.5 

0 0 0 0 0 0.5 

Decade 4 0 3.0 0 0 0 0.5 

Decade5 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 

465 
other thanarmlativewa~I4?acts 

PRF: (preferred) This alternative re- a low-ate level of putential 

advefse impacts cm wa- quality. These effects will result fmn a moderate 

level of timber site preparatim, large acreage in new roads and trails, 

improvenent will offset some of these potenual adverse effects cm a Fcorest-wide 

basis. 

aJR: (ChmSntPnJgram) This altarnative represents a low-mda-ate level of 

relativa potential impacts on water quality. These effects will result fmn a 

high level of timbar site pparaticm, a low level of new mad and trail 

cx"&on, a m=derate level of new alpine ski area devalopnent, and a 

mJderatelevel0f -. . 'ty for new minerdl developnent. The lllodeate level 

of wa- restauation and fish habitat imprcnreRwt will offset some of the 

potential adverse effeds cm a Forest-wide basis. 

lmderate new alpin3 ski. area devalopnent, and lrndarate - aevelopnent 

qwlity. The high level of watershed -tion and stream habitat 

RPA: (1980 RPA P - ) Thcs alternative reglresenb the highest level of 

potentidl adverse impacts on water quality of any altarnative. These effects 

will result fmn a high level of timber site p~tim, a high level of new 

road and trail amsbwticm, a high level of new alpjne ski area developnent, a 

high level of new m, many new open OHV acres, and high-level cpprhnu 'ties 

for new mineral developnent. The lllodeate level of new watershed restoration 

and fish habitat impIwement will do little to offset the potential adverse 

impacts of cxlnnxuty prodllctioBl undsr this alternative. 

CEX: (MaxlrmzR Cost-Wfici6xzy) This alternative represents a moderate 

relative level of potential adverse ingacts cm water quality. These effects 

.. 

will resiLt fmn a-mderate level of umber site kation; a high level of 

new roads and trails, a high level of new alpine ski area developnent, many new 

open OHV acres, and a moderate level of new mineral developlK?ntoL, ' 'tY. 

The high level of wae restoration and fish habitat improvenent will offest 

sam of these potential adverse effects OBI a Forest-wide basis. 

AMN: (MaxlrmzR All Amsrities) This alternative reJ?r#=llb the lowest level of 

potential impacts on water quality of any alternative. These effects will 

result fran a law level of timber site preparaticm, a law level of new roads, a 

lmderate level of new trails, a rrodsrate level of new ski area developnent, and 

a law level of opprtunity for new developat. The high level of 

watershed restoration and stream habitat hp"at will offset mxt of these 

adverse effects on a Forest-wide basis. 

.. 

AMB: (Ehpbas ize Wildlife ad Recreation) This alternative represents a 

low level of potential adverse effects on water quality. These effeds will 

result from a law level of timber site preparation, a -ate level of new 

roads and trails, a high level of new alpine ski area developlK?nt, and a law 

level of new mineral developnent oppxhml 'ty. The high level of watershed and 

fish habitat improvment will off& nnst of these ptmtial effects on a 

Farest-wide basis. 

466 
Wative Waterski3 Effects 

The Inyo National Forest does not have a (3wE metbodolcgy. A specific (;WE 

assessment was mt, therefore, made on the two watersheds of c"~ (discussed 

below). The Pacific Szmthwest Region is currently develop- a (;WE methDdology. 

when it is available, the Forest will apply the meu7oaol~ on a 

proj ect-by-proj ect basis. 

l'iienty of the twenty-Ism watersheds on the Forest are fairly stable, 

expeziencirg only lccalized, small-scale water quality prcblem~. The Mammth 

CreelC-HDt Creek watershed and the South Folk Kern River watershed will be 

vulnerable to cmulative watershed effects under certam ' alternatives. 

The $Outh Fork of the Ke?Xl River will be subject to llew timber harvest under 

CUR, RPA, and a. Not only will actual timber site preparation affect water 

quality, but access inb and through the area will inprom with mtruction of 

a paved road. The a"t of vehicle use will imxease, with ' water 

quality impacts. In addition, the Wmache Meadows area is a potential site for 

irmxmxd cattle grazhg with wnxspmbq ' water quality impacts. Graz- will 

increase mderately under PRF and (3EE: it will increase substantially under 

RPA. Finally, the area is subject to OHV impacts. Approximately five miles of 

&stkg OHV mutes are serious erosion problems, and illegal use off 

established routes is a potential source of additimal damage. 

The Mammth creek-Hot Q-eek watershed will be subject primarily to the impacts 

of SM area area developnent and associated CCmrmnity developnent. Ski areas 

and cu"ity facilities will increase under all alternatives. The growth will 

be lckvest in AMN; higher in PRF, CUR, AMB, and RPA: and highest in CXE. The 

lower reaches of Hot Creek are suitable for increased cattle grazing. Grazmg 

will mcmase moderately under alternatives PRF and a, and suhstantially under 

the RPA alternative. The RPA and CXE alternatives will intrduce high-level 

timber harvest into this watershed and the impacts of new timber managemmt will 

be similar to thDse discussed abave for the south Fork of the Kern. However, 

the emulative effects will be greater due to the addition of timber and grazing 

impacts to ski area and camunity gmwth. This watershed 1s also subject to the 

effects of gee- developat in Lease Block I1 or on private land. 

Finally, the potential for impacts in this watershed is greater because 

considerable acreage within the watershed is privately owned. The Forest 

Service has little influ- over the type of develapnent or methods used and 

the= wnsequences on water quality. 

emulative watershed effects in either of the above-mentioned watersheds have 

the potential to affect nnmicipal water supply quality and resident trout 

habitat including state-designated wild .trout waters in Hot creek. 

The application of BMps by the Forest and urban developnent pdelines currently 

propzed by the Lakmtan Water Quality Ccmtml Board to the "ity should 

mitigate adverse impacts on water quality and could actually result in imprwed 

water quality over the lorg run. Allotment managemmt plans will ixlude 

stipulations for water quality protean measures in livestock managemmt, and 

grazm impacts can be nonibred us- the streambank stability raw system 

descritd in Chapter 111. When (;WE methoaologies are available, they rylll be 

applied mver appropriate. In lieu of (3wE analysis, mn-reg-able acres 

467 
have been remrnred from the suitable timber base and Riparian Area Standards and 

Guidelines limit StreaEa 'de - to 5 percent per decade. 

Forest activities that could have major effects on wild and scenic rivers 

include off-highway vehicle use, timber management, and range management. 

ThaNorthForkoftheKernRiverandthesoUthForkofthe~Riverhave 

recently been designated by Congnss as Wild and Scenlc Rivers. The Middle 

Fork of the Sa JW is surmunded by Wilderness and rxncentrated 

recreaticm areas. This river is unlikely to be affected by off-highway 

vehicle use, timber managemnt, or range manag-t mdex any alternative. 

Ccmsequences of thase activities are assessed in terms of their potential 

effects on a river's suitability for wild and scenic designaticm. Although 

the lead role for evaluating the three candidate wild and scenic river cm the 

Inyo is held by the Sierra National Forests, the scenario 

&si& under alternatives cansidered by the Inyo National Fbrest could 

affect a rim's suitability for wild and scenic designation. 

Forest activities that have major effects on wilderness resources include: 

(1) activitiffi associated directl y with wilderness, such as wilderness 

-ticms, recreational attracticms, trails/trailhea&, and 

outfitter-guide opprtum 'ties; and (2) activities associated with 

non-wilderness management and land uses on lands aaj0iniI-g wilderness, such 

as develaped recxeaticm, timber harvest, and IYm-wilderneSs trail 

lxmstnlction. 

Ccarsequences of these activities are assessed in terms of the wilderness 

experience provided to users and the effects of Forest activities cm 

wilderness resources. Data sources used for this analysis include appuroved 

John I4.i.r. and Golden Trout Wilderness. and the approved e"mntal 

assessnent for golden trout habitat imprwement cm the Kern Plateau. 

Indicabrs 

wilderness management Plans for the Haover, Ansel Adam5 (formerly Minarets), 

1. overnight developed recreation use 

2. Wildermess use 

3. Newwilderness~tic€~s 

4. Otherattmcb 'om within wilderness 

5. New trails outside wilderness 

6. Opprhnu 'ties fur new outfitbx-guide services 

7. Timberharvest 

468 
The anw.mt of day use in wildarness is closely associated with the anw.mt of 

developed site use m lands within a reasamble distance of wilderness 

trailhead areas. 

Overall wilderness use is an indicator of the degree to which the Forest is 

meetirg projected demand LUU~X an alternative. New additia tn wilderness 

would i"?ase overall wilderness recreation oppxtlm 'ties m the Forest in 

?aspnsetoincreasingdemand. 

other wilderness-related attractions include wild and scenic river 

designatim and new trail and trailhead cadzuda 'm. Wild and scenic rivers 

attract use by virtue of special designatim. Trails and trailheads disperse 

use, increasing use in areas made mre accessible and reducing crowding in 

other areas. 

New trail P ' cutside of wilderness offsets the demand for 

opportunities for solitude. 

Outfitter-@.de services vxxlld haease the opportunity for Iy3pI-hikers to 

visit and enjoy the wilderness, while also increasm the potential for 

conflict between stock users and baclcpackers. 

Timber harvest in the "ache area would entail the cnxhuch 'on of a pad, 

twD-wheel drive road intn country m accessible cmly by far-wheel drive. 

Che result would be improVea access to wilderness trailheads for the Golden 

hout and South Sierra Wildernesses, with a resultant increase in ovenu 'ght 

and day use of tlnsa wildernesses. Chtfitter-guide opprhm~ 'ties and other 

stock use opprhml 'ties mld also increase with imprcnrea access for horse 

tcailerS. 

wilderness day-use, ?.-&ucing crowding in wilderness and increasing 

The demand for wilderness use will exceed the supply available before the 

fifth decade under any altemative. The Inyo does not have enough existing 

or potential wilderness to meet projected demand if wilderness use is managed 

within capacity Imitations. 

Smke from wildfire could occasionally affect air quality in wilderness: 

however, smke managemnt plans will be developea in mjunction with Fire 

Managerent Action Plans to "Lze this impact, especially on Class I 

wilderness. The impacts of prescribed burning will be "ked by 

developing &e managerent plans for prescribed fires and by bumiq cmly 

when air quality conditions favor smke dispersion. 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines and the Wilderness Management 

Prescription assure that, under all alternatives, wildemess would be mged 

to maintain basic wilderness characteristics: natural ecological integrity, 

natural appearance, opprtunities for solitude, and opprhmities for 

prxnitive recreation. 

469 
consequares ca” to Au Al.t”ati- 

~ll wildernesses would be managed within established Capacity limitaticns, 

including the application of trailhead guotas where necessary. All 

wildernesses would be used to capacity during peak use SKXWXIS by the fifth 

decade. 

The ahlnislxaticm of legitjn?ate livestock graziq in wilderness and 

mtorized access to private land inholdings represent potential cmflicts 

with the €qectaticms of wi1- users under all alternatives. 

Designation of the Middle Fork of the San Joaquin Rim as a Wild and Scenic 

River would attract visitors to the Ansel Adms Wilderness under all 

alternatives. 

Thirteen miles of new trail muld be ar&ru&d in existirg wilderness under 

all altfxnatives, improving flkpxsa and resource p?mMm. 

consequareslhatvaryby Al.t”atiE 

The folludng table displays the effects of alternatives on wilderness 

resolnrcesand- ‘ties. 

Table 96 

(ed of .the fifth decade) 

Indicatacs of wil&xness Cansequavzs that vary by Alternative 

Developea surrmer 

-tion use (M RVDs) 2900 

Wilderness maeation 

use (M RWs) 788 

Recomnended wilderness 

(M a-) 172.6 

New trails in recomnended 

wild€mless (miles) 36.0 

New trails outside 

wilderness (miles) 

I”ved-- 

fortimberhanrestin 

mnache 

180 

No 

1940 

639 

107.6 

15.0 

0 

YeS 

YeS 

2901 2903 1944 2675 

771 838 863 a37 

0 339.8 510.8 222.7 

0 60.0 66.0 56.0 

180 180 80 120 

YeS YeS No No 

No YeS YeS YeS 

470 
PRF: (Preferred) A 57 percent increase in developed site use will increase day 

use in djacent wildemesxs, resulting in nwre encumters mthin five miles of 

trailheads. The areas of greatest impact will be trails originating fran the 

Mammth Lakes Basin, Reds Meadow, Rock Ckeek, and Bishop creek. New 

developnentS m the Walker Lake area will increase day use of the Blody 

canyon-- Pass trail. 

The effects of increased developd recreation use on wilderness will be offset 

-what by an additmnal 180 miles of trail outside of wilderness. Howarer, 

the attractions available only in wilderness will continue to attract many day 

users. 

Further Planning Areas praposed for wildemess designation under this 

alternative total 172,600 acres. The greatst -all increase in wilderness 

recreation opprtunities (due to a cunbjnatim of large size, relative ease of 

access, and mxlerate-to-high wilderness attractions), will be seen in the white 

Mxntains area. Most of the new trail and trailhead facilities will seme that 

area as well. The Tioga Lake area, while high in attraCtian, is to0 anall to 

offer much increased overnight opprtunity. Inuwses will result primarily 

€ran day use associated with developed sites in the Ticga Lake area. 

 he remaining acreage in r- wilderness will represent a low iwei of 

increased wildemess recreation opprtunity due to a lack of water, a lack of 

recreational attractions, difficulty of access, and/or snall size. 

Timber will not be harvested in the Mzmache area. Withcut developnent of this 

resource, there will be no new road access or trailhead developnent for the 

southem portions of the Golden Trout and South Sierra Wildesnesses. Recreation 

use of these wildernesses will increase, but at a much slower rate than under 

alternatives with ilnpmed access. 

Outfitter-guide opp3rtunities will imrease due to the new wilderness and 

associated trails and trailheads in the White Mxntaim. 

aJR: (anrent- ) Existing- ’ by day users will mtinue within 

five miles of trailheads, especially an trails out of the Marmpth Lakes Basin, 

Re& Meadow, Rcck &%&, and Bim Creek areas. This . willnotbe 

expected to increase significantly, as there will be little increase m 

neighbriq develaped site use; mr will the pressure be offset elsewhere, as IIO 

m-wilderness trails will be developed. 

Planning Areas proposed for wilderness de.signaticn under this 

alternative total 107,600 acres. The greatest overall increase in wilderness 

recreatim apportunities (due to a rxmbjnati.cn of large size, relative ease of 

access, and moderate-+high wilderness attractions ), will be seen in the white 

Wantaim area. bbst of the new trail and trailhead facilities will seme that 

area as well. The Paiute area will represent a low level of increased 

wi1dfn-e~~ recreation cpprbmity due to a lack of water, a lack of recxeational 

attractions, and difficulty of access. Both recarmended wildemeszs represent 

Great Basin ecological types not yet represented by wilderness on the Irryo. 

471 
Timber harvest in 

Wildernesses, but opprtum ‘ties for trailhead developlent will be limited by 

budget. 

nm of new trails in the white Mountains will irmease the opporhnu ‘tY 

for additional ouffitkr-guide services in this area. Impme3 access into the 

Mmache area will provide an ‘ty for new sbck-oriented outfitterquick 

SlXviceS for IleighiXJritlg wildernesses. 

will increase use in the Golden Trout and Scuth Sierra 

RPA: (1980 RPA P - ) A 57 percent increase in developd site use will 

imxease pressme by day users cn existing wilderness. Loss of solitude and 

increased encamters between users will be greatest within five miles of 

trailheads in the Mimmoth Lakes Basin, Reds Meadow, Rack creek, and Bishop Creek 

areas. Devaloplent of recreatim facilities in the Buttermilk area will impact 

the €lorton Lakes trail and, to a lesser extent, the Bishop Creek trailheads. 

New developrents in the Walker Lake area will increase day use of the Bloody 

Canycol-Mono Pass trail. 

Bcn of an additimal 180 miles of trails outside wilderness will 

mitigate the increased pres” for day use in wilderness. However, the water 

and scenic attractions of wil- will ccsltinue to draw day users. 

sm M Further Planning Areas are proposed for wilderness, there will be m 

new wilderness recreaticol opprtum ’ties. 

Timher h2“g ‘ in Wnache will inp” access to trailheads for the Golden 

Trout and south Sierra wildernesses. ”railhead facilities will attract stock 

users and increase outfitter-guide opprhnu ‘ties in these two wildernesses. 

CEE: (- Cost-Efficiency) .. 

A 57 percent irmeaSe in developed site use will increase day use in adjacent 

wildernesses, resulting in m encounters within five miles of trailheads. The 

areas of greatest impact will be trails originating fm the “mth Lakes 

Basin, Red’s Meadow, Rock Creek, and Bisbp Creek. New developnents in the 

Developnents in the Buttermilk area will affect the Hortcol Creek trail. 

The effects of increased developd recreatiQn use an wilderness will be offset 

somewhat by an additional 180 miles of trail outside of wilderness. IIowever, 

the attmctims available only in wilderness will contjnue to attract many day 

Further Planning Areas prop3sed for wilderness designation & this 

altanative total 338,900 a=. The greatest overall increases in wilderness 

-tical opprhnu ‘ties (due to a cmbinatim of large size, relative ease of 

access, and moderate-to-high wilderness attractians), will be seen in the Coyote southeast and white Mnmtains areas. Most of the new trail and trailhead 

facilities will senre those areas as well. 

The Hall area, al- very high in wilderness attractims and recreaticm 

potential, will represent only rmderate increases in wilde?xess use cpprtml ‘ty; 

Walker Lake will increaSe us8 Of the BlW --- Pass trail. 

users. 

472 
the area is an established Research Natural Area, and ovf?might use of the area 

is prohibited. The Ticga Lake area, while high in attraction, is to0 snall to 

offer much inneased overnight e ‘ty: increases will result primarily fm 

day use associated with developed sites in the Ticga Lake area. 

The 

points, but much of the acreage in each area is steep and inaccessible. 

Inpmved access for timber harvest in the mche area will increase wilderness 

use and new trailhead developnent opprhmities in the southern part of the 

Golden Trout and south Sierra wildernesses. 

-ties for outfitter-guide services will irmease in the sovth Sierra and 

Golden ”rout wildernesses due to improves access, and in the White Wmntairs due 

to new trails and trailheads. 

Cabin-Saddlebag and Laurel-- areas will offer moderate increases in 

wilderness recreation: tky include water, scenic values, and destlna . tion 

AMN: (W All Amenities) This alternative will mt substantially increase 

developed recreatim use m the Forest. Day users originating fran caqg”& 

and private resorts will ccmtinue to use wilderness for hiking, fisbing and 

via outstanding scenery. Hawever, the pressure on wilderness trails will be 

lowered as a result of cx”Cti.ng 80 miles of new trails outside wilderness. 

Further planning Areas proposed for wilderness designatim under this 

alternative total 510,800 acres. The greatest overall in wildemess 

recreation 0pprhu-u ‘ties (due to a canbination of large size, relative ease of 

access, and mxlerate-to-high wilderness attractions), will be seen in the Coyote 

southeast and White Nz~untajns areas. Most of the new trail and trailhead 

facilities will serve those areas as well. 

.. 

Hall area, althxgh very high in wilderness attractirms and recreation 

potential, will represent only rrpderate increases in wilderness use oppz~rtuni-. 

The area is an established Research Natural Area, and ovenught use of the area 

is prohibited. The Ticga Lake area, while high in attraction, is to0 -11 to 

offer much increased overnight opprhnu ‘ties. Increases will result primarily 

fran day use associated with develop& sites in the Ticga Lake area. 

The Log Cabin-Saddlebag and Laurel-PkXee areas will offer mderate irmeases m 

wilderness recreation; they include water, scenic values, and destination 

points, but much of the acreage in each area is steep and inaccessible. The 

remaining acreage in recomnended wildemess will repr-t a low level of 

increased wildemess recreation opprhmity due to a lack of water, a lack of 

recreational attractions, difficulty of access, and/or small size. 

Timber will mt be harvested in the Manache area. Withrxlt developrent of this 

reso-, them will be m new road access or trailhead developrent for the 

southem portions of the Golden R-out and South Sierra Wildernesses. Recreation 

use of these wildernesses will increase, but at a much slower rate than undex 

alternatives with improved access. 

There will be potential for new outfitter-guide services in the White “cains 

wilderness, but mt in the kbnache area. 

473 
AMB: (m@E3ze . Wildlife and Reczeaticn) This alternative will innease 

developed site use applavlmataly 44 percent over the next fifty years, resulting 

in a moderate increase in the number of day users an wilderness trails. 

l3lc”w will innease and Q.owdinfl will result an the first five miles of 

trail out of lxailheads in the MannnlAl Lakes Basin, Reds Meadaw, Rock Ox&, and 

Bishop ck-eek areas. 

The l2cmdnlction of 120 miles of new trails outside of wilderness will offset 

some of the effects of inneased day use. Howevar, the a“ctions p-esent only 

in wilderness will still tend to attract the day user, and will tend to result 

in the impads noted above. 

Further PlaruLing Areas Inoposed far wilderness designatim Lnxkr this 

alternative total 222,700 acres. The greatest overall inneases in wilderness 

re4xeatiCa-l oppcnhnu ‘ties (&e to a c”ation of large size, relative ease of 

access, and moderate-to-high wilderness atkackicm), will be seen in the Coyote southeast and white Mnmtains areas. Wet of the new lxail and trailhead 

facilities will sezve those areas as mll. The Tiqa Lake area, while high in 

attraction, is too mall to offer much increased overnight 0pp”u ‘ty; inneases will result -1y fmn day use associated with developed sites in 

the Tiqa Lake area. 

The Log Cabin-Saddlebag and Laurel-- areas will offer llpaerate increases in 

wi1- recreation. !mey include watex, scenic values, and deskma . tion 

pints, but much of the acreage in each area is steep and inaccessible. The 

remaiTling acreage in recarmended wilderness will represent a low level of 

increased wilderness recreatim opporhu ‘ty due to a lack of water, a lack of 

remeational attracticns, and difficulty of access. The white b”tain.s and 

Paiute areas represent Great Basin ecolqical types ryst yet represented in 

wilderness an the Forest. 

Lack of - harvest and improves access in ”ache will result in Slower 

increases in use of aajoirring wilderness than urid€T tbase altenlatives with 

timberharvest. 

There will be new ’ties for outfitter-guide services in the White 

b”tain.s, but mt in the P,zma&e area. 

- 

Forest activities that have major effects on wildlife habitat include wildlife, 

rarge, recreation, timber, fire and wilderness managemnt and energy 

developnent. 

The of al-tives m wildlife habitats are the result of land 

uses, management prescription applicaticm, managemnt Standards and 

Guidelines, and wildlife habitat These consequences are measured 

in term of habitat capability for Management Indicator Species, and projected 

animal ppulaticm Nsnbers. The methodology used to project habitat capability 

and animal rnrmbers is retained in the planniqlecords. 

474 
Data sources for this analysis include wildlife management principles, research 

and managamntliterature, and habitat capability models developea for seleded 

indicator species. 

Indicators 

App”tely 400 species of wildlife occupy habitat on the Forest during scme 

stage of the= life cycle. A vast array of Vegetation CanpOnents and physical 

features &ine to meet specific wildlife needs. Vegetation type, abundance, 

seral stage, and distribution are important factors affecting the capability of 

habitats to suppxt wildlife. The availability of physical features, such as 

water, snags, rcck mtuups, and cliffs are also iqmrtant wildlife habitat 

canp=olents. Wildlife populations vary in response to changes in habitat 

capability, which changes in response to Forest activities. 

Certain wildlife species and key habitat types were chosen as indicators of the 

effects of alternatives on wildlife. Harvest, threatened and endangered (T&E), 

sensitive, and special interest species were chosen on the basis of issues and 

cm”s regarding the qeies. Key habitats were chosen on the basis of the 

likelihood that they will be affected by Forest activities. Management 

Indicator Species (MIS) for those habitats were chosen to represent other 

species with sinrLlar habitat needs. 

1. Harvest species: mle deer, blue grouse, sage grouse 

2. Threatened and endaqered (T&E) species: bald eagle, peregrine falcon 

3. Sensitive species2 fisher, Sierra Nevada red fox, goshawk, pine marten, 

4. Special interest species: golden eagle, tule elk, prairie falcon, Nelson 

5. Riparianareas: yellowwarbler 

6. Snags: hai~~ maip&er, Williamson sapsucker 

5. Early-middle seral stages of brush: sage grouse 

6. Older seral stages of coniferous forest: goshawk. 

Forest activities affect- mule deer include primarily ski area developnent, 

timber management, geolhmal developnent, livestock grazing, riparian area 

protection, and deer habitat improvement. 

As nwst of the deer on the Forest migrate fran sumner range west of the Sierra 

Nevada crest to winter raqe in the Owens and Wxm Basins, the very pesence of 

deer on the Forest 

their ability to migrate into the area. 

Ski area developwnt and geothermal. developrent are the activities with the 

greatest ptential to affect deer migration routes. Either type of developnent 

could both Prysically obstruct those routes and eliminate or reduce the 

prcductivity of vegetation used by migratiq animals. Facility developcent 

such as ski runs, lifts, and base facilities, geothermal plants, 

wellsites, and pipelines: inpmved access; and concentrated human use will all 

contribute to these effects. 

Timber harvest can also affect habitat for migratory deer, primarily because of 

theincreased human disturbance (includiq poaching) associated with inipmved 

great gray owl, spottea owl, Sierra Nevada nrnmtain sheep, wolverme 

lmlmm sheep 

(and on adjoining BIM deer winter range) is de- bu 

475 
access. 

~oaquin Rir2ge will haw the g-reatest potential effects on deer populatim. 

Timber harvest in the Moslache area and the red fir foreSt east Of San 

ski area developnent and apprwed ge0“al exploration and developnent in 

 locks I and 11, has the potential for major cumulative impacts on deer 

migration. TheButterrm ‘B, - ’ ,and Casa Diablo herds all migrate through 

the area between Mammth Lakes and Glass Creek. This area is subject to 

gee- and ski area deVelOpnent. 

Livestock grazing affects deer habitat capacity where deer and cattle anpte 

for forage, primarily cm key deer winter range, and where cattle brmse in deer 

fawning areas, reducing forage and cover needed for fawns and does. 

As deer fawning habitat is typically found in riparian areas, any activities 

that affect riparian dticm may affect deer as well. The degL-ee to which 

watershed imprwement wark arrests accelerated erosion varies by altanative. 

untxeated wet meadow acreage subject to cnntinud erosion is an indicator 

of niule deer fawning habitat capability. 

~eer habitat -thaeases forage production and habitat capacity by 

rejuvenatirg decadent bitterbrush stands. bp”snS on deer winter range 

are far mm i”l t for overall habitat capacity on the ForeSt than on 

s~nrmer we, as mxt deer on the Forest spend the sumner elsewfiere. 

Bald eagles and peregrine falccols are not subject to major rxnflicts with any 

Forest activities. These species are managed for recarery, and recovery levels 

will be met for every almtive. Peregrine falm, a species recently 

raintroduced to the Forest, are managed to excesd recoVery in alternatives with 

additional reirl+=L-&u&ons. 

Sierra Nevada mnmtain sheep are subject to conflicts with Ckniesh ’c livestock 

and wncentrated human use. These conflicts are not major ones, however, and 

are essentially ccmmn to all alternatives. The primaq activity affecting 

this species is the jntrduck~ ‘on of new herds into historic “pied habitat. 

Species such as the goshawk, which are dependent on older seral stages of 

forest, are affected by timber management. Cb”ial timber lands are managed 

for “I wood proauctivity that is attained in early to middle successional 

stages. While older stages are less proauctive in tenm of wood, they are 

extmmely p-aiuctive in texm of wildlife. 

Snags or standing dead trees are subject to the effects of timber management 

and public fuelwood gaming. The public considers snag wood amcolg the most 

desirable for fuel. Although the takitq of snags for that purpase is 

prohibited, illegal snag cutting occurs whemver lands are accessible by 

vehicle. The effects of public woodcutting on snag-dependent wildlife will be 

roughly pJxlpItional to the a”t of timber harvest, as the size of the timber 

cut is an indication of jIqmved vehicle access to forested lands. 

Riparian areas are exhemely importan t to wildlife, and are subject to many 

conflicts with Forest activities. Geothermal and hydroelectric developnent, 

municipal water use, ccolcentrated recreation use, and livestock grazing all 

have the potential to affect the ammt and amdition of riparian habitat. On 

the other hand, watersl-d ilvpmmmt and stream rewatering have the potentral 

476 
to restore and prated riparian habitat. Althmgh "an management 

re@re"ts limit the impads new activities will have on riparian habitat, 

losses of wet-" riparian habitat h to past -azing will ccmtjnue to 

some degree unless the full program of watershed implwemen t is inplemented. 

Early to middle sa& stages of brush are subject to decadeMJe with age. As 

the a"t of decadent brush haeases over time, shrub habitat diversity and 

the diversity of animal species associated with early seral stages decline. 

Wildfire rejuvenates brush naturally, and vegetaticn treabmnt can be used to 

apLnaxuM ' te natural rejuvenation. Acxes of wildfire and vegetation keabmnt 

are, therefore, indicators of effects on this habitat tupe. 

Effects cn indicator species are rapmsentative of effects on all native 

vertebrate species cn the ForsSt. 

Species associated with late successicnal stages of brush and early 

successional stages of tinter are rot of coglc~rn, since neither stage is 

expect& to be in * supply. 

All alteInativ€S include ForsSt-wide Standards and Guidelines and Management 

h-escripton direction which @de that wildlife habitats will be managed at 

levels necessazy to ensure that viable ppulaticns of Management Indicator 

species are maintained. 

The impacts of ski area developnent, geothermal developnent, and timber harvest 

will dem cn tbe extent of developnent and the effectiveness of mitigation. 

precise developmnt scenarias are impossible to predict at this th. Possible 

mitigaticn "res include seazmml road closures, somdprmfing of 

facilities, providing a full-time warden &ing perioas when deer are present, 

and locating facilities away from luam fawning habitat and migration 

corridors. 

The impads of livestock grazing on deer win- range can be mitigated by 

limiting or reaUcing livestock numbxs. Impads cm fawning areas can be 

mitigated by deferring grazing in fawrdng areas until after the fawning season; 

or by herding, salting, or otherwise direchq ' livestock "ents away frun 

fawning areas. 

Habitat capability for riparian area-demt Species and slag-depdent 

species can be estimated in general terms. The data needed for accurate 

population estimates of Management Indicator Species for those habitat types is 

last available at this time. 

Threatened and endangered species will be managed in accordance with existing 

recovery plans and in cooperation with California Deparbnent of Fish and Gam, 

the appropriate recovery team, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Senrice. 

Wilderness management policy does last currently allow for vegetation managemnt 

for timber, rqe, or wildlife purposes. This policy favors species depdent 

on late seral stages of all vegetation types. Whereas species dependent on 

early seral stages of brush and on wet meadows will decline, those dependent on 

old growth forest, slags, and down logs will increase over time. 

477 
The SLrm of the separate factors affect=irg wildlife, and deer in particular, may 

in s~ne cases axoeed the *le. For example, estimated deer populaticn losses 

duetotheotdzud2 'm of lnig?=atim routes may duplicate those ascribed to 

ccnpetitim with livestock cm dear win* -e, where in fact the deer in bath 

cases are the same deer subject to both impads. projected pqmlaticm "nhers 

should be viewed cgily as rough est5nate.s of the relative effects of 

alternatives based m the management p" for those alternatives. 

Cnly the *le existing bald eagle Winter rooStirg area will be maintained 

under all alternatives. No -ti= for hxeasiq bald eagle habitat 

have been identified. A local bald eagle management plan will be developed and 

bplementea. 

At least tw~ pairs of peregrine falams, relpesenting the recovery l-, will 

be reillizmdued under all alternatives. 

under altenlatives with an amenity €¶@asis. 

animals such as Nelsoa? mxlntain m, blue g-rouse, tule elk, plden 

eagle, and prairie falcon are subject "8 to MM emlqical 

(such as dmught or poor nesting weather), than by Farest management. In 

additicm, any project-level activities that did amflict with the needs of 

these species will be mitigated under the Forest-wide Standards and 

Guidelines. For these reasms, potential effeds cm these species are 

c0nSi.M CC" to all alternatives. 

FUMitimal pairs will be raintroduced 

The a"t of projectea geothermal developwnt mder approved enviropmen +-al 

documents is rxnn~~~ to all alternatives (an estimated six power plants in Lease 

Blocks I and I1 racth and northeast of Mamnoth Lakes). Any geoulermal 

pmpsals not currently approved will be subjed to site-specific "ental 

analysis and mitigatim under all alternatives. 

The likelihood of new hydroelectric developwnt is comrsl to all alternatives; 

there are presently 33 applicatims for new hydrw3lectric projects. 

Tables 97 and 98 display the axsquaxxs of alternatives cm wildlife. Table 

97 displays percent change in habitat capability for the key habitat types 

(those most likely to be affected by Forest management activities). Table 98 

displays animal "hers for those Management Indicator species for which 

populatim estimates can -ly be made. 

478 
Table 97 

Habitat Capability for Key Habitats by Alternative 

(percent change frun 1982 - end of the fifth decade) 

Alternatives 

Indicator Spec ies PFU? (XIR RPA CEE AMN AMB 

We deer habitat -2 -4 -47 -14 +20 +18 

Peregrine falcon nesting habitat 0 0 0 0 +loo +loo 

sheep habitat +22 +22 0 0 +122 +122 

Existkg old-grcrwth in 

suitable timber -27 -91 -92 -86 -38 -59 

Snag habitat in suitable 

timber 0 0 0 0 +30 +30 

Early & middle mal stages 

Sierra Nevada mountain 

of brush -69 -75 -69 -67 -71 -71 

Riparian habitat in 

wet meadows 0 -58 -35 0 0 0 

Table 98 

Animal "k?rs for Manawt Indicatcn Species 

Based 09. Habitat Capability 

(end of the fifth decade) 

Alternatives 

mdicator specl 'es 1982 PRF (XTR RPA CEE AMN AMB 

Mule Deer* 

(total - M WS) 20.2 19.9 19.6 9.6 17.4 22.6 22.2 

(FS - M WS) 12.0 11.8 11.5 5.9 10.3 14.4 14.0 

PeregrinefalOm(pairs) 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 

Sierra Nevada 

mountain sheep 300 550 550 450 550 loo0 loo0 

Goshawk pairs in 15 15 15 9 9 15 15 

suitable timber 

sage gnxlse 1500 1500 750 1500 1500 990 1200 

* Total deer include thDse that migrate acIoss the Forest but neither sumner 

nor winter on Forest lands: FS deer are those that sumner and/or win- on the 

Forest. 

479 
PRF: (preferred) 

Mule Deer: Decisims regarding new ski area dewlopent will be made through 

site-specific analyses and errvirornnental documents. 

The Mmache herd will not be adversely aff- uder this allxmntive, as there 

will be m timber harvest or hpmved access into the Mma- area. The type 

and a”t of recreation use in that area will mt change much over fifty 

years. 

The relaticmship of deer and livestock on winter range and fawning areas will 

charge very little fran the base year situation. Increased livestock grazing 

will mt CcCLlr. 

Deer habitat inpxwmnt m key winter range will scnmhat offset lasses on a 

Forest-wids basis. The net charqa in Farest-wide mule deer habitat capability 

will be a two percent loss. 

Old Qowth and Snags : In areas that are under the Timber Prescriptrkns 10 

percent of the a-ge will be managed for old growth seral stage 

characteristics. A pOrtian of this can be met usiq sites that are unsuitable 

for timber management due to factors such as access, slope and visual 

“straints. These stands are in- anwng areas that mtain suitable 

timber. Theremainder of the old growth allocation would be taken fmn the 

suitable timber ccnpnent. 

On the Inyo thare are -tely 75,200 acres in the timber c@mpone?t that 

are allocated for harvest and designated as “suitable“. To meet old growth 

allocation requirements, appximtely 4,060 acres will be managed for old 

growth characteristics. The raMinder of the old growth can be met by 

allocating app”ately 6,oM) acres of timber lands that will mt be harvested 

for timber but are in- in the 75,200-acre base. 

Decreases in old graybh will OCCUT primarily in lodgepole pine and mixed led 

fir/Jeffrey pine stands within areas extensively managed for timber. Stands of 

old growth Jeffrey pine have already been liquidated for the m3st part as a 

result of historic logging. Declines in old growth red fir stands are mt 

anticipated as these areas will not be managed for timber pxducidm this 

plw period. 

An old grcwth allocaticn plan will be developed that provides direch ‘on for the 

lag-tenn allocation of stands managed for old growth characteristics within 

areas managed for timber prcdwtl ’on. 

Riparian Areas: 

these areas. 

managed in a way to inpmve riparian dependent vegetation comaau ‘ties. 

Riparian areas will be managed with an raphasis on remwriq 

Meadow “ration wcnk will be done m 23.500 acres and livestock 

Early - Mid Successicsnal Brush: The habitat capability of early and 

mid-successional brush will cc”e to decrease over the planniq period. 

ApEnoximately 11,500 acres will be treated for range and wildlife pqxsss. 

ensure success of vqetatim treatmnts. 

These will be areas that have eKisting perennial herbacecsls UndeEbn ‘es to 

480 
Species depxdent cm early-mid succesda stages will mtime to decline. 

Wildfires will burn an additional 53,190 acres. In most cases thsse areas will 

beinvaded by u&esirable shrub or armual species and will not be beneficial to 

early-mid smmesia shrub-depemlent species. 

Methods of improving . shrub habitat will be explored and tested to reverse trends 

in these habitats. These will be coordinated with othar state and federal 

agencies and inten&& organizations. 

am: (aprentp" ) 

lvhlle Deer: Ski area developrwt mder this alternative calls for 8,000 SAOP 

bymd full developrwt of Mamnoth and Juns Mnmtahs. The specific area (or 

areas) m which added capacity will be generated is not specified. If 

devalopnent occurred in the Sherwin and San Joquin areas, migratim mtes for 

the Buttermilk, S-, and Casa Diablo herds will be iqacted. As the same 

Lease Blcxb I and 11, deer p3pulations could decline by as many as 2,200 

animals. If, however, developnents avoided migration wrridxs and strict 

mitigatim were applied, that loss could be considerably 1-. Decisions 

regardig new ski area developnent will be made through site-specific analyses 

and-tal documents. 

The "ache herd will be affected by timber harvest and i"d access with 

increases in recreatim use. An estimated 17 percent of the 

"ache herd could be lost without pmpr mitigatim. Strict mitigation 

measures could reduce the loss of deer to 4 percent below arrent levels. 

The relati&p of deer and livestock m winter range and fawning areas will 

change ve~~ little fron the base year situatim. Increased livestock grazing 

will cccur only to the degree mqatible with deer habitat needs. 

Deer habitat hiprovemnt on key winter range will only slightly offset habitat 

losses elsewhere, as the buaget limitation of this alternative will limit the 

aimunt of hiprovemnt work accanplished. 

Watershed hiprov-t mrk will also be limited. Appraximately 21,500 acres of 

wet meadow habitat could be lost or degraded over 50 years due to damage from 

PaStgr=m. Consequences on deer fa- habitat for the mnache herd could 

be severe. 

The net change in mule deer habitat capability will be a four percent reduction 

general area will also include tknter harvest and geoi5henMl developnent for 

FareSt-wide. 

Old Growth and Snags: The Forest will maintain no suitable timber in older 

seral stages. Hawever, not all of the "J suitable timber will be reduced 

to earlier seral stages in the first fifty years. Appmxvna ' tely 5,000 acres of 

existing old growth will remain by the end of the fifth decade, representing a 

91 percent redudion in habitat capability relative to 1982. The greatest 

reductim will OCCUT in red fir stands that have not yet been harvested and in 

the Jeffrey pine forest due to the large acreage managed. 

481 
The impacts of timber harvest on old growth-dependent wildlife will be mitigated 

. to2oacres 

by 1- Snags &table timber 40 mt Of the MM 

--dependent wildlife density and by limitiq the size of 

in size or snaller. Hawwer, impIwea aocess will saJkk”1y increase the 

likelihood of illegal slag ramVal by public fuel- gatherers. 

Riparian Areas: Riparian habitat capability in wet will &line 58 

percent due to mtinuiq aocalerated dm an 21,500 acres. A mre detailed 

discussion is found und0r the heading of Riparian Areas. 

wtely 85,600 acres of brush will be-treated fcu xaqe and wildlife 

purposes. Another 52,900 acres of land, mast of it brush, will be burned by 

wildfire. As the treated and burned acres will represent the my early and 

mid-sucmssicmal tarush by the fifth decade, wildlife depn&nt on thDse seral 

stages will be expectd to decline. 

we Deer: ski area aevelopnent under this alternative calls for the 

devalopnent of the Sherwin, Minaret srmmit, and Manlmth Knolls potential ski 

proaucuan. The same gexz-al area will also include geothermal clavelopnent for 

Lease Blocks I and 11. As dgl-atiC€l “kS fOr the Buttermilk, SheIWXl .,and 

Casa Diablo herds will be impaCtea, dear papulaticms could decline by as many as 

2,200 animals. The extent of developnent and intensified n?anag”t fwnd in 

this alte~~tive will be difficult to mitigate. 

The ”&e herd will be affected by high-level timber harvest and jlqmxed 

access with ‘ increases in rez-eation use. An estimated 17 percent 

of the Mcslache herd could be lost withxt nop per mitigatian: strict mitigation 

measures could leduce the loss of deer to 4 percent below current levels. 

The relatimsMp of deer and livestock m win- range ?-A fa- areas will 

change ccnsidexably frcm the base year situation. Livestock grazing will 

increase cn deer winter rqe, displacing wildlife. There will be IY) provision 

for mitigating livestock impads cm fawning areas. 

Watershed impwe” t work will be limited. App”a * tely 13,600 acres of wet 

meadow habitat could be last or degraded over fifty years due to damage fran 

past grazing. Cansequences on deer fawning habitat, especially for the Mmache 

herd, could be -. 

The net effect of this alternative on Forest-wide deer habitat capability will 

be a 47 percent rducticm. There is m way of meeting the RPA goal for mule 

deer habitat with the intensity of COrmDdL ‘ty pxo&Cticm found in this 

alternative. 

Old Grwkh and Snags: The Forest will maintain no suitable timber in older 

seral stages: howwer, not all of the “hing suitable timber will bs reduced 

to earlier seral stages in the first fifty years. App” ‘ tely 4,270 acres of 

existing old growth will remain by the end of the fifth decade, mpmsenting a 

areas. The red fir and Jeffrey pine farests will be managed for “an timber 

482 
92 percent reduction in habitat capability relative to 1982. The greatest 

reduction will occur in red fir stands that have not yet been harvested and in 

the Jeffrey pine forest due to the large acreage managed. 

The impacts of timber harvest on old growth wildlife will be mitigated by 

having snags in suitable timber to meet 40 percent of the natural 

mg-demt wildlife density and by limiting the size of to 40 acres 

in size or snaller. However, “h-irrpnovea access will dramatically increase 

the likelihxd of illegal slag mal by public fuelwood gatherers. 

Riparian Areas: Riparian habitat capability in wet neadows will decline 65 

percent due to ccoltinuing accelerated erosion on 13,600 acres of wet meadow. 

Additional impacts on riparian vegetatim will result fran major haeases in 

recreation and livestock grazing. A mre detailed discussion is found under the 

headiq of Riparian Areas. 

Early - Mid Successional Brush: The habitat capability of early and 

nud-successional brush will decrease 69 percent by the fifth decade. An 

estimated 118,500 acres of brush will be treated for range and wildlife purposes 

and mther 53,190 acres of land, most of it brush, will be burned by wildfire. 

As the treated and bumed acres will represent the cmly early and 

mid-successimal brush by the fifth decade, wildlife depndent on those seral 

stages will be expeded to decline. 

m: (Maximize Cost-Efficiency) 

Mule Deer: Ski area developnent under this alternative calls for full 

developnent of identified potential, including the Sherwin, Minare t smt, 

M”th Knolls, San Joaquin, and White Wing areas. Under this developnent 

scenario, migraticm routes for the Buttermilk, Sherwm, and Casa Diablo herds 

will be impacted. As the same gm area will also include timber harvest and 

geothermal developnent for Lease Blocks I and 11, deer p3pulations could decline 

by as many as 2,200 animals. The extent of developnent pmjectea under this 

alternative will be difficult to mitigate. 

The Mmache herd will be affeded by timber harvest and improves access with 

03- ‘ increases in recreation use. An estimated 17 percent of the 

”ache herd could be last wimt pper mitigation. Strict mitigation 

measures could reduce the loss of deer to 4 percent below current levels. 

The relationship of deer and livestock on winter range and fawning areas will 

change V~IY little fran the base year situation. Increased livestock grazing 

will occur only to the degree anptible with deer habitat needs. 

Deer habitat improvement on key winter range will aily slightly offset habitat 

Forest; if migration routes were substantially blocked, improvements on winter 

range will have a negligible beneficial effect. 

N1 inpl-taticm of wa- imprWement in the Golden Trout Wilderress will 

protect wet meadows and associated fawnirg habitat for the PGnache herd. 

losses to timber, skiing, and geothermal mction m the north half of the 

483 
The net effect of this alta~tive will be a 14 percent reduclx 'on in Forest-mde 

deer habitat capability. 

Seral stages; however, not all of the "hhg suitable timber will be reduced 

to earlier seral stages in the first 50 years. Appmxma ' tely 7,600 acres of 

existing old gmwth will remain by the end of the fifth decade, mpresentirg a 

86 percent redudion in habitat capability relative to 1982. The greatest 

the Jeffrey pine forest due to the large acreage managed. 

The impacts of timber harvest on old gmwth wildlife will be mitigated by 

leaving snags in suitable timber to meet 40 percent of the ~t~

snag-dependent wildlife density and by limitjng the size of opmings to 40 acres 

in size or snaller. mever, j"wd access will substantially increase the 

likelihood of illegal snag remwal by public fuelwood gatherers. 

Riparian Areas: Riparian habitat capability in wet meadows will mt decline, 

as the full watershed imprmrement program will have been implemented. There 

could, however be impacts on riparian Vegetation associated with major increas es 

in recreation use. A mxe detailed discussion is found under the heading of 

Riparian Areas. 

Early-Mid Suocessional Brush: The habitat capability of early and midsucce.ssional brush will decrease 67 percent by the fifth decade. An estimated 

116,600 acres of brush will be treated for range and wildlife purpses, and 

another 64,500 acres of land, most of it tnust~, will be burned by wildfire. As 

the treated and burned acres will represent the only early and mid-successimal 

brush by the fifth decade, wildlife depndent on thcxse ssral stages will be 

Old Growth and snags: The Forest will maintain suitable timber in older 

reductianwill occur in red fir stands that have not yet been harvested and in 

expected to decline. 

AMN: (Maxuruze All Amenities) 

Mule Deer: Ski area developnent under this alternative calls for rn additicmal 

ski area capacity beycola full developnent of Mamuth and June lul3untains. 

Neither will the red fir forest east of San Joaquh Ridge be harvested. 

Geothermal developnent will, however, be pjected for Lease Blocks I and 11: 

and timber management will ccoltinue in the Jeffrey pine forest west of U.S. 

395. Altl-~~gh miption mutes for the Buttermilk, Sherwin, and Casa Diablo 

herds could be affected by these adivities, developnents could pmbably be 

located to mid miption corri&rs and strict mitigation could be applid to 

.. 

"ize impads. 

The Molache herd will not be adversely affeded under this alternative, as there 

will be no timber harvest: or i"&I access into the Pbxxhe area. The type 

and a"t of recreatim use in that area will not change much over fifty years. 

Livestock will be remnred fran key deer Winter range and grazjq will be delayed 

in key fa- areas, iupmnng ' habitat capability for deer. Deer habitat 

5qmwmnt on key winter raqe will further enhance the capability of thDse 

lands. 
Watershed -t wolk will be fully h~lementea, leaving no wet meadow 

habitat vulnerable to accelerated -ion and protecting deer fawning habitat 

for the Mcslache herd. 

The net effect of this alternative will be a 20 percent increase in deer habitat 

capability, meeting the RPA goal for mule deer. 

Old Grcwoh and Snags: The Forest will maintain 30 percent of suitable timber in 

older seral stages. Apprmma ' tely 33,200 acres of existing old growth will 

remain by the end of the fifth decade, representing a 38 percent reduction in 

habitat capability relative to 1982. This re3xt.1 'on will OCCUT primarily in the 

Jeffrey pine forest. 

The impacts of timber harvest on old growth wildlife will be further mitigated 

by leaving snags in suitable timber to meet 100 percent of the natural 

snag-depndent wildlife density and by limiting the size of openrng ' sto2Oacres 

in size or snaller. Although imp- access will slightly increase the 

likelihwd of illegal snag renrxml by public fueld gatherers, that impact 

will be relatively law under this alternative. 

Riparian Areas: Riparian habitat capability in wet meadows will not decline 

mder this alternative. The lack of haeased recreation and reducticms in 

grazing will further ptect riparian areas fran potential impacts. A mre 

detailed discussion is found under the heading of Riparian Areas. 

Early-Mid Successional Brush: The habitat capability of early and midsuccessirmal brush will decrease 71 percent by the fifth decade. An estimated 

111,300 acres of brush will be Wted for range and wildlife purposes, and 

another 48,150 acres of land, most of it brush, will be burned by wildfire. As 

the treated and bumed acres will represent the only early and mid-successional 

brush by the fifth decade, wildlife dependent on those seral stages will be 

expected to decline. 

AMB: (mpha.5. ize Wildlife and Reoceatim) 

Mule Deer: Ski area developnent under this alternative calls for lncreased 

capacity on the Minaret Smmit, Mammth KMlls, and white Wing potential ski 

areas. As the same general area will also include modified timber harvest and 

geothermal developnent for Lease Blocks I and 11, deer paexrlations could 

@line. Although migration mutes for the Buttermilk, Sherwin, and Casa Diablo 

herds could be affected, potential losses will be reduced by locatlng 

developwnts away fran migration wrridors and applying strict mitigation 

"res to all activities. 

The lvlcolache herd will not be advexsely affected by this alternative. 

be no timber hamest or impmed access in that area. 

recreation use will be expected to remain fairly constant. 

As livestock will be removed fran key deer winter range and grazing will be 

delayed in fawning areas, deer habitat capability will increase. Deer habitat 

hnpmvenent on key winter range will further enhance habitat quality. 

There will 

The type and munt of 

485 
Watershed bp”e& van% will be fully inplementea, eliminating the wet meadow 

acreage subject to accelerated erosioBl and mtecting deer fm habitat for 

the !4ma&e h€d. 

The net effect of this altemative will be an 18 percent increase in deer 

habitat capability Forest-wide. 

Old G”th and Snags: The FOE?& will maintain 20 percent of suitable timber in 

older seral stages; however, mt all of the remaining suitable timber will be 

mzduced to earlier seral stages in the first fifty years. . tely 22,140 

acres of existing old growth will remain by the end of the fifth decade, 

repmsenting a 59 percent mctim in habitat capability relative to 1982. 

The r&~ctici-~ will axur mainly in the Jeffrey pine farest and in red fir stands 

east of San Jcaqub Ridge. 

The impacts of timber harvest CBI old gmwth wildlife will be mitigated by 

lea- snags in suitable lzinhr to meet 100 peroerrt of the natural 

slag-depmdent wildlife density and by limiting the size of openiqp to .twenty 

acres in size or snaller. However, ncdwately improves access will hcrease the 

likelihood of illegal snag femoval by public fuel- gatherers. 

Riparian Areas: Riparian habitat capability in wet meadows will mt decline, 

full watershea impIwement will be inplementea. The gnbntial impacts of 

inrxeased recreaticol on riparian areas will be mderately high. The potential 

impacts of livestoc3c will decline. A mxe detailed discussicsl is fcund under 

the heading of Riparian Iveas. 

Early-Mid Suu%ssional Brush: The habitat capability of early and midsuccessional brush will decrease 71 percent by the fifth decade. An estimated 

109,ooO acres of brush will be treated for range and wildlife purp3ses. and 

another 51,390 acres of land, most of it brush, will be burned by wildfire. As 

the treated and burned acres will represent the only early and mid-successional 

brush by the fifth decade, wildlife demt on those seral &qes will be 

expected to decline. 

as 

The Forest pl- process inoolpcaates many mitigation to “ize 

adverse -tal effects under any alternative. The National Forest 

Managment Act regulaticms require that the managaent of all resources ensure 

that National Forest lands are managed under the principles of mltlple use and 

sustained yield. The managmt dirdcicm cu” to all alternatives @des 

for mitigation of major adverse impacts associated with managaent activities. 

Management direcia ‘on cormgl to all alte?matives includes: 

1. Mlnl” managemat requirements (EIS chapter 11). 

2. 

3. rQn” Inq?lematation Requizma ts (EIS chapter 11). 

.. 

Timber Policy Reqxkemnts (EIS Cha- 11). 

.. 

486 
4. Forest-wj.de Standards and Guidelines (sumnary in EIS chapter 11; full detail 

in Plan chapter Iv). 

chapter IV)* 

5. Management PrescriptionS (~um~~y in EIS chapter 11; full detail in Plan 

Mitigation of adverse inpacts will alsu be developed on a case-by-case basis for 

individual projects. 

Sane adverse cmnsq.mnces cannot be avoided despite the applicaticm of 

mitigating measures. The magnitude of such inpacts varies with the emphasis of 

the alten-lative. 

Airqual ity: smake fm wildfires and prescribed fires will have teqprary and 

localized effeds on visibility regardless of mitigation. Al-gh geothermal 

emissions will be hated as much as technically possible, aniplete ccoltrol 

will not be possible. 

Wtural resources: wherever roads are built and access imrpaves, the a"t of 

dispersed recreation will increase, alang with increased chances that artifacts 

will be remsved or cultural sites damaged. 

Diversity: Seral stage diversity will decline on rqe lands, suitable timber 

lands, and in wilderness. Vegetation on rangelands will continue to mature. 

Vegetation on suitable timber lands will shift toward earlier seral stages and 

vegetation in wildemess will shift toward older seral stages as wildfires will 

be suppressed and prescribed burning will be limited. Illegal slag cutting by 

the public will be imp3ssible to oontrol canpletely. 

- Fish: New hydroelectric projects will reduce fish habitat sonewhat wfierever 

activities that irmEase sedimentation will affect the quality of associated 

fish habitat. 

Minerals: Wilderness and "l withdrawals will curtail opportunities for 

mineral exploration and developnent. 

protection: Any increase in human use of the Forest will increase the risk of 

man-caused fire. Any increase in the use of nutmized esuipllent or energy 

txdssion lines will inmease the risk of operational fires. Any increase UI 

the nrrmber of facilities or size of camunities will increase the value of 

property at risk fm fire. 

Recreation: The potential for cmflict between recn?atic&sts and other Forest 

users will increase whaxver both types of use jlEEas&. 

Sensitive plants: Sane disturbxe of sensitive plant habitat will be 

mavoidable due to inrsreasing human use, impmvd access, and increases in 

land-diStUrb ing developnents and activities. 

they are developed. Recreation, grazing, road c"Ai on, and other 

487 
Visual qual ity: 

seriously impair visual quality. 

bkter&& (soil and water): Any kind of rxmst~ction, vqetation manipulation, 

or other land disturbance will have at least temporary and localized effects on 

the soil. If bodies of water were nearby, effects on water quality will alsu be 

Roads, kails, and other areas maintained free of wetation will be 

constant potential sites of erosion and s"es of sediment. Soil intheareas 

of sheep bedding gmunds will be canpacted, and vegetation remwed. OIN use in 

open areas and alpine ski area developnent will reduce vegetatim, increase 

erosion, and affect water quality (whe7.-e water is nearby) regardless of 

preventivemeasures. 

Wildlife: The most significant unavoidable axsequences of any alternative on 

wildlife will be the dislxxbxa -ted by increas- human use and the loss of 

habitat to various kinds of developat. 

Wildlife habitat effectiveness will be lost on (and imnediately m"g ' ) the 

site of any mineral , -, sM area, recreation site, road, trail, or other 

developnent. 

Livestock are mre likely to "pate with wildlife in riparian areas as the 

intensity of rarge use baeases. 

Energy developnents and alpine ski areas, though design& to 

minilniZe WCtS, will IXm- nOtiCeably with the MkCal landscape and 

-m 

The relationship between the short-term uses of the human ernrircwnent and the 

maintenance and enhancement of long-term pnxluctivity is ccmplex. skat-term 

uses are generally those that occur on an armual basis, such as livestc& 

grazing as a use of the forage resource, hunting as a use of the wildlife 

resource, or recreatirm as a use of the water resource. 

Lag-term pxductivity refers to the ccoltinuing ability of the land to 

-= - 'ties and retain dty values far the benefit of future 

generations. This ability depends upm managewnt practices that do not 

-, or the alteration of the 1- bqmd its ability to 

recover. The 1- ten is, for Farest planning purposes, defined as 

exceeding fifty years. 

The planning alternatives have been assessed for emulative and long-term 

effects with the prspsch 've that each generation holds the -tin 

trust for succeedkg generations. The pnxluction of anmr& 'ties while 

maintainiq long-term pmdmtivity is an integral aspect of public land 

management. Management decisions must, therefore, be based ultimately m the 

capability of the land rather than the urgency of sbrt-term needs. The 

quality of life for future generations will be detemhed in part by the 

cxmtinw prcdctivity of public lands. 

allaw for the inpMinent of soil produdivity, the overtaxing . of water 

488 
INDIVIDUAL RESUXXX DIS(IXSSIONS 

Although new hy&celectric developnent will increase energy .on to a 

ccasie important in the short-term (given the -?-is on 

national energy self-sufficienq), it will have significant lag-term effects 

on the soil resource, hydrologic characteristics of affected &”s, the 

anvunt and cadition of riparian vegetation, the amxlnt and dtion of fish 

habitat, and the -ti& appeal of the inediata area. 

Mineral developnent represents an important but taprary gain, whether 

measured in years or decades. The effects on soil prcducb ‘vity if topsoil is 

lost and hydrologic features if spr- or seeps are irrvolved are, thxgh 

typically limited in extent, lag in duration. 

Vegetation rejuvenation or type amvwxion may result in an initial loss of 

soil. Over the long term, however, soil loss will be lower than if the land 

were untreated because vegetative growth will be denser in mjuvenatefi stands 

than in decadent cB1E?s. 

OHV use in the short-term affects the long-term prodiuctivity of the soil by 

remnring vegetation and exposing soil to erosion. 

Fire suppression minimizes stort-term vegetation losses to fire. Haever, 

protect€d stands tend to becane ovem!ature and unpmctive, with inrreased 

chances of being lost to natural mortality by insects and disease in the long 

run. The overall loss of vegetative diversity is mt significant in 

wilderness, where widespead prescribed burning is not an acceptable 

managenksrlt tcol. 

The mal of timber from the managed timber base will entail the loss of 

forested habitat in the short term, but will imprave the overall potential 

health, ngor, and productivity of the forest in the long term. Q-I the other 

hand, if departure fran the --flow policy were permitted to meet timber 

Output objectives under a given alternative, the lag-term sustained yield of 

the Forest will be lamred. 

Irreversible carmi.hnents of resources cccur whm lost appsrtunities or 

depleted resouTces cannot be recarered. Examples of irreversible carmi.bnents 

are mining, major road construction, and the disturbance of cultural and 

historical sites. 

Irretrievable ccmru~ts refer to opportunities for the prcduction or use of 

a resouTce that are foregone for a pericd of time because the land is managed 

with an enphasis on ccqetirg or Oonflictiq resources. Examples of 

irrelxievable cnnnit-mentS are the loss of fuelwood, range forage, or 

developed recreation opportunities because of managmt to enhance wildlife 

habitat values. 

489 
-cnMr"m 

Increases- mueation use and vegetatim treatment could result in 

irreversible losses of cultural and Mstmicalresmrws that might otherwise 

remain-. 

The loss of riparian vegetatim to new hydrcelsctric dev8l-t will be 

irreversible if the soil and hydmlcgic characteristics of the riparian zone 

were permanently al-. 

"mes are thought to be depletable, and their ext" 

irreversible. the resenroir of hot stman is tam, it has a given 

(though mt easily predictable) life span. 

wineral extractiosl is an irreversible ccmnitment of the "l resaurce. 

sheep bedding g"ds. roads, watering -, well pads, and 

facilities developed on suitable range lands represat an irreversible loss 

of forage for the &ration of their existence. 

OHV use covld irreversbly affect soil prcductivity through the direct, 

ccmt3nujrgdisturbance of mtor vehicles. 

The stn~ctures and ather facilities associated with cmmnmity grckvth 

irreversibly affect soil and water, wildlife, remeation, and the natural 

appearance of the landscap. 

Lands dedicated to energy developnent represent irretrievable Wrmitments 

during their paricd of -tion. Mxt other uses will c~ne jnto ccslflict 

with energy prcduction on a given acre of land. New hydnxlectric projects 

as Furoposed will mlict with fish habitat, riparian values, and 

recreation. Geothermal developnent will conflict with mueation, timber 

harvest, and grazing. Wind fanns will conflict with remeation and graziq. 

All three types of ewQy develapnent will pnXlUde the management of the 

area for a high level of visual quality. 

The loss of opportunties to "xal developrent is irretrievable during the 

pericd of mineral activity. Virtually m other resources can est on-site 

with an active mineral operatian. 

The establishmat of ccolcentrated recreation areas carmits certam . landsto 

management with a remeation emphasis. If the maintenanca of develope3 

can be irretrievably last over the long term. Alpine ski areas represent an 

irretxievable loss of wildlife habitat, aeVelOpea sumner remeatim site 

ptential, and timber prcduction potential. In-place amenity values (soil, 

watm, and visual quality) will also be foregcme. 

Soil prcductivity will be irretrievably lost on those lands occllpied by new 

roads. 

recreation sites is defqhsa 'zed, those sites and associated opprtum .ties 

490 
Intensive timber management will trigger irretrievable losses in the a"t 

and distrxbution of old growth forested habitat on suitable timber lands. 

Visual Quality Objectives "it 0erta.m lands to a high degree of apparent 

~turah~.~~, precluding or mcdifyiq timber, energy, and alpine skimanagement for as 1- as the objectives are applied. 

Wilderness designation irretrievably remxres affeded lands frun most kinds 

of CnmKdl 'ty prcduction and frun management activities that will alter 

ecological processes. Gpprhmitim for mineral and energy 

devebzpwnt, motorized recreation, and shrub rejuvenation could represent 

significant losses. 

PoSsIBtE CGiWLICXS WIT%i CYIHEX LAND USE PLANS 

There are 110 krrmn ccnflicts with the plans or policies of the following 

oooperating or affected agencies: 

- Bureau of Land Mangement, Bishop Resource Area 

- Bureau of Land Managecent, caliente Resource Area 

- Bureau of Land Mangement, Ridgecrest Resource Area 

- Bureau of Land Management, Stateline-&xeralda Resource Area 

- U.S. Fish and Wildlife SeTvice, Sacra" 

- Counties of Inyo, l", Mare, Madera, and FYesm, California 

- Counties of Mmeral and Esneralda, Nevada 

- City of Las Angeles, Deparbnent of Water and Power, Bishop. 

The p1aruxb-g alternatives vary in their potential for conflict with 

pspulation goals in deer herd manageawmt plans developed by the California 

Deparh.nent of Fish and Game. Arry reduction in deer n" will represent a 

conflict, as all deer herd plans call for maintenance of existing pspulations 

as a r"rm goal. Some deer herd plans call for ixmased ppulaticpls; the 

goals of those plans conflict with all but the rrast amenity-oriente3 

alternatives. 

The Inyo National Forest regularly mordmates its plannirg efforts with the 

counties and the City of Los Angeles in an effort to maintain caiptibility 

of uses between public and private land. Where private lands am aspersed 

and intezmiqled with the Forest, National Forest needs usually prevail. 

Near "wnities, the Forest mcdifies uses as practicable in resp3nse to 

local public needs. 

-1m 

With the ~tim enqhasis on energy conservation as well as m greater 

prcduction, Forest manageawmt activities and energy mains have becane 

major cc"s, merit- explicit consideratim. The objective of th~s 

evaluation is to provide energy-related considerations on which Forest 

planning alternatives can be assessed and canpared. The follawing analysis 

491 
provides a means for de- the net balm Of Forest-based 

resources. me net energy balance is the difference between the energy 

pduced and energy e%pnded in utilizing a Farest resource or service. 

Energy yields considered in this evaluation include dired m genexation 

fran hydmeledSiC p3wer plants, wind fa%, and photmJ1taiC cells (cells 

that oarnrert sunlight into direct electricdl current); fuelwood: and red meat 

(inCllAing game) pmduction. 

hergy consumption includes the energy requbxd to prcduce and utilize Forest 

"rces and services. hergy wnsmption Wculaticm include the energy 

cantent of fuels co"d for wildfire suppression, recreatimal travel, 

wcnk-related travel, performing wrR, operatian of ski lifts, geothermal 

exploration, mineral extraction, and road construction and maintenance 

operaticols. 

In the first decade, all alternatives consume mre energy than Uey yield. 

Yield/a"ption ratim vary frun 0.38:l to 0.46:l. 

It is preslrmed that geoulermal power will not be proaUced unW.1 the second 

decade of the planning period, so XI yields are displayed in this analysis. 

Hwevw, omsiderable eneryy is c"ed in the first decade for geothermal 

exploration. The energy yield/co"ption ratice after ge&hwmal Is 

on line will dew ba large the geothermal resource is, and bm mch 

is develop3 on the Forest. Table99 prwides a canparative sumnary of 

emqy yieia/a"ptian ratios by alternative in the first decade. 

492 
Yield 

Timber 

-lm - 

Yield 

Fuelwood 

Yield 

- 

Yield 

-on 

Yield 

-on 

Yield 

CCanmpJtian 

Wind 

PlmtaVoltaiC 

Yield 

23473.0 

0.3 

2348.0 

1112.0 

152.0 

1048.0 

65.0 

83.0 

0 

8895.0 

0 

850.3 

0 

0.1 

Locatable Minerals 

tl"wtion - 1812.0 

Yield 0 

Geothermal Eqloration 

c3"ption 323.6 

Yield 0 

Roads 

G"TDti0n - 222.0 

Yield 0 

Fire Management 

c3"ptim 115.0 

Yield 0 

ToTAt 

cx"@ion 28792.6 

Yield 12357.7 

NETENEIEGYBAL. 16434.9 

Yield/-. Ratio 0.43:l 

25791.0 

0.3 

2622.0 

1242.0 

193.0 

1547.0 

39.0 

83.0 

0 

8895.0 

0 

0 

0 

0.1 

1812.0 

0 

323.6 

0 

41.0 

0 

115.0 

0 

30936.6 

11767.4 

19169.2 

0.38:l 

23135.0 

0.3 

3192.0 

1512.0 

174.0 

1394.0 

55.0 

97.0 

0 

8895.0 

0 

850.3 

0 

0.1 

1812.0 

0 

190.7 

0 

284.0 

0 

115.0 

0 

28957.7 

12748.7 

16209 .O 

0.44:l 

22197.0 21680.0 24942.0 

0.3 0.3 0.3 

2440.0 1963.0 2348.0 

1156.0 930.0 1112.0 

179.0 114.0 117.0 

1440.0 911.0 942.0 

70.0 39.0 41.0 

90.0 82.0 87.0 

0 0 0 

8895.0 8895.0 8895.0 

0 0 0 

850.3 850.3 850.3 

0 0 0 

0.1 0.1 0.1 

1812.0 1812.0 1812.0 

0 0 0 

323.6 190.7 190.7 

0 0 0 

163.0 91.0 211.0 

0 0 0 

115.0 115.0 115.0 

0 0 0 

27299.6 26004.7 29776.7 

12431.7 11668.7 11886.7 

14867.9 14336.0 17890.0 

0.46:l 0:45:1 0.4O:l 

493 
V 

LIST OF PREPARERS 
CHAPTER V. LIST OF PREPARERS 

AMBROSE. MARY 

Education: B.S. Landscape Architecture 

Experience: Forest Service (8 yr.) 

Forest Planning Graphic art direction; document design and layout; 

Responsibilities: photo posterization; and map production 

ALBERT. CARROLL 

Education: B.A., M.A. Biology 

Experience: Private industry (1 yr.); National Park Service 

(3 yrs.); Forest Service (6 yr.) 

Biological Planner on the Land Management Planning 

FORPLAN input for wildlife 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: Core Team from September 1983; Sensitive Plant AMs; 

AFWJM. JIM 

Education: B.S. Forestry 

Experience: Forest Service (25 yr.) 

Forest Planning Management Team review (District Ranger): 

Responsibilities: management area descriptions and direction 

BRAMLEITE. BILL 

Education: B.S. Forestry, M.S. Wildland Recreation Management 

Experience: Forest Service (10 yrs.) 

Forest Planning Management Team review (District Ranger); 

Responsibilities: environmental consequences for roadless area 

evaluation (EIS Appendix C) 

CHANDLm. WAYNE 

Education: B.S.F. Forest Management; post-baccalaureate study in 

logging engineering and silviculture 

Experience: Forest Service (18 yrs.) 

Forest Planning Management Team review (Forest Timber and Fire 

Responsibilities: Officer); Timber, Pest Management, and Protection 

AMSs; technical EIS/Plan input for timber, pest 

management, and protection 

494 
COOPW. JIM 

Education: B.A. Biology; M.S. Fisheries 

Experience: Montana Fish & Game (4 yrs.); Bureau of Land 

Management (1 yr.); Forest Service (14 yrs.) 

Forest Planning Management Team review (Forest Staff Officer for 

Responsibilities: Fish, Wildlife, Watershed and Range) 

DE GRAFF. ERNIE 

Education: A.B. Wildlife Management: B.S. Forest Management 

Experience: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (6 nos.); Forest Service 

(22 yrs.) 

Forest Planning Wilderness AMs; Dispersed Recreation AMs; 

Responsibilities: technical EIS/Plan input for wilderness; FORPLAN 

input for wilderness and recreation 

DENNIS. SAM 

Education: B.S. Natural Resource Management 

Experience: County of San Diego (3 yrs.); State of Oregon (4 

yrs.); Bureau of Land Management (2 yrs.); Forest 

Service (5 yrs.) 

Forest Planning Assistant Forest Planner on the Land Management 

Responsibilities: Planning Core Team; data base manager 

DENTON. KEN 

Education: B.S. Natural Resources; post-baccalaureate study in 

forestry 

Experience: Forest Service (15 yrs.) 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: FORPLAN input for timber; management area 

Management Team review (District Ranger); 

descriptions and direction. 

FELANDO. TOM 

Education: B.A. Chemistry; post-baccalaureate study in watershed 

management 

Bureau of Land Management (1 yr.); U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (2 yrs.); Forest Service (7 yrs.) 

Water AMs; technical EIS/Plan input for water and 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: air quality; FORPLAN input for watershed improvement 

495 
F". BARRIE 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Plannin 

Responsibilitizs: 

GALLEGOS. JUAN 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

GARDINER. PAM 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

GIFFEN. RALPH 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

HAMLIN. ROBIN 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

B.S. Business Management; B.S.F. Forest Management 

Forest Service (20 yrs.) 

Management Team review (Acting Timber Management 

Officer); technical EIS/Plan input for timber 

B.S. Soils; B.A. History 

Soil Conservation Service (6 yrs.); Forest Service 

(5 ws.1 

Soils AMs; technical EIS/Plan input for soils and 

watershed 

B.A. Humanities; M.A. Education; post-baccalaureate 

study in biology 

High school teaching (2 yrs.); college administration 

(4 yrs.); Forest Service (8 yrs.) 

Writer-editor on Land Management Planning Core Team; 

technical EIS/Plan input for research natural areas 

B.S., M.A. Biology, post-graduate study in range and 

soils 

Forest Service (11 yrs.); Soil Conservation Service 

(6 mos.); Moorhead State College (2 yrs.) 

Technical EIS/Plan input for range management 

B.S. Wildlife Management 

Forest Service (5 yrs.) 

Forest alternative development; ID Team representing 

wildlife and riparian areas 
HARVEY. HEATHER 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

KRJBKJI. DIORI 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

MARTIN. CARL 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

MARTIN. DENNIS 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

MCALISTER. DEAN 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

B.S. Business: M.S. Forestry: Ph.D. Forestry 

Private industry (3 yrs.): State of Virginia (7 

yrs. ) ; Forest Service (8 yrs. ) 

Land Management Planning Officer from May 1987. 

B.A. Earth Science: M.A. Environmental Planning 

U.S. Navy (4 yrs.): U.S. Geological Survey (2 yrs.): 

Forest Service (3 yrs.) 

Management Team review (Forest Geologist) through 

September 1983; Geology and Leasable Minerals AMSs 

A.A. Recreation Management 

Forest Service (20 yrs.) 

Alpine Skiing AMs 

B.S. Forest Management: post-baccalaureate study in 

public administration 

Private industry (1 yr.): Forest Service (21 yrs.) 

Management Team review (Forest Supervisor) 

B.S. Agriculture (Landscape Architecture) 

Landscape architect, private and municipal practice 

(4 yrs.): Forest Service (14 yrs.) 

Management Team review (District Ranger): 

management area descriptions and direction 

497 
MCCARTHY. CLINT 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

MCLAUGHLIN, JIM 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

MCLFAN. VERNON 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

MILLER. BRIAN 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

NORTON. DAVE 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

NU". BOB 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

M.S. Wildlife; B.S. Wildlife 

Bureau of Land Management (1 yr.); Forest Service 

(7.5 ws.) 

Biological Planner on the Land Management Planning 

Core Team from March 1982-August 1983; Wildlife AMs; 

technical EIS/Plan input for wildlife 

Forest Service (18 yrs.) 

Management Team review (Acting Forest Fire Management 

Staff Officer) ; technical EIS/Plan input for 

protection. 

B.S. Geology 

Forest Service (14 yrs.) 

Technical EIS/Plan input for geology and leasable 

minerals 

B.A. Botany, M.A. Biology/Plant Ecology 

College and High School Teacher (8 yrs.); Forest 

Service (17 yrs.) 

Technical EIS/Plan input for sensitive plants 

B.S. Mining Engineering 

Forest Service (7 yrs.) 

Locatable Minerals AMs 

B.A. Business Administratlon 

California Dept. of Transportation (9 yrs.); 

Forest Service (6 yrs.) 

Facilities AMs; technical EIS/Plan input For 

facilities; facilitles maps 
ORBUS. DENNIS 

Education: 

Experience : 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

PORTER. ROGER 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

FiEYNOLDS. LINDA 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

RICKFORD. TED 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

RUOPP , JOHN 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

SAPOUSM. OLLIE 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

B.S. Forest Management 

Forest Service (16 yrs.) 

Management Team review (District Ranger): 

management area description 

B.S. Biology: post-baccalaureate study in forestry 

Forest Service (10 yrs.) 

Forest alternative development: ID team representing 

timber, protection, and pest management 

B.A. and M.A. Anthropology 

Private sector (3 yrs.); Forest Service (10 yrs.) 

Technical EIS/Plan input for cultural resources 

B.L.A. Landscape Architecture 

Forest Service (22 yrs.) 

Visual Resources AMs: technical EIS/Plan input for 

visual resources, recreation, roadless areas, and 

wilderness 

B.S. Forestry 

Forest Service (24 yrs.) 

Management Team review (Forest Recreation Officer): 

management direction for recreation, wilderness, 

visual resources, and cultural resources 

B.S. Forestry 

Forest Service (32 yrs.) 

Land Management Planning Staff Officer 

and Core Team Leader 

499 
SCHAAF. RAY 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

SERWO. DICK 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

SILBERBERGER. DICK 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

STEWART, KATHRYN 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

STUTLER , JOE 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

STUTLER. LONNA 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

B.S. Forest Management 

Forest Service (29 yrs.) 

Management Team review (Forest Public Affairs 

Officer): overall responsibility for public 

involvement in Forest planning 

B.S.F. General Forestry 

Forest Service (30 yrs.) 

Management Team review (Forest Lands and Minerals 

Officer); Lands and Energy AMSs 

B.S. Civil Engineering 

Forest Service (22 yrs.) 

Management Team review (Forest Engineer); 

management direction for facilities 

Fine Arts; Graphic Arts 

Forest Service (11 yrs.) 

Graphic art direction; document design and layout; 

photo posterizations:; and map production 

A.S. Forestry: B.S. Natural Resources 

Forest Service (19 yrs.) 

Management Team review (District Ranger); technical 

EIS/Plan input for protection 

B.A. Biology 

Forest Service (10 yrs.) 

Team leader for Public Response Analysis ID Team; 

writer-editor from March 1987 

500 
STYGAR. PAT 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

TOTHWOH. DAN 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

nm. LARRY 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

nm. DICK 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

WEAVW. RICH 

Education: 

Experience: 

Forest Planning 

Responsibilities: 

B.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

State of Idaho (1 yr.); Douglas Co., Washington (6 

mos.); Forest Service (8 yrs.) 

Biological Planner on Land Management Planning Core 

Team from November 1981 - February 1982 

B.S. Engineering 

Private engineering (2 yrs.) ; Forest Service (18 

yrs. ) 

Management Team review (Forest Engineer) for 

facilities, minerals and geology 

B.S. Forest Management 

Forest Service (28 yrs.) 

Multiple-use Planner on Land Management Planning Core 

Team; Roadless Area, Research Natural Area, and 

Special Interest Area AMSs 

B.S.F. Forest Management; M.F. Forest Recreation 

Forest Service (22 yrs.) 

Developed Recreation AMs 

B.S. Anthropology 

State and private work (3 yrs.); Bureau of Land 

Management (2 yrs.); Forest Service (7 yrs.) 

Cultural Resources AMs; technical EIS/Plan input 

for cultural resources; coordination with local 

American Indian tribes 

COVER PHOTOGRAPH CREDITS: 

Land and Resource Management Plan: 

Environmental Impact Statement: Gordon Wiltsie 

Appendix: Rocky Rockwell 

Record of Decision: U.S.F.S. 

Photo posterizations by Mary Ambrose and Kathy Stewart, U.S.F.S. 

Gordon Wiltsie 

501 
CONSULTATION 
United States -t Aqencies 

Bureau of Land Management 

Bakersfield District 

Bishop Resource Area 

RiagecreSt Resource Area 

Bislaop Resource Area, Bakersfield District and Riverside District 

California Desert Conservation Area 

California Desert District 

State Director‘s Office, Sacramento 

Fish and Wildlife Service, S”mb 

Bureau of Census, Sacramento 

other National Forests 

Angeles 

Klamath 

LTBMU 

LaSSen 

Los Padres 

m 

Regional Office 

San Bemadh3 

Sequoia 

Shasta-Trinity 

Sierra 

Taboe 

Toiyabe 

State of California 

Deparhnent of Fish and Game, Bishop and Fresrn 

Depa-rbmxit of Parks and Recreation, Sacrmto 

Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento 

Deparhnent of Energy, Sacramento 

Office of Employment, Sacrmb 

Deparhnent of Finance, Sacramento 

Deparhnent of i%br Vehicles, Sacramnto 

Cumties 

Illy0 COLmty Planning Department 

Mono county PlW Departmslt 

Tulare county Planning Deparhnent 

Cities 

City of Los Angeles, Deparhnent of Water and Power 

502 
miens Valley Board of Trustees 

uta uta maitu Band of Paiute-Shoshons Indians 

miens Valley Band of PaiU*ShoShone Indians 

Paiute-sbskdle mtural center 

Paiute-shashcne Indians, Fd Independence hibe 

Lone Pins Band of Paiute-stxxkm Indians 

Big Pins Band Of PdU*-ShSkil0 Il"3iahs 

Kern Valley Indian CXmlnJdty 

Paiute-sbskdle People 

503 
VI1 

RECIPIENT LIST 
I 
I 

I 



I 
I 
I 
VI11 

GLOSSARY 
a-”R VIII. GLcsAFx 

A 

AMB: 

sec~ndary emphasis on expansion of developea recreation. 

- AMC: This is a Forest Plan Alternative which has been eliminated. It 

reconnends all 

The Forest Plan Alternative which enphasizes wildlife habitat with a 

Planning Areas for wilderness designatio.>. 

AMN: - see Amenities Alternative. 

AMP: - see Allotment Management Plan. 

- AMs: See Analysis of the Manag-t Situation. 

Asp: see Annual c)p?.raw Plan. 

AFCD: - 

ApRvs: 

s: See Allowable Sale Quantity. 

WM: See~unit~th. 

Acre-foot: The a”t of water or sediment that wauld cover one acre to a 

depth of me foot (43,560 cubic feet; 326,000 gall-). 

Adninisirative Cost: Costs of rquired general administration which are 

prated over fixed, variable, and investment oosts. 

Administrative Facilities: Those facilities, such as ranger stations, work 

Centers, and cabins, which are used by the Forest Service in managing the 

National Forest. 

Age Class: (Bae of the intemals, usually 10 to 20 years, into which the age 

rage of vegetation is diviw for classificaticm or use. 

Air Pollution Control Didxict. 

See Air Quality Related Values. 

Air Qualie Related Val- (ApRVs): A feature or Faoperty of an area that is 

affected in scme way by air pollution. Identified values are visibility, - 

OAT, flora, fauna, Soil, water, geologic feature, and cultural resources. 

Allotmmt: See Range Allotment. 

Allotmmt &” t Plan (AMP): A ccoperative plan between the Forest 

Servica and the range prmittee which sets forth % agreed upm management 

scheme for the allotment. Besides grazing activities, the plan can mer 

other resources, such as soil, wildlife, fisheries, and riparian areas. 

Allowable Sale Quanti* (ASQ): The “I quantity of timber that may be 

sold fm land capable, available, and suitable for timher proaudian for a 

time period; usually expressed on an average mual basis. 

512 
Alluvial A ge3logic featau8 cadstkg of rock ad soil aepositea by 

nmnhgwater at the base of a steep slope in the shape of an inverted ame. 

Mty (Zbmity Val-): A resouroe for which "etary market values have 

not been (or canwt be) established; also called a "-priced value. 

Mties Altenntive (mu?): The Farest Plan Alternative which "z 'es 

amenities with little regard for the effects cn COmRDdity outputs. 

Wildernsss, wildlife, and primitive ad semi-primitive recreatim 

a=-. 

Analysis of a A step in the Fbrest plardq 

€ulxesS in which the Forest's ability to supply qOo& and services in 

Sitmtim (AES): 

- __ - - respcase to sxiety's da~nd for th~se gooaS and semi- is determined. 

Animal unit Mmth (m): !Fhe annunt of forage required to suppart a mature 

cow for me mth. 

Armlnlopera ting Plan (AOP): The cooperative plan between the Farest service 

allabnent cm a seascml basis. 

AaerialRoads: SeeROads. 

Assigned VdLue: A mrnetary value that mpreenb the price co~ls~rmezs wowld 

be willing to pay for Forest outputs, whether or not such prices are actually 

paid to the F&exal Goverrment by ~OBISU~BTS. In Fbrest plannirag the term 

assigmd values ref- to both market and cutputs because it is 

~tim policy to pruvida rrrst Forest outputs at either m charge to 

a"rs or at a price less than the wi1liqnes.s to pay price. 

(Regicm 5 uses loo0 lbs./mcplth or 26 lbs./day.) 

and the gravLng pmittea which sets forth the agree3 upcpl management of the 

-: See Best Available Cuntzol Teclmiques. 

- Brx Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Int4=rior. 

- I3Mps: SeeBeStManagenentPractices. 

- BSS: SeeBaseSaleSchedule. 

e"mmtal caditions or effects above which a &en" must manifest 

itself in order to be detected. 

Base Sale Schedule (Bss): The timber sale schedule in which the quantity of 

timber planned far sale and harvest for any future decade is equal to or 

greater than the planned sale and harvest for the preceding decade. mis 

planned sale and harvest for any decade must not be not greater than the 

long-term Eashned ' yield capacity of the land. 

Backgrumd Level "md , Natural Backgrcund) : The -svez-ment 

513 
Barfnrark: An analysis of the supply potential of a particular resou~ce or 

of a set of rescurces subject to specific managgnent objectives or 

cc"hts. define the limits within which alternatives can be 

formulated. 

Benefit: 

Benefitcost Analysis: An anal&ddcal approach to making chices m the basis 

of receiving the greatest benefit for a given cost OT prcducing the repired 

level of benefits at the lowest oast. Also referred to as cast effectiveness 

analysis when the benefits carrot be quantified in terms of dollars. 

Benefit-Cost Ratio: Measure of eccByJmic efficiency, wted by dividing 

total benefits by total costs. Usually bath benefits and costs are 

The total value of an output or other outcam. 

discounted to the present time. (Also see DiscoUn tin9. ) 

Best Available Ccntml l"iques (BZKYs): An enissim limitatim for air 

quality subject to the regulations of the Clean Air Ad. 

Best Manag6n3-I t practices (BMps): Management actions that am desi@ to 

maintain water quality by preventive rather than comwzt~ 've means. 

BitterbXA: 

mule deer and danestic livestock. 

Board Foot: The anuunt of wmd contained in an unfinished board cne inch 

thick, twelve imhes iq, and twelve inches wide. 

A species of shrub ccnsidered palatable and nutritiauS for both 

QIS: Capable, Available and Suitable land for timber prductim. 

- QIF: California Of Fo-. 

E: 

- CEE2 See Cost-Efficiency Alternative. 

- CEp: SeeClx.ucilm~ tal Quality. 

California Deparbnent of Fish and Game. 

- CZQA: SeeCalifornia%' tal mality Act. 

- CFR: 

m: seec"a * timof Meankmual Increment. 

WDB: 

m: California Native Plant Society. 

axrJFIsH: A canputer del designed to analyze the ccoldition of riparian 

areas in relatim to past and current livestock grazing managemnt and to 

estimate the canpatibility of grazing with associated aquatic resources. 

code of Federal Regulatim. Detailed documentatiosl of federal laws. 

California Native Diversity Data Base. 

514 
California - tal Quality Act (CngA): Followirag the passage of NEPA, 

the Califma State L@.slature - passed an Act in 1970 to declare state 

policy will ensure the ~cq&rm mtectim of the ernrircapnent. n-te 

Act will e~xxlrage the developnent and maintenance of a high quality 

e“nt now and in the future; provide the people of Ccrlifomia with 

clean air and watex, enjoymnt of aesthetic, ~t~~-al, &c, and historic 

“ntal qualities, and freedan fmn pollutim; and prevent the 

elimjnatim of fish or wildlife species due to man‘s activities. 

collectively farmed by the crowlls of adjacent trees in a shrub stand or 

forest. 

Capability: and supply gox3.s and services under a set of managenent practices and at a ,@- level of 

managemnt intensity. Capability depenas upm site dticm such as 

climate, soils, and geolqy, as well as the applicaticn of managemnt 

practices such as siviculture. 

Capital Ir”ent: I”nt in facilities such as roads and structures 

with specially apprcgriated funds. 

ClassIprOperti es: &chaeological or histaric sites that have been 

determined eligible for or naninated to the Natirmal Reg- of Historic 

Places. 

canopy: The nDre or less cantinuous cwar of leaves and lnxmhes 

The potential of the land to prcduce 

class 11 prcperti es: Archaeological or histlxic sites that have ncrt been 

evaluated egainst the eligibility criteria (36 CFR 604) for inclusicHI cn the 

National Register of Histrm ‘c Places. 

class 111 propeai es: Archaeological or historic sites that have been found 

to be xnt eligible for inclusica~ on the National Register of EIisknn ‘c Places. 

a- -. . ~Ofalltreesin~ar$aforthelxrrpOseOf 

creating a new, even-aged stand. n-te area harvested may be a patch, stand, 

or skip. 

coll~Roads: SeeRoads. 

me: 

carmodity (- ’ty Value): 

has been established; also called a priced benefit. 

Tree species suitable for industrial wxd pruducts. 

A resource proauCt for which a mn&ary value 

0 . At: A dt Of farested land, usually be- 3,000 and 15,000 acreS 

in e, defined by MW and marnnade f” and used to facilitate 

timber PlaImjng. 

515 
mtrated Ftecreaticn Area: 

(if developed) potentially receive high-density recreation use. 

ccuxiiti.cn Class: 

density, and age. 

WhEmnt: Restricting fire within determined boundaries established 

either prior to the fire, during the fire, or in an escaped fire situation 

analysis. 

CQlStraint: A limitation; action which cannot be taken or which must be 

taken. 

t3"ptive Use: Use of a reso- that reduces the supply. 

cantairrrpnt: s- ' a fire, and any spot fires therefran, with cnnt1-01 

line, as needed, which can reasonably be expected to check the fire's spread 

under prevailing and predicted conditions. The normal. tactic is indirect 

attack and burn to human-made or natural barrier with little or no mp-up. 

cclltingency Level: A priority setting and decision-making me- which takes 

into account fire situation factors that may significantly affect ~ti~~

Regional, or Forest fire situations or individual fire response actions. 

Ccmiz-01: To ccmplete the control line arcund a fire, any sp3t fires 

therefran, and any interior islands to be saved, bum any e area 

adjacent to the fire side of the ccsltrol line, and 0001 hm all hot spots 

that are imnediate threats to the wntr~l line, until the line can reasanably 

be expected to hld under foreseeable dtions. The MITnal tactic is 

direct attack on the fire, if possible, and mopup. 

c4olrdinated Resource Planning (W): A precess that involves all agencies, 

special interests or individuals ccslcerned with the management of a specific 

project, resource or issue. 

Comicbr: 

and utility facilities are or will be located. 

E: The price paid or what is given up in order to acquire, p"s, 

A land area that currently recieves, or could 

Description of the existing forest in terns of size, stock 

The normal tactic is surveillance cmly. 

A linear Strip of land in which existing or planned .transpOrtatim 

accanplish, OT maintain anything. (See Eccarrm 'c W.) 

Cost-Effective: Achieving a specified level of outputs under given 

canditians for the least cost. 

Cost-Ef ficienCy Alternative: This Forest Plan Alteznative mahulll . 'zes cost 

efficiency with a mix of land allocations and managanent practices available 

on the Inyo National Forest. 

Cost-Efficiency: A measure of trm prcdxtive an input is in producing 

ouwts. Measured by present Net Value (PNV) in Forest planning. (See 

l3xuxd.c Efficiency. ) 

516 
coulxdlan- tal mality (am): An adviscny ccltncil to the president 

established bv the Naticmal nnriramental FOlicy Ad of 1969. The Cag 

reviews fei3aGl psogrimns for thekc effect on the ernrinrment, cc&ucts 

-tal studies, and advises the PL-esiaent m -tal matters. 

e: Vegetaticm used by wildlife for prw&ctim fron preaatcns and weather 

dticels, espcially during repx&ch '081. 

Chbic Foot: 

foat by one fcot by cne foot (6.5 board feet on the Inp Nati". 

The anrnmt of timber equivalent to a piece of wood 

Wic Foot per secavl (cfs): unit ukzssme of stre;.rmflow or dis&aqe, quivalmt to 449 gallcms per IninUte ar atcut two acre-feet p day. 

oulmlnation of MBan 2"al Increnslt (C2.m): The paint where the average 

a"lgrawthof astandoftimbermlqerincreases. 

Cultural -: (xllturill resourws are the Wble and intangible 

aspeds of Wtural systems, living and dead, that are value3 by a given 

culture or ccartain info3" ahout the culture. alltllral~ include 

assudated ~5th or repmsentative of people, cultures, and lnnnan activities 

and events. 

anrent progran (aJR): The No Actim Altamative. This Forest Plan 

Altematim repesents the dtim to exist in ths future if 

current "nent dir%=tl 'on ccmtinued LUxhmgd. 

.cme 

but are mt limited to sites, -, buildings, districts , -Ow- 

- DB€C SeeDiamterEreastHeight. 

- DEIS: Draft tal Impad Statemmt. (see Ea-lv. 

statement. ) 

- m: 

Damn3 Analysis: A study of tlae factors affecting the quantity and price of 

a gm3 or service that would be used or pumhasd by co~lsumers if made 

available. 

Dependent sp?u 'es: A species for which a habitat el-t (slags, vegetative 

type) is deemed essential for the species to OCCUT regularly or to reproduce. 

Developed Recreation Site: A relatively mall, distinctly defined area where 

facilities are provia for o"txate3 public use (a"&, pidc 

areas). 

City of Los meles, Deparhnent of Water and pawer. 

517 
Developnen tScale: Apredetennhed scale for recreation site develogmnt 

which guides the degrea of site modification and kind of facilities to be 

installed as shown below: 

R-tion 

oppoaunity m1- 

sP=f=-lm opnent Class Scale Levels of Site Wfication 

- M" site modification. Rustic or "entanr .. Primitive 

Roaded Natural 

andModified 

Rural 

urban 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

inpnmwnts designed for protection of tbe site 

rather than &ork of the users. Use of synthetic 

maWialsexcluded. Mini" cantrols are subtle. No 

obvious regimentatian. spacing MoIlMl and €5&xded 

to minimize contacts between users. Motorized access 

not provided or permitted. 

Little site modification. 

improvements designed primarily for pmtecticm of 

the site rather than the canfort of the users. 

of synthe'tic materials avoided. Mini" Con&lS are 

subtle. Little obvious regimentation. Spacing 

informal and extended to minimize ccmtacts between 

usezs. Motorized access provided or permitted. 

primary access over primitive roads. Interpretive 

sdices infom1, almxt subliminal. 

Site modification mderate. 

for protection of site and canfort of users. 

Conteqorary and rustic design of -ts is 

usually based on use of native maWials. 

Inwnspicuous vehicular traffic cxmtrols usually 

formalized. Developwnt density about 3 family units 

per acre. Primaq access may be wer high standard 

roads. Interpretive services info-, but generally 

direct. 

Site heavily modified. Sane facilities designed 

strictly for cunfort and convenience of users. 

Luxury facilities not provided. Facility design may 

"rate synthetic materials. Drtensive use of 

artificial surfacirg of of roads and trails. 

Vehicular traffic control usually obvious. primary 

access usually over paved roads. Developnent density 

3-5 family units per acre. Plant materials usually 

native. Interpretive services often fd or 

StNCtUred. 

High degree of site mdification. Facilities nnstly 

designed for cunfort and convenience of users and 

usually include flush toilets; may include showers, 

bathbuses, laundry facilities, and electrical 

hookups. Synthetic materials ccmmrity used. Formal 

Rustic or rudimentary 

Use 

Facilities about equal 

-d&. Roads may be hard surfaced and trails 

518 
walks or surfaced trails. Regimentation of users is 

Plant materials may be foreign to the e"mntt. 

Formal interpretive sf?rvices usually available. 

Designs formalized and architecture may be 

c@nl"q. Mmed lawns and clipped shrubs not 

unusual. 

The diameter of a tree measured 4.5 feet fIcm 

obvious. Access usually by high-spei highways. 

Develapnent density 5 or mxe family units per acre. 

This categoly applies to private lads. 

D- l3zxs-t might (DEpI): 

the ground. 

Disc"t Rate: The in- rate which is used to reduce Costs and benefits 

oocrsring in the future to their value in the present. The high€= the 

discount rate, the lower the present value of future benefits and casts. 

(See Di- * and present value. ) 

Disc"ted Benefit: 

Disanmted Cost: 

Discrxrn ting: An adjustment made to costs and benefits to canpensate for the 

fact that dollars received or spent in the future have a lower value today 

than dollars in the present. For example, it would be preferable to receive 

$100 tixis year rather than one year fnm ~lcw because it could be invesbd at 

4 percent simple interest and be worbh $104 in one year. Thus, given the 

choice between receiving benefits worth $100 today or benefits worth $100 one 

year fmn today, on6 would choose to receive it today. Dismmtiq reduces 

future Costs andbenefits to reflect that fact and enables to be 

made between benefits and casts ccaming at different points in time. 

Dispersed Recrr?ation: m* r€creation which occurs outside of CY"&& 

and maintained reQeaticlnal facilities (scenic driving, hunting, baclrpacking, 

nordic skiing). 

The present value of future benefits. 

The present value of future costs. 

. the Naticmal .. District RangeE : The official respwsible far 

Forest System Lands on a 

Diversity: The distributian and ab"e of different plant and animal 

D1-i- Index: A mathmatical 'on of the relative degree of 

District. 

Cc"ities and species within an area. 

wildlife habitat diversity per unit of area: DI = TP 

2/Axpi. 

where TP is the total perimeter of an area, Plus any browsable €&p within 

the area in meters or feet, A is the area in square meters or square feet, 

and pi is 3.1416. 

519 
- ER: SeeW~talAsseSsnent. 

- EIc: see Ellding IMP2ntoI-y cxnskaint. 

- EIS: see- tal Impact Statement. 

- EPA: tal mte2tim Agmcy. 

- EPP: see Emsim Freventim Plan. 

- Eve: see Existing visual canditian. 

Ecoamnic Cost: mtal fixed and variable costs for inputs, including costs 

incufied by other public and private parties, opportunity costs, and cost 

saviqs. 

Eccnmnic Efficiexy : A measure of how efficiently inputs are used to achieve 

outputs when all costs and benefits can be identified and valued. Usually 

measured by present Net Value or Benefit-Cost ratios. 

Species: Plant or animal species identified by the Secretary of 

the Interior and listed in the Federal Register as in dariyer of extinction 

Wmxghout all or a significant prticm of its rqe. 

mdirag- ccmstra.int EIC): oanstraint to ensure that the total 

tinter volm left at the end of the p1anrrh-g brim will equal or exceed 

the volume that wuld axur in a managed FO~. 

-tal Analysis: An analysis of alternative actions and their 

predictable short- and long-term envi"v=ntal cco7sequences. 

BwbXm3tal Asses-t (m): A co17cise public ckcmnmt required bythe 

regulations inQlemnting the National Ehvi."ental Policy Act that briefly 

provides sufficient evidence and analysis for det- whether to prepare 

an en- tal impact statement or a finding of m significant inpact. 

w tal- (Effects or mpacts ): The physical, biological, 

social, and eccMmic results of inQlmting a given alternative. 

w-tal &lpct Statanznt (EIS): A statement of the eM6mm"cal 

effects Wch would be expeded to result fran Inoposed alternative 

manag-t acI5m.s. 

Erosicn: 

water, orgravity. 

The detachment and "ent of soil fmn the land surface by wind, 

Emsicn Pn=vmticm Plan (EPF'): An integrated erosion plan which states the 

Best Management practices necessary to protect the soil and water ?"xes 

m ski areas. The techniques, the scheduling of work, and the priorities for 

tr€?atnEnt are all addressed in the Plan. 

520 
Ew, t: Asteeplaridfcomcharadenzed . byaf=-Ytarrninating 

high lands. 

”-A& bw- - rwlagmmt of farest stands that results in trees of 

essentially the same age grcwing tagether. The following methods pnxluca 

even-@ stands: 

-It: 

Qearcuttlng: The ramal, in a single cut, of all trees in a stand 

shatmmmd outting: The remval of all trees in a series of two or mom 

cuts over a mod of rot mom than 20years. 

Seed ~ree (xltting: Similar to clearcutting, except that a few of the 

better trees of the desired species are left scai=tered over the area to 

provids seed fa r-qpxxatim. 

A forest stand canposed of trees having M or relatively 

A description of the deges to which the 

larger than seedlings. 

Ehn3l-AgeCl stand: 

Misting Visual Mtim (W): 

snLZl1 differwces in age. 

M- landscape has alre@f been altered. 

- Ems: Final -tal uupad statenent (See RThx”ta.l Impact 

Stalxmsnt. ) 

- m: Federal Energy RqulatoIy OamcLSsim. 

- m: SeeFireIntenSityImsl. 

B: ~e~aeral and miicy and Management ACL 

- m The be”rk which maximizes present Net Value ITW) for Krm-market 

nesources. 

- FPA: Fbrther Planning Area. (see Further Planning.) 

- FSH: ForestserviceHandboak. 

- FSM: ForestServiceManual. 

- FVC: 

- Fy: 

Final Cut: Generally, renuval of the last .trees left in a stand; 

specifically, “wd of the last seed beaters or shelter trees afk 

regeneratian is established under a shelte”d system. 

Sea Fbtura Visual Conditim. 

Fiscal Year--odober 1 through September 30. 

521 
 ire Intensity Level (m): 

lowest), hhich reflects the rate of heat release "d) per unit of 

fire frcElt (in feet). 

tbetatalcostoftheMLninarm level benchnark. 

~caage: ~ll brume and brbaeom plants that are available to feed 

livestack or wildlife. 

A "ber cm a scale of ma to six (one being the 

Fixed cost: A Cost COllTcLtted for the plalllYh3 Ill Fa@SSk plw, 

- Forb: Any Plant other than grm or grass-like Plants. 

Foregrolnd I Miakgm-nd. -: 

Fm - the porticsls Of a View be- the CkeIVeK d Up to 1/4 or 

1/2 mile distance. 

Middleground (mime distance) - the space between the foregmmd and the 

ba&gr~~~3: the 

B- - the View beg- 3-5 dlffi fm the ohservar and as far 

located f- 1/4-1/2 to 3-5 mil- fm the vim. 

into the distance as the eye can detect the presace of objects. 

FarestandRangeland Renmable Planning Act of 1974 (RPA): An Act 

of Ccng-es requiring the preparaticm of an asesment of the nation's 

renewable resources and a program for their managment. Forest planning is a 

Of this MtiCdlal planning m. 

Farest Him : A designam forest mad under the jurisdicticm of, and 

maintained by, a public authrity that is subject to the Highway Safety Act. 

Forest Highways are aeSignaW, as such, where the use and developnent of 

National Forest Systgn lands affect the public road system necessitates 

Federal inveshnen ts to erswx these roads are safe and adequate. 

Farest supervl 'sor: The official "ible for adninistexing the Naticnal 

Forest system lands in a Forest service adninistrative unit (me or m>re 

National Forests). 

A linear p~~~~amning model used for deve1opin.g and analyzing Forest 

Planning alternatives. 

Any material capable of suskumq or canyirg a forest fire, usually m: .. nat~~ral material both live and dead. 

Fuelmod: 

Flrl3er Planrdng : A category into which Certain roadless areas an the Forest 

were placed by the RARE I1 study and in which they were retained by the 

California Wilderness Act of 1984. Recomnendaticns for the managemnt 

(wilderness or xmwilderness) of Further Planning Areas will be made in the 

Forest plan. 

wood cut into short lengths for burning. 

522 
Future visual Cmditicn (FVC): Descxibss the projected appearance of the 

landscape (from natUr;tl to altered) under each altenmtive by the fifth 

decade. 

G 

GAWS: See General Aquatic Wildlife System. 

Gamespeci es: SeeHarvestS@ffi. 

Genecalm tic Wildlife System : Acanhined aquatic data base and 

infonnatim system. It is the quantitative Insthod used to irnrentary. 

“itor, describe, and predict fishexis habitat amdktim and vulnerafu ‘lity 

fnrnexisthg to potential land uses. 

- God: A collcise s&*t that describes a desired dtim to be achieved 

Scmetime in the future. It is “ally expmsed in broad, gemxal terrm: and 

may not have a specific date for qleticn. 

ooods and Semi-: The various outputs, includiq onsite uses, prduced by 

forest and -land renewable tesources. 

Grazing: * of forage by animals: typically used to describe 

damsstic livestock use (under permit) of Natimal Forest land. 

Qazirag Allotment: See we Allotment. 

Grazing permittee: Sea Range Pennittee. 

-*: Suhscnface water in the part of the ground that is wblly 

saturated. 

GJxnql seldcm: Ths cutting mew in which are rmKlv€d periodically 

in sllall graups resulting in that &I not exceed an acre or two in 

size. The result is an uneven-age3 stand. 

- H20: 

INDC: High Voltage Direct Current. 

Habitat: The sum of emimmental aditions of a specific place that is 

occupied by an caganisn, a populatim, or a camnmity. 

Habitat Capabil ity Mcdel: 

support: a given wildlife species or group of species. 

Hacking: 

The b”rk dch ”izffi water yields for five decades. 

A set of habitat factors debmine3 necessa~y to 

A method of gradually releasing birds of prey into the wild. 

Harvestspeci es: species of animals or fish that are hunted or fished for 

human- ‘on. 

523 
eicide: 

Holding Area: See Staging Area. 

A fllbstance used to inhibit or destroy plant growth. 

ID Team: See Intardisciplinary Team. 

- IN: See Integrate3 Pest management. 

Inputs: Land, labor, and capital required to prcduce outputs. Inputs are 

generally represented by activity casts. 

Instrean Flow: The volume of surface water in a stream system passing a 

given pint at a given time. 

Intega ted Pest ManagaEn t (IN): A process wfierein pests, their impacts, 

and management are considere3 an integral part of T~SOUTCB managmsnt 

p1anni.x~ and decision-"g. 

Intensity Level: 

In-&xdisciplinacy 'I" (ID Team): A group of individuals with different 

training who solve a problem or perform a task through fcquent interaction 

so that disciplines can canbine to provide new solutions. 

nit€" ' te Harvest: Any mal of trees fran a stand between the time of 

its fonnatim and the regeneration cut. Pbst cc"ly used in- 'ate 

Intermittent S.treamrs: 

Intapre tive Services: Activities and displays that interpret the natural 

and social history of the National Forest envirarrmen t for the visiting public 

and inform them about National Forest goals, prqams, and Services. 

Ircetrievable car"ents: Applies to losses of pmduction or use of 

renewable natural resources for a pericd of time. For example, timber 

p-im fran an area is irre.trievably lost 6urh-g the time an area is used 

for skiing. If the use is changed, timber prcduction can be reslrmed. The 

prcduction last is irretrievable, but the action is not imeversible. 

Irreversible Cannitmnts: Decisions causing charges which cannot be 

reversed. Once used, the T~SOWCB cannot be reinstatd, rar can cppxhmities 

be recovered. Applies to -le resources such as minerals and 

CUltLral resources. 

See Fire Intensity Level. 

cu- are release, thiming, i"ent, and salvage. 

Strearns that do xnt ccmtain water year-rourd. 

524 
K-V rinds: Fh?dS ~lleCted from timber sal- llnder the Krartnrrvindenberg 

Ad of 1930 to be used for refcawstatim, timber stand i"mt, and to 

pte& and imprwe the fukra prcdmkivity of rwaable resmmes on timber 

sale areas. 

KGRA: Known~RescurceArea: mtheIny0,thistarmreferStothe 

EGkcug Valley KGRA located on the I" part of the Farest. nxth and 

east of Marmrsth Lakes and south of Mxu, Lake. 

Key Riming Area: An area jnprtant for mule dear &ring the fawning seascm 

(-1y -1. It typically includes vegetative c(NBt to hide fawns 

from preaators and Fapted them from severe weathex. 

KeyWintierRalkge : An area jnprtant for mule deer durhq the winter mths. 

It typically includes palatable and nutritious shrub species on lads mostly 

freeofsowduringthewin~. 

E: It estimafes the expect& 

out&xts and services tbat cmld be provided in the future if the 1982 wet 

LTsyc: seeLcElg-tarmsl&amed ' Yield Capacity. 

Landllne Iacaticn: To locate, survey. mark, and post the bconrdanLes of 

Naticnal Forest system lands. 

-p Aaj-t: The transfer of the owner&u 'p of lands by land 

exd-mge, land purchase, c3n-lati.m or other methods. 

This Forest Plan Alternative was eliminated. 

were cut by 25%. 

Lease Blocks I and 11: Land dts that have been leased for ge&hemal 

exploration and developent: located north of Mamnoth and south of Juns Lake, 

Minerals: Leasable.) 

both east and west of Highway 395. (See map In chapter 111 of the EIS under 

- Lek: sage grouse stcutting grounds used durjl-lg the matirg SeaSoBl for 

-P displays. 

Lifestyle: The characterish 'c way people live, indicated by '081 

patterns, work, leisure, explBs& values, and * beh2Nior. 

Localmads: %%Roads. 

Lcng-- sustained Yield capacity (L'ISYC): The highest uniform wwd yield 

frm\lands bejngllmaged fortiInberpm3ud . thatmaybeEastam& ' undera 

specified intensity of management c0ns-t with multiple-we objectives. 

Low standard Service: A level of rezeatim management (including 

maintenance and services) prescribedwfw recreation costs are reduced in an 

altema.tive. 

525 
n (m): millim. Cn" examples are: 

AS a prefix to a unit of measure, M indicates thousand; luM indicates 

m - thousand animal unit nrslths 

MBF (WBF) - thousand (millim) board feet 

K!F (m) - thousand (million) cubic feet 

MRVD (m) - thousand (million) recreation visitor days 

M(luM)$ - thousand (millim) dDllars 

M acxf?s - thousand acres. 

m: - seeManagementAlx?a. 

MEWFSA: Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area. 

M3D: County Water District. 

- MIS: 

MIR: - SeeMinj" Implementation Requirements. 

level outputs of market resources. 

- MKV: 

See Manag-t Indicator Species. 

- MKT: A Forest Plan Alternative which Was eliminated. It €@IaSiz€d high 

The benchmark which maximizes Present Net Value (PNV) for market value 

resources. 

Level Management. - .. MLV: The ke"& which emphasizes 

m: SeeMinj" Management Resuiremen t. 

Ma"th/Jme: The geqrawc area batnded by U.S. 395 on the east; State 

Route 203 on the south; the John P4.i.r and Ansel Adams Wildemeses m the 

west; and the ridgeline of the June Lake cnnplex m the north. 

MaMgwen t Area (m): A ccsltiguous area Of land used in plan"J, to which 

one or me prescriptions are applied. Managemnt areas do not vary between 

alternatives; howarer, the prescriptions applied to them do vary. 

Managenen t Camern: 

Elmaw t Directim: A statement of multiple use and other goals and 

objectives, the managmt prescriptions, and the associated standards and 

guidelines for atbinirg them. 

A management problem rquiriq resolution. 

MaMganen thphas is: The primary focus of a multiple-use management 

prescription or of an alternative. 

526 
MmacfalErI t IImiiCator specl ‘es (MIS): A wildlife species whse population and 

trend in a certain habitat type indicates the populatim and trend of other 

species that are also depdent m that habitat type. 

Mmaqanm t Intensity: The management practica or alnblna . tim of management 

practices and their associated costs designed to obtain different levels of 

gooas and SeJxiCes. 

MmacfalErI tPrescxz “an: Management practices seleded and s?&ealled for 

application m a specific area to attain multiple-use bensfits and other 

pals and objectives. 

Marketoutprts : cutputs normally exchanged in markets as evidenced by 

transactions. Tlmber, range, develOpea “eation, and mineral s ax3 n!a?Aet 

outputs pIIXlLl& on the Irryo. 

bbxi” Modification (W): See Visual Quality Objectives. 

Mean Armual Increoent: 

dividing the volume of the txee by its age. 

The average yearly gmwth of a .tree, “lated by 

MineKalEeVel- : 

Mineral htry: 

claim the rights to minerals it wntains. 

The p-eparation of a proven aeposit for minirg. 

Filing a claim to hold or purchase public land in Order to 

Ekploraticm: The search for mineral s on lands open to mineral entry. 

Fnducticm: Extr&m of minerals. 

M‘ 1 WitMratml: 

entry or developnent in arder to reserve the area for a particular public 

purposeorFnogram. 

Minerals, Leasable: Minerals which are develop33 (explored, mlned, 

extracted, etc.) by a permit or lease, in wntrast with mineral -cin=t 

thmugh claims staking. Gzqnss has specified ths fo1lud-g as leasable 

minerals: mal, oil, gas, potassium, sodium, mte, oil shale, native 

asphalt, solid and semisolid bitumen and bi- e, 9=- 

-, and depits of sulfur in Louisiana and New Mexioo. Locatable 

minerals on aoquired land are leasable. 

Minerals, Locatable: Minerals on public &main lands which are mined and 

processed to recover jntrinsically valuable substances such as gold and 

copper and Ch5nical grade li“ e and asbestos. May include any solid, 

camanmjneral materials and leasable minerals. Developed thrmgh a claims 

location and patent pmxess. kcatable mineral s on acquired land are 

leasable. 

Minerals, Salable: Minerals that cccasr in high-volume, luv-unit-value 

depsits and have M distind or special ecoBy3rm ‘c value c~er similar 

mterials. Diqxsal is authorized through a sales system, by the Materials 

Ad of 1947. Examples are sand, gravel, stcme, and c~rmo~l clay. 

The withblding of an area of federal land from mineral 

MtWXll mi3Xi.C substance in the CIUSt Of the earth for 

527 
-1-taticn ts (MIR): The mgmt ~~~l

which 

are necessazy to ensure a “m level of public acceptance. 

M3.n”l-w tRe@smen ts (m): Constraints or activities necessary 

to maintain viable wildlife mations and to prevent permanent hpahnwt 

.. 

of the proauctivity of the land. 

Muu.ng Claims: That portion of the public estate held for miming purposes in 

which the right of exclusive possession of locatable mineral -its is 

vested in the locator of a deposit. 

Mitigate: Actims to avoid, “ize, rediuce, eliminate, or rectify the 

adverse impacts of a manag-t practice. 

Modification (VQO): 

Monitoring and Evaluation: The periodic evaluatim on a sample basis of 

objectives have been met, how closely management standards have been applied, 

and whether actual envircaMlental consequmces are similar to those predicted. 

Multiple use: The management of all renewable surface re~~uc~e~ of the 

National Forests so that they are utilized in the ambination that will best 

meet the needs of the American people. 

.. 

See Visual Quality Objectives. 

managmt practices prescribed by the Forest plan, to det” . how well 

N 

- NPB: 

NEPA: 

E: 

NlWS: 

e: 

e: The kxhmark which “izes Present Net Value (PNV) with a 

“btion 4Aat M Further Planning Areas became wildemess. 

E: National Natural Landmarks. (See National Registry of Natural 

Larxbxks. ) 

See Net Public Benefit. 

SeeNational EWi” tal Policy Act. 

See National Forest Management Act. 

See National Fire Managmt Analysis System. 

See National Forest System Land. 

- NRT: See National Recreatim Trail. 

National bimnmental Policy Act (NEPA): The 1969 Act of mess that 

represents a basic national charter for protection of the ernrjramnent. 

National Fire Managemen t Analysis System (m): A broad pnxess to assist 

fire managers in fulfillkg their plannirag and analysis roles. The system 

consists of: (1) Fire Management Analysis, and (2) Buaget analysis. 

528 
Natid Forest "n t Act (m): A 1976 Act Of that Epnends 

the 1974 ores st and wand Renewable Resources Pl- Act (FPA). "A 

requires the Lneparation of R€gicmal and Fore.st Plans and guides their 

deVt3l-t. 

Natid Forest system (NES) Lad: Lands admLnistered by the us. Deparbnent 

of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Naticmal Recmatim Trail (NRT): A trail designated by the Secretary of the 

Interior or the secretary of Agriature mder the National Trails system 

Act. Naticmal -tim trails are designed to provide a variety of outdoor 

recreaticm uses in or -ly accessible to urban areas. 

Naticmal Regl 'ster of Historic Places: A listing maintained by the U.S. 

DeLprtmrit of Interior, Natimal Park Sexvice of areas that have been 

designated as histcolically significant. !The National Register includes 

places of local and state significance, as well as those of value to ths 

Natid Regie of Natmal Lancluarks: A registex of ateas possessing such 

heritage of OUT ~tim that they are "sidered to be of ~ticslal 

significance. Sane examples are significant natural landforms, land or 

aquatic ecaqskm, and geologic formaticsls. 

M'On hl w. 

-&blal values a qtlalitia fa illUSb3- or in-ting the MM 

Naticmal Wild and scenic River Systen : RLverswithout&andxq . scenic, 

mcreaticmal, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other 

similar valuesand &signa- by Umgmxs under the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act for PreSeNatim of their free-flowing dtim. 

Natid Wilderness Presenmtim Systen : All lands covered by the Wilderness 

Act (1964) and siukequent wilderness desigTlati0m izmxpxb 'VI3 of the 

deparbnent or agemy having jurisdicticm. 

Net Fublic Benefit (NPB): The averall value to the nation of all cutputs and 

pasitive effects (-fits), less all associated inputs and negative effeds 

(Costs), whether they can be quantitatively valued or not. Net public 

benefits are measLned by both qualitative and quantitative criteria rather 

than a single measure or index. 

"declining Yield: 

producticm does not fall below the ~~ decade's prcducticm. 

Timber scheduled for harvest so that any given decada's 

"&etolrtprts : In the 

Forest Service, the followhg resource outputs are classified as nonmarket 

outputs: dispersed recreaticn, wildlife and fish user days, water. Although 

not "ally excharged in markets, the Farest Service calculates and assigns 

mcoletary values to these outputs for analysis purposes. 

Forest outputs nat "ally exchanged in markets. 

529 
0 

- o%N: See Off-Highway Vehicle. 

- W. See Over-srUJw Vehicle. 

Objective: A time-specific statement of "ble results that mspmd to 

pre-established goals. 

Objective Etnxztx 'on: A term used in linear prcr3ramnirag mfen5x-g to the item 

to be "ized (or "ized) in the problem's soluticm: such as "ize 

PNV, "ize timber. 

Off -€Eghtay V&icle (W): 

Over-Sncw Vehicle (OSV): 

Older seral stages : Age classes of trees or shrubs that have passed the 

pericd of young, vigorous growth. Many wildlife species are depenaent on the 

older mal stages of forestd enviwlments: these stages include large trees 

generally exceeding 50 feet in height with a total .tree campy of 40 percent 

or greater. Cannercial timber stands are typically harvested before reaching 

Older seral stages. 

opening: An area of land f" which timber has been harvested (generally 

using even-aged managmt). The "rm size of cpa-dngs is 5 to 40 acres 

for forest types cm the Inp. An opening is IYJ longer ccszsidered an opening 

wlw a specified nunker of trees per acre within a specific forest type and 

site class have reached 4.5 feet in height. 

Opprhmity Cost: The value of the benefits foregone when a managanent 

alternative is chosen. 

outputs: Goods, services, or on-site uses proauCea fran forest and rangeland 

vehicles that can be operated off of amst~~cted 

roads. Examples include 4-wheel drives, cbrne Mi-, and Some nK&XCycleS. 

Over-- tracked or ski vehicle. 

resources. 

overs- : 

uPF-m=t layer. 

That portim of the trees in a forest which form the upper or 

- P: Primitive. (See Recreation Opp~Mty Spectrum.) 

PAOT: See P--At-One-Th. 

PILT: 

- PNV: 

- PIED: An Alternative which has been eliminated fran the Forest Plan. This 

Alternative's objective was to determine the Forest's ability to meet timber 

targets fran the Region's high-prmiuctivity Alternative. 

Payment in Lieu of Taxes. 

See Present Net Value. 

530 
PRF: see Preferred Alternative. 

PSD: 

PSW: 

Partial Retmticm (W): 

Ferermial Stream: 

IIKXlth. 

permittee: An hdividual or organization that cmnducts activities on 

National Forest land under the stipulatim of a Forest Service permit. 

Exanples of permitted activities are graziq, ski area operatian, resort 

operation, and hydmelectric plant operation. 

Fwxxms-At-One-Time (PAOT): The unit of measure far recreation capacity 

defined as the number of people that can use a facility or area at me time. 

Physiogra@n 'c province * : A regia having a particular pattern of relief 

features or land forms that differs significantly frun that of adjacent 

regions. The Irryo National Forest lies in two physiographic pmvhces--the 

Sierra Nevada and the Great Basin. 

piagi: 

it defoliates Jeffrey pine trees by eating the needles. 

nativ0 foods of the Paiute/ShoShmu ' Peaple. 

Plaming mid: The time interval within the plarnirg brim 

that is used to sbow incremental changes in yields, costs, effects, and 

benefits. 

Plaming Records: A system that docvments data collections, analyses, 

inkrdisciplinary team decisions, and activities that result fran the process 

of developing a Forest Plan, revision, or significant men&ent. 

See Prevention of Significant Deterioration. 

Pacific Southwest (Region 5 of the Forest Service) 

See Visual Quality Objectives. 

A stream that flows throughout the and fran Source to 

The larval or caterpillar stage of the Pea mth during which time 

Piagi is me of the 

One -de. 

Plantation: 

an area. 

A stand of .trees resulting from planting or artificially se-dirg 

Prefd Alternative (PRF): The Forest Plan Alternative which enphasizes a 

mixture of cormodl 'ty and amenity resanxe outputs to optimize Net Public 

Benefit (NPB). 

Prescribed Fire: Intenticmal use of fire under predekxmined weather and 

fuel canditicm to achieve specific objectives such as rejuvenating or 

type-- ' vegetation. 

Prescripticm (Fbc): "he set of managerent practices applid to a specific 

area to attain specific objectives. Region 5 distinguim between FORPW 

p-ipticns and management presxiptim. FORPLAN prescriptions are sets 

of "pure" managanent activities wiWt spatial allccatim or standards and 

guidelines. Management prescxipticm are written as a result of allocatirg 

FORPLAN so1utici-s to specific lands areas (Managercent Areas) and imposins 

standards and guidelines. (See also Management weas.) 

531 
present Net Value (PNV): The difference between the value of discounted 

benefits derived fm all outputs to which mnetary values or established 

market prices are assigned and the total discounted Costs of managiq the 

planning area. 

Pre-tian (VQO): See Visual Quality Objectives. 

Preventicm of Significant Deterioraticm (PSD): A planning and management 

process of the Clean Air Act for allocation and use of air resources. 

Fruductive Re-: A category of land that is capable of prcducing 

camiercial timber prcducts but has been remxTed fm the managed timber base 

by cong-ressional or achinistrative designation (such as Wilderness or 

Research Natural Areas). 

Public Issue: A subject or question of widespread public interest identified 

through public participaticn relating to managemnt of National Forest System 

lands. 

R 

- R: Rural. (SeeRecreationGpprhnu 'ty Spectrum.) 

RARE 11: 

- RFA: Rural Eleckic Association. 

s: ThebxdnMrkwhich"ize.s~ 'c livestock grazing for five 

decades. 

See Roadless Area Review and Evaluation 11. 

- RIM: sa3 Recreation mfomtion Management. 

- I1M: Roadedbkdified. (SeeRecmaticmOpprtum 'ty spectrum. 1 

- RN: Roaded Natural. (See Recreation opportunity Spectrum.) 

- Rtitl: See Research Natural Area. 

- Ros: SeeRwreatimOpprtum 'tY s-. 

- RPA: The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. 

every five years to Nfill the requirements of the Act. 

RPA Program : 

renewable resources cn National Forest System lands. This directx 'on serves 

as the basis for the Regional targets assigned to each Forest. 

- RVD: 

W. - SeeFrescxiption. 

AlsO refers to the Mtional aSseSgnent and recQTmended develw 

The ~tional direon (under RPA) for long-range management of 

See Recmaticm Visitor Day. 

532 
Frimary rarge - includes areas which are readily accessible, have 

available water and will be used befare livestock significantly graze 

other areas. 

Secondary range - areas less mferred by livestock which will ordinarily 

not be grazed significantly until the ptimary raqe has been used. 

Suitable - land that is or can be made accessible to livestock, that 

proauces forage or has inheren t forage-prcducing capabilities, and that 

can be grazed on a “ed . yield basis under given management goals. 

Transitmy - land temporarily suitable for grazing, but transient over 

time and/or locatim. For example, grass may ewer an area for a perioa 

befare being replaced by growth (such as trees) not suitable for 

livestock “ption. 

Unsuitable - area that should not be grazed by livestock because of 

unstable soils, steep topography. or inheren t low potential for forage 

pr&uctim. 

Range Allotment: 

of livestock. 

An area designated for gazing a KesQlibed and kind 

Ranqs Pennittee: An individual who has been granted written pnnissicm (a 

grazing permit) to graze livestock for a specific perid m a -e 

allotment. 

&nq=r District: 

District Ranger vh3 repzrts to the Forest Supervisor. 

Rarespeci es: One that, although mt presently threatened with extinction, 

is in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be e&&l if 

its ernrinxnnent x”; the “rare“ category is a State category, not a 

f-al tule. 

Reach: A contjnucus “ken stretch of a stseam with hanogeneous 

characteristics; an extrem ‘ty of a stream; a specified prtion of a stream. 

&covery: The achievement of viable populations of threatened or endangered 

plant or animal species. 

Rea-eatifRl ncper ience Level: A classification (us3.q a scale of 1 for 

primitive to 5 for w) of the level of developnent in camp and picnic 

sites prkumng to the types of recreation opportunities and mxlifications 

in the -t that can be eqected. 

An administrative unit of a Natimal Forest supervised by a 

.. 

R€cceatian Infonlb3ticm Managmlen t (FUM): The Forest Service system for 

recording recreatim facility condition and use. 
Receeatian -* spectrun (€OS): A means of classifying and managing 

r%Xl?atiO81 c3”l ‘ties based 081 physical setting, social settiw, and 

managerial se-Tting. he six different ROS classes briefly descxim aG: 

a. primitive (P) - An area three miles or - fnm ccmventional 

(txm-wheel drive) roads, generally 5,000 acres or mxa in size, with 

an essentially UMlOdified natural enviraranent. Users will pbably 

experience a high degree of isolation, closeness to nature, 

-lity, and self-reliance. 

Semi-Frimitive Non-mtorized (SPPW) - An area mra than 0.5 mile but 

less than 3 miles fmn cawentianal roads, 2,500 to 5,000 acres in 

size, with aiiy subtle modifications of an otherwise natural 

setting. Users will have experiences similar in kind (but to a 

b. 

lower degree) to these found in the Frim%tive Fa Class. 

c. Semi-primitive mtorized (SFM) - Sam as Semi-primitive 

Non-Motorized but with motorized use of primitive roads and trails. 

Users would have experierces similar to those in ths SFWl class, 

with the addition of motor vehicles. 

d. Roaded Natural (FN) - An area accessible by cmventimal roads; 

resmrcg modifications and struc- are evident but han” ‘ze with 

the natural envircamwt. Users %odd experience isolation and 

interaction with other parties in roughly equal prop3rtions. 

e. Fmaded Modified (RM) - Same as Road& Natural, except that resource 

modifications and shructures are more evident and the pmbabilitv of 

interacticm with other parties would be mch higher. 

f. Rural (R) - The setting is accessible by ccmventimal road and 

substantially modified with s.tructures or other cultural 

modifications. Users would exprience much interaction with others: 

ohere would be little oppz%mity for isolation. 

g. Urban (U) - The setting is stmngly daninated by strum, 

hi$~~ays and streets. Users would not consider this setting 

attractive for cxmventional forest recreation. This category 

applies to privately-owned land on the Forest. 

Remeatism Visitor Day (RVD): Twelve hours of recreaticBl use in any 

onhination of persons and hours such as one persan for twelve hours or three 

perscols for four hours. 

Recruitrrpnt: Replenishment. In terms of wildlife biology, to achieve 

successful repduction or to replenish a supply of habitat elements, such as 

slags or down logs. 

Reforestatism: 

artificial me-. 

Reestablishing a crop of trees on forest land by natural or 

Regeneratism: Same as reforestation. 

534 
Regeneratian (hteing : H- . timber stands so that new crops can be 

planted. This mthDd is usually applied to stands which canriot e"ically 

be managed for ccnmercial prcducticm because of poor stocking, health, 

thrift, quality, or species cCmp3sitim. 

Regia 5: The Pacific Wthwest Region of the Forest S&ce, including 

primarily the National Forests in California, with snall additional acreage 

in 0rep-1 and Nevada. 

Regid Forester: The official respmsible for ac%ntnLsteriq a single 

Regim of the Forest Service. 

' 

Regdatim classes: 

Regulaticm Class I SilviculW prescriptions are --aged management 

prescriptians for exhtirg timber stands with full timber yields expected. 

mese represent harvest regimes cm lands not otherwl 'se cxxlstr- that 

result in optimum timber prcductian in volume and/or value. Practices in 

this class are: 

a. clea.~~~tting without thimirg (ncolintensive harvest in FORPLAN) 

b. Shelterma3 witbut thinning (nclnintensive harvest in FOWL?#) 

c. Clearcutting with -(s) prior to harvest. 

Regulaticm Class I1 silvLCul"l Prescriptians address "special cwnditicns" 

for existing timber stands. These 

mpresent harvest regimes on lands designated to meet mntimber objectives 

that resulk in a mean rotation 1- than optimum for timber praluction. 

Generally other values are accounted for by o" . ts on harvest rates, not 

by dfications to yield tables; the exceptions are sroup selecticm (item e) 

and specialized mptions (item f). 

Reduced timber yields would be expe&ed. 

Practices in this class are: 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

Clearcutting without thinning ("intensive harvest in FORPLAN) 

Shelterwwd witbut thinning ("intensive harvest in FORPLAN) 

clearcutting with Wrdl?g(s) pior to harvest 

Shelterwood with thinniq( s) prior to harvest 

(;roup selection (harvest openings less than two acres in size) or 

single txee selection 

Specialized prescriptions that contain unique yield tables and/or 

-ts cm harvest rates such as deer winter range prescriptions 

with wider Spaciq and 1y3 release. 

535 
Regulation Class 111 prescriptiuns are for &Sting Stands which are 

equivalent to the former "marginal timber yield" categorization. Timber 

outputs resulting fran prescriptions in this class will be regulated as a 

separate, rxm-intemhargeable ampxent of the allowable sale quantity. 

F!ractices in this class are: 

a. 

b. 

C. 

d. 

Reroval of single .trees or snall groups of tzees for sanitation, 

salvage, or hazard 'on (assume yields based on past 10-year 

experience) 

Stand maintawmce along zones to maintain the vigor of the stands: 

yields are often linked to other harvest in adjacent areas: 

generally this practice is used for streamside and highway zones if 

not OthenCL 'se managed by independent sales 

Prescriptions for marginal prcductivity (lands 

20 cubic feet per acre per year) and/or disputed rqeneration 

Group selection (clearcuts less than ttm a- in size or sirgle 

izee selection. 

proaUcirg less than 

Rejwenation: The treatment of vqetation (by burning or chemical or 

"nical means) so that vigorous, youq growth is stimulated. 

Relicted Land: The land that has been exposed by the declining level of bbrx~ 

Lake and which lies between the elevatim of 6,417 feet and lvlono Lake as it 

varies fran day to day. 

Research Natural Area (RNA): An area established specifically to preserve a 

representative sample of an ecological carmunity: primarily for scientific 

and educational purposes. 

Resident "rout: hout that live year-round and reprcduce in a stream or lake 

(ccoltrasted with trout raised in a fish hatche~~, planted, and rem3ved by 

-la). 

Retentian (VQO): 

Right-of-Way: An accurately located land area within which a user may 

condud operati- apprwed or granted by the landowner. May also refer to a 

pennit, easement, lease, license, or Wimrandm of Understanding (W) used 

to authorize the land use. 

Riparian Area: Ceqraphically delineable areas with distinctive resource 

valw and characteristics that are anprised of the aquatic and riparian 

ecosystems. 

Riparian areas on the Inyo Naticmal Forest mist of: (1) as a "I, 

areas that are a 100-foot horimtal distance fran the edge of standing 

bodies of water, lakes, and perennial streams, and (2) all wetlands, 

including all e-al or intermittent streams which support riparian 

vegetaticn, wet meadows sprirgs, seeps, and bogs. See Streamside Management 

for ephemeral and intmttent stream not included in wetlands. 

See Visual Quality Objedives. 

536 
Riparian Area-% -3 t Resources: Water-dependent vegetation, wildlife, 

fish (and other aquatic animals), soil, and water. 

Roadless Area: As defined by the Roadless Area Review and E!valuation (RARE), 

an area of u&svaloped Federal land within which there are rn imprmrea roads 

or roads maintairaed for use by mstonz ' ed vehicles; generally 5,000 acres or 

larger unless djacent to an existing wilderness. 

Roadless Area Review ami Evaluaticn (RARE) 11: The assesgnent of roadless 

areas within the National Forests as patential wilderness areas as required 

by the Natimal Wilderness Act. This refers to the seccsld such assesgnent 

which was &a"ted in the Final Fsnrirornwtal Impact Statement of the 

Roadless Area Review and Ebaluation precess, January 1979. 

Roads: A general tarm demt5x-g a mute for pupcses of travel by vehicles 

greatex than 40 b&es in wi&h. Roads are "ally classified as: 

a. Arterial Roads: Typically *lane, &aced roads serving large 

land areas and usually cn"g ' with public highways. 

typically surfaced and serva snaller land areas. 

a link between arterial and lccal roads. 

b. Collector Roads: Single-lane or double-lane roads which are 

They usually form 

c. Ldxal Roads: Typically ~tim surface, single-lane roads accessing a 

single resmne lmminal facility such as a log l-, a 

campgnxnad, a trailhead, or ski facility. 

=Class: SeeRecxeationOpprhnu 'ty SW. 

Rotati- Age : 

tree stand and its final cutting. 

The 1- of time between the formation or rqeneraticm of a 

S 

SAOT: See Skiers-at--time. 

E: Southwm California Edism. 

- 9Ipo: 

e: See Special Interest Area. 

SZ: See Stream Managemat me. 

State Historic -tion Officer. 

SpM: Semi-Primitive-bbtorized. (See Recreatim opportuIll 'ty SW.) 

SPNM: Semi-Primitive-Nm-Pbtorized. (See Recreation Opprtunity Spct". ) 

E: See Soil Resource ImrentoIy. 

s91: See Stream Channel Stability Raw. 

537 
Salvage: 

worthless. 

Dead or deteriora- tcees often cut before their timber h=ccm=s 

Mtatim Hamest: The rerrpval of dead, diseased, insect infested, damaged, 

or otherwise low vigx tre& to "ize losses fran pests. 

-t: Solid material, both mineral and organic, that is suspended in or 

being trmed by water. 

selection chttlng : 

Sensitive Speci es: Species that have appeared in the Federal Register as 

Fanposed dtions to the endartgerd or threatened species list, and those 

that are on an official state list or are recognized by the Regional Forester 

as nee dim^ special management in order to prevent them fm beaming 

sea Group selection and Single Tree Selectim. 

endaIqerd or threatened. 

Sensitivity Level: 

scenic qualities of the landscape. 

Seral Stags: The dwelopental or successional stage of a biological 

c"ity (related to age class). 

sklterwxd ciltting : (xltting a timber stand in two or mre stages. The 

first cutting leaves sone mature trees which provide shade to help see€uings 

get established. The shelterwood system is a form of --aged timber 

management. 

A particular degr€s3 or "re of viewer interest in the 

Silviculture: Generally, the science and art of cultivating forest tree 

crops. 

Silvicultural system: The entire process by which forest stands are tended, 

l-mvested, and replaced. A silvicultural System includes all cultural 

practices perEormea during the life of the stand such as regeneration 

cuttiq, fertilization, thinnbg, imprcnrement cutting, and use of genetically 

imprwea sources of tree seeds and seedlings to obtain multiple-resource 

benefits. 

Single Tree Selectim: The cutting method in which individual trees are 

"ved to provide a stand with trees of different sizes and age classes on 

the same site. 

Site R-epara tim: The preparation of an area for regeneration, inv01vi.r~~ the 

mal of slash and/or cxqeting vegetation and usually the exposure of bare 

mineral soil. 

Size Class: 

intervals of tree stem diameter used for classification of timber. 

Silvicultural system are classified as even- or uneven-aged. 

This method results in an uneven-aged stand. 

For ms of Forest planning, size class refers to the three 

Seedling/Sapliq: less than five-inch diameter. 

Pole Timber: five to eight-inch diameter. 

Sawtimber: greater than eight-inch diametex. 

538 
SrierS-At-Qle-Time (SAOT): A measUre Of Ski area Capaoity represented by the 

"nber of skiers that can ccmpy the ski area at ace. 

- Slash: 

dim- such as storms or fires. Slash includes rnurtilized logs, 

uprozked stunips, broken stems, bramhes, twigs, leaves, bark, and chips. 

smdll Game: Birds and SMl1 nlalmmls "ally hunted or trappea. 

SMg: ASb~ldhgdead~fLUIIwhichthel€SVeSandlmStOf thebranches 

have fall-. 

Soil Producb 'vity: 

plant species or sequence of species under a specified system of management. 

descxipticm, classificatim and mapping of soils. 

Soil Scnveys : The systematic examination of soils in the field and 

laboratory, including desaiption, classificatim, and mapping of soils, and 

the interpretation of soils accordhg to their wctivity and khavior 

UIfk use and management. 

The residue left on the ~JXJLI& after timber cutting or after other 

"he MM capacity of a soil to prafiuce a spscified 

Soil Resource =tory (SEfI)/Soil Sumey : The systematic examinatcm, 

order I: Vay intensiva investigatim used for site-specific work, 

such as individual bUi1di.q sites, -tal plots, and 

irrigation and drainage studies. 

Intensive jnvesb 'gatim used for project level work. 

IntenWdl. 'ate level invesb 'gaticns used for forest planning 

pqoses on lands subject to heavy recxeational use or 

timber management. 

order Iv: Broad- . ance investigations use for forest-wide 

PI-. 

Special Intw--est Area (SIA): Areas established and managed for their unique 

or OLltstaamg ' natural values, such as botanical, gealcgical, scenic, or 

historical features. 

order 11: 

order 111: 

Special-Use Permit: 

Forest land in the manner Specified. 

A permit authorizing the oxqancy and use of National 

Species: A furdamntal category of plant or animal classificatim. 

Staging Area/IIolding Area: An area in which mule deer gather during 

migraticm, typicauy while wai- for weam to clear or s~lw to melt 

before mxiq to higher elevaticns. 

=: A c"ity of trees or athar vqetaticm types that is sufficiently 

uniform in ampxition, ccB1stitLlticB1, age, spatial arrangmmt, or amdition 

to be distinguishable fran adjacent c"n 'ties and to thus form a management 

entity. 

539 
Stadad Mce: Managewnt of recreation facilities which provides for 

vegetation management, full maintenance of facilities, apFappriate toilet 

cleaning and garbage pickup, and infomation and interpretive services for 

the recreation area. 

Stocking Level: The degree to which land is occlrpied by -trees (measured by 

basal area and/or number of trees by size and spacing), carrpared with a 

stocking standard which establishes the stmkhy required to fully utilize 

the growth potential of the land. 

straism A three-part timber category based on tree species, age class, and 

stocking level. 

Stream Cbnnel stability Rating (SSR): A meethod for evaluating stream 

channel stability was develOpea to evaluate the resistance of mnmtain stream 

channels to the detachment of bed and bank materials and to provide 

information about the ability of streams to adjust to and recover fran 

potential charges in flow and/or ircreases in sediment pnxluction. The 

system was develop3 to be used in conjunction with other hydrologic analyses 

to augnent silvicultural prescriptions and inp" watershed management. A 

brief description of the items rated and the modificaticns emplovea in this 

study area included below. 

The stream channel stability evaluation p?xce&ue involves subjective field 

evaluation of fifteen items. The channel cross-section is divided into three 

canplents: upper banks, 1- banks, and channel tottan. upper banks are 

rated for slope, mass wasting, debris jam potential, and bank protection by 

vegetation. Lower banks are rated for channel capacity, bank rcck content, 

obstructions, cuttirq, and depsition. Chamel bottans are rated for rock 

aqularity, brightness, consolidation, scxm3.q and depsition, and clinging 

aquatic vegetation. 

Each item is given a rating value which is weighd in t- of its Wrtance 

as an indication of s.breambank stability. For instance, scouring and 

dewition of the channel tottan, which is an important fador, is heavily 

weighted, ranging fran 6 to 24. In wntxast, channel capcity, rock 

aqularity, brightness, and clinging aquatic vegetation are all ~ess 

important, and have values ranging cnly fm one to four. 

After a stream reach has been rated, values for the items are totaled. A 

score of less than 38 is considered "excellent", indicating a stable, 

emsion-resistant Stream. A swre of 39 to 76 is considered "good"; a score 

of 77 to 114 is considered "fair", and a scare of 115 to 142 is considered 

"pr". It is importan t to mte that a low score indicates stable stceambank 

ccslditicas, while a high score indicates unstable, eroded &"bab. 

stream Managenen t Zane (M): An mstratively designated zaie designed 

to call attention to the need for special managaent practices aimed at the 

maintenance and/or improvement of watershed resources. my include 

floOaplains and wetlands, riparian areas, inner gorges, pxemrial streams, 

and intennittent streams showing signs of recurnnt annual or 

depition. 
SuccessiQ1: The charghq of a biological az.umnity over time 

c~nes to a halt and the climax an"ity is reached. 

Successional Stage : A phase in the gradual chaqiq of a hiolcgical 

-ty (- - sta9e). 

Suitability: The qpp?qxlateness of applying certain resource "pmt 

practices to a particular area of land, as &tarmined by an analysis of the 

eccBlcmic and @"ental awequewes and the altanative uses forqcm. A 

unit of land may be suitable for a variety of individual or 

Suitable Tinier Land: See Tentatively Suitable Timbar Land. 

-ax Actim taken to extiquish or "fim a fire. 

SUstainedYield: SeeLaq-tennSustamed ' Yield Capacity. 

(including the replacenent of m cc"ity by another) until that chalqe 

-manage 

TBR: 

T&E: Threatened and edaqer& species. (See Threatened S-es, Bidangered 

TSI: See Timher Stand Ingmwmnt. 

Tinget: 

lkntatively Suitable Ti&er Land: 

coamercial timber management must meet the following criteria: 

The benchnark which maximizes timber proaucticsl for a-e dscade. 

Species. 1 

A staimbent used to express planned results to be reached within a 

Lands tentatively ccnsidered suitable for 

stated time perid. 

a. 

b. 

C. 

d. 

e. 

presently forested, currently Foroducirag or capable of pro3UcilY.3 

Crops of jnalstr ial wood. 

Nat withdrawn from timber El"tim by ccslgress, ths secretary of 

Agriculture, or the Chief of the Forest Service. 

For which techmlqy and knowledge exist and are available to ensure 

timber pmalction witirnlt irreversl 'ble damage to soils, 

prodiuctivity, orwa~dti~. 

Where there is reasamble assurance that adequate lestocking can be 

attained within five years after final harvest. 

Whem adequate info" is available to project respcslses to 

timber management activities. 

Term Permit: A grazing permit or a special-use permit issued for a specified 

pi& of time, but which has a t".M . timdate. 

541 
'Ihirnrinq: ~tt.ingumbertoimprweth9qualityandgrowth0fthetreesthat 

remain. ~n cormercial thinning, merchantable timber (timber of salable 

quality), is cut. In precarmarcial thinning, m-"ntable trees are cut. 

!lh-eatem?d es: Any species which is likely to becane an endargenxt 

species within the fareseeable future and which has been designated in the 

Federal Register as a threat- species. 

Tiering: Ref- to the practica of analyzing wal alternatives and 

documents. The mre specific "ental donrment is then ti& to the 

analysis found in the more general one. 

Tinher pmducti an: The gmwing, tending, -, and regeneraticm of 

regulated crops of trees to be cut into logs and bolts for industr ial or 

co~zsumer use. Does not include fuelwxd. 

Tinher stiad ts (=I): The use of ro"xcial thhning, 

cleaning, weeding arid intemziiiate cuttings to eliminate or sup~ess less 

desirable vegetatim and inpruve "position, dticm, st", or growth 

of a stand. 

envircapnental-inbroaderFsnrircwnen tal Impad sta-ts and 

nKEe detailed alternatives and consequences in site-specific -tal 

Trade-off: The impact m an output or cost caused by changing " output 

or cost. 

Railhead: The parking, signirag, and other facilities available at the 

begjnnjrg of a trail. 

Tranpling and chiseling: A measure of the deqee of livestock utilization 

and the extent of livestock damage along a stream reach. Trampliq is 

defined as hoof marks, soil disturbance, soil canpacticsl with evidence of 

hwf marks; bare soil with evidence of hoof marks, and trampled vegetation. 

Cattle .trails bordering the stream or crossing it are included in this 

concept my when basal vegetation has been "veil and bare ground has been 

exp3sed. chiseling is identified by arc-shaped cuts in streambanks caused by 

cattle or sheep hooves. 

Tuff: A type of light-colored volcanic rock ccmmnly found on the Inyo 

National Forest mrth of Bishop. 

Type Comrersian: 

mther, such as shrub to grass or sagebrush to bitterbrush. 

The "mrsim of me vegetation type or plant species to 

U 

- U Urban. (See Recreaticm Gppxhmity Spectrum. ) 

m: 

B: 

=: United States Geological Survey. 

United States Forest Service, Deparhnent of Agriculture. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 

542 
Wkzstary: m-gra&q vegetaticm such as grasses, shrubs, or snall trees 

gr0wk-g under a stad of trees. Also, that of trees in a forest 

standbelmtheaverstcay. 

uneven-aged stands are single-tree selectim and group selectim. 

th'qlannd Ignitim: A fire started at randan by either natural or hman 

causes or a deliberate arsm-set fire. 

"itable Ti&ec Lands: Refers to land which is not suited for timber 

pIXdUdm accorbng . to the criteria listed above under Tentatively Suitable 

Timber Land. 

- W: 

VpI: SeeVis-mlQualityIrn3e.x. 

w: See Visual Quality objectives. 

See Visual A&urptim Capability. 

Variety Class: A classificatim system with three visual landscape 

categories: 

a. DistinctiVe'(Variety Class A): Unusual and/or . landscape variety that stands out frun the cc"n features in the 1-. 

b. &" (Variety Class B): Prevalent, usual, or wi- landscape 

variety; alsoreftxstoordinaryormdi&hgu 'shed visual variety. 

M"al (Variety Class C): Little or M visual variety in the 

landscape; or telm average cmpard to the crm" 

features in the lalldmqe. 

Viable poplla tias: Repmducing Populatim of plants or animals of 

sufficient numkrs and distxibutim to assure indefinite perpetuatim of the 

species. 

Visual Bbstxpb 'm capabl 'lity (WE): The ability of the landscape to 

withstand management manipulatim without significantly affectdrg its visual 

character. Rat& as high, llxxwab, and lm. 

Visual Mtim: The state of visual alteration measured in depxs of 

deviatim frun the natural appear- landscap?. 

Visual Quality Index (VQI): A "ETAcal raking of scenic quality that 

reflectsboththe~timofthelandscapeandtheacreageof landineach 

of the six visual dtim levels raqirg from Type I (appears to be 

unhchd by human activities) to !Type VI (appears to be drastically 

-1 - 

.. C. 
Visual Quality Objectives (VQO): A set of measurable "um levels of 

future alteration of a characteristic landscape. These levels are: 

a. Preservation: Ecological change only. 

b. Retention: Human activities are not evident to the casual Forest 

visitor. 

c. Partial Retention: Human activity may be evident but must remain 

subordinate to the characteristic landscape. 

d. Wfication: Human activity may daninate the characteristic 

landscape but must, at the same time, follow naturally established 

form, line, color, and texture. It should appear as a natural 

OccUrreTlce when viewed in foreground or nliddl-. 

e. Maxj" Eilodification: Human activity may dcminate the characteristic 

landscape but should appear as a ~t~~al occurrence when view4 as 

backgnxmd. 

Visual Resorace: The ccnp?osite of basic terrain, geologic features, water 

features, vegetative patterns, and land use effects that -typify a land umit 

and influence the visual appeal the unit may have for visitors. 

WFHR: 

x: 

- kMR: Wildlife Habitat Relationships. (See Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Relatiomhips. 

- W. SeeWatershedIqmvmmtNeeds. 

- WLJ: A Forest Plan Alternative which has been eliminated. It recQnmwds a 

substantial anwnt of quality acreage for wildemess while maintaining or 

increasinganmcdl 'ty outgats through intensified management of lands outside 

WildWXleSS. 

- WLN: 

See Wildlife and Fish Habitat Relationships. 

See Wildlife and Fish User Day. 

The bt"& which maximizes present Net Value (PNV) with all Further 

Planning Areas as wil-. 

Watch List I: Those plant species which the California Native Plant Society 

lists as reeding mxe information before their legal status can be 

dete"d. 

Watch List II: 

has listed in the past, but are currently delisted. 

Water Rights: 

ThDse plant species which the California Native Plant society 

The legal right to use water. 

544 
Water Yield: 

a watershed, - a given paricd of time. 

The total a"t of water Caning fran an area of land, an"ly 

wa- IupwmEn t Needs (Wm): An irrventary of meadDw canplexes on the 

farest which have a histoq of being used for graziq. This inventmy 

determines their cCax3itial of being eithar kalthy, d;rmaged or threatened. 

Emsion (gUl1y-il.g or ' )hasbeendocumentedfor~25,000acres. 

Wild and Scenic River: A river set aside under tbe 1968 Wild and Scenic 

following are the subcategories of wild and scenic designatia: 

Act to itS Mb.Ual -t and water ql-lali'by. The 

a. "Wild River p;eaaS: Those rivers or Sections of rivers that are free 

of impcprnanents and generally inaccessible except by trail, with 

wa- or slwn3linss essentially primitive and waters 

UnpllUted. These repnsent vestiges of primitive America." 

b. "soenic River Areas: Tlws rim or secticms of rim that are 

free of impounanents, with Simrelines or watershe& still largely 

pcimitive and shoralims laryely undeveloped, but accessible in 

places by roads. " 

C. "RntiCilal River Areas: 'fhose rivers or Secticars Of fivers that 

are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have sane 

impollnanent or didm in the past." (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1273 (b)) 

develm alq their shn-eline5, and that may have l.mk+pB sane 

Wild Trcut sbreaan: A stream designated by the State of Califcunia to "aged 

exclusively for the propagation of wild trout (tlnse hatched in the wild); 

such streams are rrlt stjocked with hatcll€xy-stocked trout. 

Wilderness: 

a. 

As defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964, wilderness: 

is urdevelopd Federal land without permanent imprmrements or hman 

habitatim; is pmkcted and "ged so as to preserve its natural 

canxticals; 

hascutstmdhg- 'ties for solitude or primitive recreaticsl: 

has at least 5,000 acres cu is of sufficient size to make practical 

its ccplditica: and may contain features of scientific, educational, 

scenic, or histon 'cal value, as well as emlogic and galcgic 

interest. 

b. 

c. 

Wildfke: An unplanned ignition. 

Wildlife and Fish Witat Relaticmships (WEIR): A System for organizbg 

information about wildlife and fish species, their habitats, and the 

relaticnships between them that is used in land and res" managemnt 

PI-. 

545 
Wildlife and Fish User Day (WEUD): Twelve hours of recxeatim use inmlvjng 

wildlife or fish (primarily hunting and fishing). 

Wi-: Withholding an area of Federal land fran settlement, sale, 

locaticdl, or entq allowed under the general land laws to TBs2IvB the area 

for a particular purpose or -am. 

Yield Table: 

under a specified set of ccmditirms. 

A tabular Statement of resourcB ~~tpts expeded to be prduced 

zc#?? of Influence: The geographic area and intWled with 

National Forest lands wherein -le live wbse lives are mast directly 

impadea by Forest management decisions and activities. 

546 
INDEX 
CHAPTERIX. INDEX 

AMB Alternative: 8, 158-167, 195-196, 343, 351-352, 355, 360, 364, 369-370, 

376, 384, 389-390, 392, 397-398, 402, 406, 412-413, 428-430, 436-437, 440, 446, 

455, 460, 466, 474, 485-486 

AMC: see Alternatives Eliminated 

AMN Alternative: 7, 148-157, 196, 343, 351, 355, 359-360, 363-364, 369, 376, 

383-384, 389, 391, 397, 402, 406, 412, 427-428, 436, 440, 446, 454-455, 460, 

466, 473, 484-485 

Air: 22, 48, 91, 205, 229-231, 352-355, 487 

Alpine Ski Area, Existirg and Under Study: 10, 26, 104, 272, 277-280, 417 

Alternatives: 3-16, 58-62, 86-99, 107-189, 198-215 

Alternatives Eliminated: 80-86 

Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest: 26, 102 

Bald Eagle: 29, 74, 84, 98, 333 

Benchmarks: 63-79 

Bighorn Sheep: see "ntain Sheep 

Blue Grouse: 30, 99, 334 

CEE Alternative: 6-7, 138-147, 194, 343, 350-351, 355, 359, 363, 368-369, 

375-376, 383, 389, 391, 397, 401-402, 406, 412, 424-426, 436, 440, 445-446, 

454, 460, 466, 472-473, 483-484 

CUR Alternative: 5, 118-127, 197, 342, 349-350, 354, 358-359, 363, 368, 375, 

382, 388, 391, 396, 401, 405-406, 411, 421-422, 435-436, 440, 444-445, 452-453, 

459, 466, 471-472, 481-482 

Caqg": see Ewelopea Recreation Site 

Colorado Cutthzoat Trout: 

ccolcentrated Recreation Area: 104, 378 

see Cutthroat Trout 

Cultural Resources: 22, 32, 48, 92, 109, 118-119, 128, 138, 148, 158, 198-199, 

205, 231-234, 355-360, 487 

Cutthrpat Trout: 23, 72, 83, 109, 119, 129, 139, 149, 159, 244-246 

Dams: see Facilities 

Designated Wildemess: 100, 377 

547 
Developed -tis Site: 

415-417, 419-425, 427-429 

9-10, 26, 78, 85, 95, 105, 169, 272-277, 286, 

Disperses Recreation: 

417-418, 420-429 

10-11, 26, 78, 95, 105, 169-171, 272-273, 280-286, 415, 

DivarSity: 22, 48-49, 89, 206, 234-237, 360-364, 487 

Econonic Factars: 13-16, 18-20, 32, 47, 182-198, 205, 218-224, 340-343 

F~C~OKS: 16-18, 22-38, 198-204, 216-493 

w: 

mw SeeEsnChmb 

Facilities (Roads and Trails): 

134-135, 139, 144-145, 149, 154-155, 158-159, 164-165, 175-176, 207, 239-244, 

365-370 

23, 49, 92, 207, 237-239, 364-365, 491-493 

- 

23, 49-50, 92-93, 109, 114, 119, 124, 129, 

Fire- on: seeprotecticn 

- Fish: 

147, 149, 157, 159, 167, 172-173, 178, 199, 207-208, 244-248, 370-376, 487 

ELshar: 330 

ForestRequiremen ts: 91 

Forest-wide standards and Guidelines: 91 

hu-vhsal Dnlve Vehicle: sea Wf-Him Vehicle (OHV) 

FUelwwd: -Timber 

12-13, 23, 33, 50, 76, 84-85. 93, 109, 117, 119, 127, 129, 137, 139, 

FlIXthX PlamYh~ Areas: 23-24, 33, 50-51, 181, 199, 208, 248-251, 376-384 

- Gas: SeeMheral s 

Geology: 24, 51, 93, 208, 251-253, 384-390 

Geothermal: 25, 259-260 

Golden Eagle: 98 

Golden Trout: 23, 119, 129, 139, 149, 159, 245, 370 

Gashawk: 12, 30, 76, 85, 88, 99, 172, 334 

Grazing: =Range 

Great Gray hl: 30, 99, 335-336 

Grammaw: SeeGeology 

548 
- Hu): seeEend"& 

wmdpecker: 338 

H5.m Level Timber Manag ement: 103 

Hunting: SeeDispersedRecreaticm 

Hydrcelectric: 23, 237-238 

Interpre tivesdces: 95 

- JXW seeAltemativesEliminated 

LalYmM cili=tcvat !k-cut: see cuttklruat Raut 

- Lands: 

165, 176, 208, 253-258, 390-392 

24, 51, 93-94, 109, 115, 119, 125, 129, 135, 139, 145, 149, 155, 159, 

Livestock: seeme 

MKT: seeAlternativesEliminated 

MKV: seeMLv: seem: =Benchmarks 

WIRS: seeMininnrm Manag-t Re&re"ts 

Management Indicator Species (MIS): 

Management prescription: 

Mass "!cansit: 241 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

29-31, 88, 98-99, 329-338, 479 

99-107, 113, 123, 133, 143, 153, 163, 174 

Minerals: 

155, 159, 165, 176, 179, 200, 209, 258-263, 392-398 

8, 25, 34, 51-52, 94, 109, 115, 119, 125, 129, 135, 139, 145, 149, 

Implementation Rec@m" ts (MIRS): 90-91 

Mm" Management Requirements (MYRs): 87 .. 

Mining: seeMinerals 

I" Basin National Forest Scenic Area @"FSA): 

Mxmtain Bike: see Dispersed Recreaticm 

25, 102, 263-264, 398 

k0.mta.b Sheep: 12, 30, 74, 84, 99, 101, 172, 336-337 

Mule Deer: 12, 29, 74, 76, 84, 98, 101, 172, 330-333, 480-486 

549 
Multiple Resource Area: 106 

- ":seeNelson "bin sheep: see "bin sheep 

Nn-diC skiing : SeeDispersedFtea-eatim 

Off-HighWay Vehicle (OHV): 95 

- Oil: see Mjnexal S 

Cutfitkx-Guide: seewildemess 

Over-Snow Vehicle (OSV): See Dbpersed Recmatim 

Cxuenssucker: =Fish 

OwensTuiCrlub: 244 

PRF Alternative: 4-5, 108-117, 195, 342, 349, 354, 358, 363, 367, 375, 382, 

388, 391, 396, 400-401, 405, 411, 419-420, 435, 440, 444, 451-452, 459, 466, 

471, 480-481 

m Alternative: see Alternatives EljnLinakd 

Paiute attthroat Trcut: 

persgrine Falc~m: 12, 29-30, 74, 84, 98, 172, 333-334 

PestManag mt: 25, 52, 94, 110, 119, 129, 139, 149, 159, 209, 264-265, 

399-402 

Pinelularten: 330 

Patentid. Alp- Ski Areas: 104-105, 279 

s8e outthroat Tmut 

Prairie FalcXm: 98 

Present Net Value (PNV): 182-183, 190-197 

-Wilderness: 100, 377 

Prote&im "Maria t): 25-26, 34-35, 52, 94, 110, 15, 119, 125, 

135, 139, 145, 149, 1E59, 165, 176, 200, 209, 266-267, 402-406, 487 

29, 

- w =Benchmarks 

472, 482-483 

RPA "ti=: 6, 128-137, 194-195, 342-343, 350, 355, 359, 363, 368, 375, 

383, 389, 391, 397, 401, 406, 411-412, 422-424, 436, 440, 445, 453, 459, 466, 

e: 

139, 145, 149, 155, 159, 165, 168, 176, 200-201, 210, 267-271, 407-413 

9, 26, 34, 52-53, 72, 83, 95, 1W-104, 110, 115, 119, 125, 129, 135, 

550 
ReCreatian: 9-11, 26, 35, 53, 95, 110, 115, 119-120, 125, 129-130, 135, 

139-140, 145, 149-150, 155, 159-160, 165, 

413-430, 487 

168-171, 176, 201, 210-211, 271-287, 

Recreation opportunity Spectrum (Ros): 

424, 426, 428, 430 

26, 179-180, 285-287, 416, 418, 422, 

Recreation Residences: 95 

Research Natural I\reas (RNRs): 26-27, 54, 95, 101, 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 

160, 180, 211, 287-290, 430-432 

Resident Trout: see Fish 

Righb-Of-WW: See Lands 

Riparian: 

235-236, 290-292, 337-338, 432-437, 480, 482-486 

13, 27, 30, 54, 89, 96, 110-111, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 173, 211, 

Roads: seeFacilities 

Sage G?xuse: 30, 99, 334-335 

- 

Semi-primitive Recreatian: 105-106 

Sensitive Plants: 27, 54, 212, 292-294, 437-440, 487 

Sierra Nevada Mnmtain Shesp: 

Sierra Nevada Red Fox: 330 

Smile: see Sea Dispersed Recreation 

Social Factors: 20-22, 32, 48, 198, 205, 224-229, 344-352 

Soils: see Watershed 

solar: 239 

see bbuntain Sheep 

Special Interest rueas and National Natural Lanchrks: 27, 55, 96, 111, 120, 

130, 140, 150, 160, 212, 295-296, 440-441 

Spottea Owl: 30, 99, 335 

- TBR: see- 

--, ered and Sensitive Species: 87-88, 98 

T-: 

140-141, 146, 150, 156, 160, 166, 171, 177, 180, 202, 212, 297-305, 441-446 

11, 27-28, 36, 55, 72, 83, 96, 103, 111, 116, 120, 126, 131, 136, 

Timber Policy Rquinxen ts (WR.9): 90 

Wails: see Facilities 

551 
Trout: see Fish 

TuleElk: 337 

UneVen-Aged Timber Maxlagmt: 103 

Utility Corridor: see Lands 

Visual Resources: 28, 36, 55, 97, 111, 120, 131, 141, 150-151, 161, 181, 

202-203, 212-213, 305-309, 447-455, 488 

- WLI: see Alternatives Eliminated 

- WLN: SeeBenchmarks 

Water: see watershed 

Watershed: 28, 37, 56, 72, 83, 89, 97, 111, 116, 121, 126, 131, 136, 141, 146, 

151, 156, 161, 166, 177, 203, 213, 309-324, 455-468, 488 

Western Sucker: see Fish 

Wild and Scenic Rivers: 29, 56, 98, 102, 111, 121, 131, 141, 151, 161, 181, 

213, 324-326, 468 

Wildemess: 11-12, 29, 37, 56, 78, 86, 98, 100. 111, 121, 131, 141, 151, 161, 

171-172, 181, 203, 213, 273, 326-328, 377, 468-474 

Wild Horse and Burro: 26, 268, 271 

Wildlife: 12-13, 29-31, 37-38, 56-57, 85, 88, 98-99, 111-112, 116-117, 121, 

126-127, 131-132, 136-137, 141, 146-147, 151, 156-157, 161, 166-167, 172-173, 

177-178, 203-204, 213-215, 328-338, 474-486, 488 

Williamson Sapsucker: 338 

windpawer: 23, 239 

wolverine: 330 

wood: =Timber 

Yellm warbler: 337-338 

552 
n x 

I I I I I 
Inyo National Forest 

Pacific Southwest Region USDA Porest Service 

Environmental 

Impact Statement 

pendix 

for the 

Land and Resource Management Plan 

19 88 

DENNIS W. MARTIN 

Porest superv,sor 

PAUL F. BARKER 

Reg~onal Forester 
Appendix A . 

Appendix B . 

pgpendix c . 

pgpendix D . 

Appendix E . 

Appendix F . 

Appendix G . 

*. -1- H . 

Appendix I . 

Apex J . 

Public Response Appendix ............................. 1 

Resource Allocation -1 and Analysis Process ....... 534 

Further Planning Area Description and Evaluation ..... 595 

Roadless Area Allccati om ............................ 716 

Major Silvicultural Systms and their Application .... 722 

EooMmic Efficiency Analysis ......................... 743 

Eludget Appendix ...................................... 745 

Timber Supply Appendix ............................... 751 

Bibliography ......................................... 761 

Gloss aril ............................................. 777 

i 
Appendix A 

Public 

Response 
APPENDIX A . PUBLIC RESPONSE AepENDuI 

HJBLIC CCdU1MESSIS AND FOREST SERvI(3E RFSPONSE 

TolnE 

DRAFT EMTIRoNMEhprzLL IMPACT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED INYO NATIONAL FOREST PLAN 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................. How to read the Public Carenents and Forest Service Response ........... public Response Profile ............................................... 

PUBLIC CCiWENE AND FOREST SERVICE RESPONSES 

Air euali ty ........................................................... Cultural and Historical Resources ..................................... Diversity ............................................................. hergy ................................................................ 

Geothermal Resources ............................................. IIydroelectric me rgy ............................................. Facilities ............................................................ Roads ............................................................ Geology ............................................................... Herbicides ............................................................ Lands ................................................................. 

Corridors ........................................................ Minerals .............................................................. Pest Management ....................................................... Planning Process - NEPA ............................................... Budget ........................................................... protection ............................................................ Range Management ...................................................... Recreation ............................................................ Alpine slumg .................................................... Ewelopea Recreation ............................................. Dispersed Recreation ............................................. Off-Highway Vehicles ............................................. Over-Snow Vehicles ............................................... Nordic Recreation ................................................ Research Natural Areas ................................................ Riparian Areas ........................................................ Sensitive Plants ...................................................... Socimc”ic m.ronment ............................................. Soils ................................................................. Special Interest Areas ................................................ Timber Management ..................................................... 

Visual Resoutces ...................................................... Water ................................................................. 

.. 

Vegetation ............................................................ 

3 

6 

7 

8 

10 

13 

17 

20 

30 

35 

39 

47 

48 

49 

53 

55 

68 

71 

82 

84 

88 

117 

122 

133 

145 

160 

176 

184 

188 

192 

205 

213 

223 

224 

228 

276 

278 

289 

Wild and Scenic Rivers ................................................ 300 

Wilderness ............................................................ 304 

1 
wildlife .............................................................. 332 

Fisheries ........................................................ 344 .......................................................... 351 

Management Indicator Species ..................................... 352 

M3mtai.n .p ................................................... 354 

Mule ......................................................... 359 

paregrine Falcans ................................................ 366 

Sage ....................................................... 367 

Sensitive and Threatened and md Species .................. 369 

Editarial oamwts .................................................... 373 

COPIES OF .......................................................... 379 

LISl! OF ......................................................... 464 

2 
s"RY OF HJmIC INVoLlJl" 

The Draft - tal Impact Statement and the proposed Land and Resource 

Management Plan for the Inyo Natimal Forest became available to the public on 

October 15, 1986 for a 90-day Mew perid. During this the, the Forest 

documents. These wrkshop were held laally in Mnm and Inyo Counties and in 

several Southem California locations. 

In respplse to public request, the original review perid was extended an 

amtional 60 days. The cnrment perid closed on March 15, 1987. A f-1 

public hearing was held in Bidmp, California on January 26, 1987. 

The Inyo National Forest received a total of 3,747 letters, pstcards, and 

other responses. Of the total, 1,933 were pre-printed postcards generated by 

the Ma"th/June Wnmtain Ski Resort. 

Every letter or input was read and analyzed. Each substantive statement was 

specifically identified and ccded. These individual statements were entered 

into a ccmputer database to assist in sorting by resource subjects. An 

interdisciplinary team of specialists worked together to group similar 

Garments, subjects, and con- into a unique set. These unique public 

torments were then responded to by the interdisciplinary team with review by 

the Forest Managenat Team. Pages 8 - 373 of this Appemhx ' displaytheunique 

cxn"ts for each resoucce and the Forest Service respcase. Detailed analysis 

of each letter and comnent is available in the p1annu-g records at the Forest 

Supervisor's Office. 

The public resp3nse included three letters that appeared to pmpe 

alternatives. These letters were fran Eastem Sierra Earth First, FYiends of 

the Inyo and the Scenic Shoreline preservation Confexence, Incorporated. 

The Earth First resp3nse prop3sed that the majority of the Inyo National Forest 

be reccmnended for wilderness designation or managed as "Wilderness Recovery 

Areas". They propossd 880,ooO acres of recormended wilderness inc1udi.q all 

roadless areas and RARE I1 released areas, and 280,000 acres of "Wildexness 

Recovery Areas.'' The management philosophy in "Wilderness Recovery Areas" 

would be to "...recreate or simply allow a return to conditions which existed 

prior to human disruption.. .'I by closing poorly maintamed unnecessary mads 

and eliminating grazing, logging and miniy to aid in the recreation of intact 

conducted worksbps to assist the public in . the fomtof the 

ecosystems. 

The WLN Benchmark Alternative described in the DEIS which was carried forward 

to the analysis of alternatives as the AMC Alternative is similar to the 

prop3c;ed Earth First alternative. The AMC Alternative recormended all further 

planning areas for wilderness designation; 62% of the Inyo Forest lands would 

be wilderness. With an additional 5% of Forest lands already having other 

restrictive designations such as the Mono Basm National Scenic Area, Research 

Natural Areas and the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, only 33% of the Forest 

would be available for the full range of managemnt options. The AMC 

Alternative was eliminated fm detailed study because there would be 

little opportunity for future managmt to change in response to changing 

public needs or ernrironmeutal conditions. Because the Earth First Alternative 

prop3sed an even greater nmtxr of acres for wilderness or the restrictive 

3 
designation of "Wilderness Recovery Areas", lt would have been eliminated fran 

detailed study for the same reasons. 

The reqmmcs fran the Friends of the Inyo and the Scenic Shoreline 

presemation Cimference, Inc. were analyzed in the same manner as all other 

responses. Neither proposed a canplete alternative, but, rather, were an 

organized series of ccmnents. Each corment was coded, analyzed, and 

appropriate changes were made to the Final Plan and EIS. 

Major Issues and Cc"ms Identified by the Public Response 

The public identified and ccmnented on many issues. The follorvlng five issues 

were identified as critical: allocation and distribution of wilderness; tlmber 

manag-t; livestock grazing; OW use; and managemnt of the geographical area 

frun Mamnoth Lakes north to June Lake. The issue of manage"t in the Mamoth 

to June area included the issues of alpine skiing, geothermal resources, timber 

managmt, &spersed recreatim including nordic ski- and -bile use, 

wildlife management, visual resom, and the effects of Forest Semice 

manag-t activities on the infrashucture of local Comrmnities. 

Other areas of "ern included vegetative diversity, fisheries, lands, 

minerals, the planning process including buaet and monitoring, riparian areas, 

sensitive plants, and water. 

Public respmse on the five critical issues are surrmarized as follows: 

ISSUE: 

Public CQrment was polarized relative to future management direction within the 

area north of the Town of Mammth Lakes, bounded on the east by U.S. 395, the 

west by the John Muir and We1 Adams Wildernesses, and the north by the 

ridgeline of the June Lake canplex. Sane supported making portions of the area 

available for alpine ski developnent within the planning periOa as opposed to 

others wlm supported maintaining the area in scme type of limited access 

category or wilderness designatim. Sane advocated protecting the Glass creek 

drainage frun developrent by designating it as a Special Interest Area. 

While timber harvest in the red fir stands was supported by some, others felt 

there should be no harvesting in order to retain exist- old growth 

conditicms. An additional concern was that if these stands were harvested, 

even-aged silvicultural practices should not be used. Sane respondents felt 

the draft Plan would have adverse inpacts on wildlife ppulations including 

migration of mule deer. 

Both the future of nordic skiing and "ubiling were questioned, involving 

perceived conflicts between the two uses. There was some feeling expressed 

that a non3.c concessiotlnaire opxation with grcrmed txails is inappropriate in 

the area. Fjnally, there were a" that the dative effects of all 

prop3sed activities, including geothermal developnent, should be addressed in 

the Forest Plan. 

MarlagaRmt of the area €ran Manlmth Lakes north to June Lake 

4 
ISSUE: 

public corrment ranged fm a desire for maximum wilderness to no more 

wilderness. There was particular interest in the amount of wildmess acres 

and location of the boundaries in the White and Inyo Mnmtains. Those desiring 

maximum wilderness advocated includirg all roadless areas and Further Planning 

Areas as a "I. 

Some felt that the percentage of total Inyo Forest lands reommukd for 

wilderness designation was inadequate. Reasons for increased wilderness 

include3 preservation for future generations, maintenance of eoological and 

species diversity and the philosophy that priority should be given to wildlife 

and plant species over the recreational needs of man by designating scne areas 

that are not typically considered "wilderness quality". 

Those opposed to additional wilderness were concerned that the designation is 

too restrictive. They felt that California has -gh wildexness and that 

wilderness designation denies access to public lands for specific sectors of 

society such as handicappd and older Americans. 

The Allocation and Distribution of Wilderness on the Forest 

ISSUE: Timber Managmerit, except in the Ma"th/.hme area which is covered in 

the Ma"&/- issue 

Much public comnent was received regan3.q the timber managenent program on the 

Inyo National Forest. Some respondents advocated no further timber harvest and 

assooiated mdbuildiq, others supported continued hamest as reccmnended in 

the Preferred Alternative while scme others supprtd an increased hamest 

level as proposed in the RPA Alternative. There was particular cancern abut 

the harvest of pure stands of red fir and Jeffrey pine. Also, there was 

concern regarding harvest methods. Sane suprted continued clearcutting: 

others advocated the use of uneven-age3 management techniques. 

ouler issues included the appropriate allowable sale quantity, acres allocated 

to the suitable timber landbase, and fuelwood managaent. Sane felt that the 

rxmlribution of the Inyo Forest to the local e€"y and to the Forest Service 

tunber taqets is insigrxificant and that the Forest should discontinue timber 

harvesting. Others pointed out the importance of Inyo Forest timber to their 

canpanies. 

ISSUE: LivestockGrazing 

public carment relative to livestock grazing ranged fm supprt of current 

levels to elimination of grazing Forest-wide. Some felt that grazing should be 

redud or eliminated to improve range condition. 0th- suppcrted ccoltinued 

livestock grazing at current or nxiuced levels. 

There was particular "tern about riparian habitat as it is affected by 

livestock grazing. There was supprt expressed for the Plan's statement that 

riparian dependent remurces receive priority but respndents wanted an 

explantion of how this would be acccmplished. 

5 
other issues included the cost-effectiveness of grazing, grazing in wilderness 

and the statellent in the Draft Plan that demand for red meat is -. 

Kern Plateau and in the White F4zu1-1- especially CottoPMlood creek. 

Reqxrdents e specific about grazing in MXlaChe Meadow, the 

ISSUE: Anumt of "Opm Area" and trails aesignatd for ms ad osvs. 

Public carments were plarized as bjng p"V or anti-oHv. Pro camnents 

supported the ptecticm imp"en t of existirg roads, bails and open 

anas. Sane favored expardd trail syst- and interest was ouemhelnringly for 

trail riding rather +&an CIDSs-mtry use. 

Those opposing Ws felt these uses are not cunpatible with other forest uses. 

Specific cx"s were mise, dust, -ail damage, ercsicm, watershed damage, 

disturbance to wildlife, destmcticm of plants, air pllutic~-~, public safety, 

and fire hazards. 

Them seemed to be some mnfusicm regarding Managemnt h-escripticm #17 and 

#18. Both PYesLxl 'ptims allowed for G€lV use only on aurent or designated 

roads and trails. Scme resp"ts seawd to interpret prescriptian #18 as 

allauing c~oss-ccuntq travel. Sam ppsd me3ntainirg the anent use in 

Foleta Canyon as the only "open area" cm the Forest. 

The public Comnents received on the Draft -tal Inpact Statement and 

prop3sed Land and Resaurce Managenent Plan were synthesized into 1183 unique 

CQrmentS which are listed in 45 categories. The interdisciplinary team which 

reviewed all the public comnents attenpted to capture each unique idea, 

"ient, concem, or issue. 

The charges made to the Draft EIS and Plan were not made because of the nunkers 

of times a ccmnent was received, but are reflective of the unique infomatian 

supplied by the public. 

Each public reqznse was assigned an identification n-. Responaents can 

find the ID nmber assignd to their respcase on Pages 375-478 of this 

-. 

You will notice that each "ient is followed by a number(s) in parentheses, 

perhaps followed by several mre nu" in a seccold set of parentheses. The 

first set of parentheses refers to the ID "hr(s) wbse language makes up 

this mt. sanetimes, several ID n"-s were ccmbined mto a sirgle 

wrment that could be answered by one Forest Service respnse. For the rmst 

part, the language in the CQrmentS is directly fmn the public respnses; very 

little paraphrasing was done. The second set of parentheses includes those ID 

nu" that were considered similar eryxlgh to be answered with the same Forest 

Service respnse. For example: 

6 
CCWlEWR The Plan sbould state explicitly that wildlife needs are to take 

prwekxx over livestock needs . In the Golden Trout Wilderness. cattle 

grazing should be severely limited to protect wildlife . (1489. 1843) (65. 

2170) 

The language displayed. in the ccmnent is fmn ID Mrmhers #1489 and #1843 . ID "hers #65 and #2170 included similar statements that were answered by 

the same Forest Sexvice response . 

Of course. & respcsldents had Inany individual comnents included in their 

letters . The individual 

cc”ts of each ID nmkr are tracked in the database which can be reviewed in 

the Forest Supervisor’s Office . Each ccmnent was jndividually coded and reqmr&d to . 

Total Respanses Received ....................................... 3747 

Mrmber of CamEntS coded ....................................... 8496 

Total Number of Wque carments ................................ 1183 

Totals by Respondent Catqory 

Individuals ................................................ 3593 

Cc”ation or B” tal Groups ......................... 32 

Motorized Recreation Inter& ............................... 11 

Recreational Forest Users .................................... 26 

F-t Induslzy .............................................. 11 

Business and Cumxcial Interests ............................ 28 

Academic Individuals or Gmups ............................... 6 

Resource Professionals ....................................... 15 

Tribal Groups ................................................ 0 

Local public Agencies ........................................ 3 

State Public Agencies ........................................ 6 

Federal Public Agencies ...................................... 7 

Elected hxal Officials ...................................... 7 

Elected State Officials ...................................... 1 

Elected Federal Officials .................................... 0 

7 
m: 

the DEIS and Draft Plan. (1632) 

"E: Little detail is given an air quality nKmitoriq because the 

pristine charader of the air in the area has never warranted an extensive 

"itoriq new. The Air po11utim am-1 Board "itors the suspect 

areas presently, and, as new areas becane susped, the "itoring Forogram 

will expand. 

Insufficient infonnatim is given an the issue of air quality in 

CCM": One way to inprove air quality and to alleviate the problem of 

snake frcm "s would be to stop the gathering and sale of fuelwood 

until stoves in the area are equip@ with catalytic burners or, as a 

rmni", meet the Oregon standards for emissions fran xcd inunjxg stwes. 

(382) (1548) 

m: Wssim standards for wmdstoves are set by County or City 

regulaticns. 

CCM": coordinate with local jurisdicticns to minimize off-Forest air 

quality impads such as woodstove &e and dust fmn dry lakes and recediq 

shorelines. (1638) 

-E: We do c" ' te with the Great Basin Air pollution Contzol 

Didrick, the nnrirOnmen tal Pmtectim Agency, the California Deparhnent of 

Foreshy and the Bureau of Land Manag-t. 

-: The Mn> -in is an htegral if not representative example of the 

health of our Forest's varied ecosyStem. The hp?icts of presently exposed 

15,000 acres of alkali lake bed, and the potential exp3sure of thDusands 

m, with the resulting dust, must be addressed in the Plan. (300) 

m: The Wmo Basin National Forest Scenic Area wrreqmds to 

Management Area #1 and is managed under Prescripticn #6. !Re questim of the 

exposed lake bed and air quality problems will be discussed in the Scenic 

Area Management Plan which is being developed cn a separate time frame as 

directed in Title I11 Sectim 304 of the California Wilderness Act of 1984. 

The Scenic Area Management Plan, upm canpletim, will be incorporated as an 

a"t to the Forest Plan. 

CCM": Air Qmlity. Please add to the list m Plan IV-18: "The Forest 

StvviCe will exert its autbrity over Nation& Forest System lands in order 

to assure that these lands are mansued to maintain air aualitv that -lies 

with 

quality." (1617) (225, 2213) 

applicable regulatia &-&vents significant-dete2oration of air 

m: This is federally mandated. 
CCM4DW.: Air Quality, DEIS 111-6. Please define BACC and PSD. They are not 

in the glossary. 

mFCNSE: 

What is their significance? (1634) 

We have added these terms to the glossary. 

-: Air mality. On DEIS IV-18, please add dewatering of alkaline 

lakes to ywr indicators for activities that take place on Forest Service 

lands that affect air quality. The "assumption" that "the only substantial 

changes in air quality would be the long-term changes associated with 

canmmity grcwth and geOthermal/rnjneral developnent" should also list "the 

dewatering of alkaline lakes". This sectim correctly goes on to identify 

"water mining (groundwater pun pix^) and water regulation including 

diversions" as activities that impact air quality on the Forest and as a 

''consequm com~~n to all alternatives." Hawever, the document incorrectly 

assumes that these activities are "Outside Forest Service ccoltrol", 

especially in the case of btam Lake. As we have previously mentioned, no 

mattar the alternative, the U.S. Gwernment, as owner of propxtl 'es littoral 

to btam Lake, has direct jurisdictim over the causes of degradation to these 

lands. It should be stated here that, in all alternatives, the Forest 

S-ce will exert its authority to resolve this pblem. (1617) 

RISECNE: This will be addressed in the Mmo Basin National Forest Scenic 

Area Plan. 

CCM4DW.: The DEIS watershed don sbould mention the exp3sure of the 

alkali lake bottan due to water diversions fm Mmo Basm and the 

increasingly severe dust storms which have violated State and Federal Air 

Quality Standards. (See Bruce H. Kuslco and Thanas A. Cahill. mil 1984. 

Study of Particle EpisoaeS at btam Lake, Final Report to CalifoIllia Air 

Resources Board cn Ccmtract #AL-144-32). The ammpqriq desiccation of 

streams has resulted in the destructim of riparian vegetation, the lowering 

of water tables, major erasion of stream banks and penrasive stream channel 

instability. (1617) 

-E: This will be addressed in the btam Basin National Forest Scenic 

Area Plan. Both stakim-~ts are true. 

CCM4DW.: With regard to skiing, what of the air quality in the (xyerzs Valley 

and Mammth Lakes c"ities? More cars mean 1- air quality; mre people 

in Mammth mean mre wccd fires: and - wccd fires mean less trees and 

firewxd for lccals and poor air quality. There will be more sewage and a 

much him de"3 for water. Shouldn't the Forest Service look into these 

aspects and address them m31y3 Specifically in the Plan? (2177) (62, 1632) 

RISECNE: Prim to any further developnent of ski terrain between Mammth 

and June Mxmtain, a dative inpact analysis will be dcme addressing the 

cc~lcems expressed ahme. Refer to additional language added under the 

facilities element for Management Area #8. 

9 
m: Tb increase in carbcn did& alq with the increase in 

flurocartxrrs and the "ade chemicals may lead to a general warming of the 

planet and a decmase in p1~~5pitatim-1 in many areas. These effects will 

probably becane apparent in the next few decades. While this may be a 1ce-g~ 

the scale than you are requFred to lodr at for the plrpase of fonrmlating 

tha Etuest Plan, I believe that this shalld be Ccosidered since the Forest 

will definitely be affected by this #ern". (1547) 

REspcpIsE: This is beyond the scape of the Forest PlannjlY3 process. 

m: Air wity, Plan 111-6. Currwt 'on and LL ' 'ties for 

chaqe. The statanent that "Thare is rn evident need for change in 

managenent" is jnwrmct. wh-dbom dust blawing from the expxed bbm Lake 

bed continues to violate State and Fedcml ewgency levels for 

particulates. Lake's dust amtains 10 times the sulfates of Cwem dust, 

as well as other substances suspeded to te harmful to Plants, animals and 

humans. Dust storm epi& carry this dust many miles beycsla Scenic ma 

boundaries inb 'hg Forest lands and bymd state lines. This 

sectian stvxlld be hrcught up to date, since the U.S. Government has been 

fd tobe an owner of lrl~lo Lake bed lands (State of Ca., ex. rel. State 

Lands Cannissicn v. U.S.A., et al, S-80-0696). It appears to us that the 

best way that the Forest Service could take this opportunity to chqe 

current policy vnxlld be to exert its authority to establish a mininnrm lake 

level that would solve the windborn dust pnblem. (1617) (129, 278, 1843, 

2170) 

RESPCRISE: This will be addressed in the Wxm Elasin National Forest Scenic 

Area Plan. 

UWiTm: It &mld be noted that ths oppo&um 'ty exists to coordinate 

historical ad prehistorical presenmticsl efforts with local jurisdicticms 

and historical groups thrmgh the pparatim of local historic preservatim 

elgnents. (1638) 

RESFc": Lacal jurisa.Lcticn3 and historical groups, as well as other 

interested publics such as Indian tribes, will be cansulted when an action 

which requires the developnent of historic preservation elements is 

underbken. 

m: Pinycm-junim forested areas gmally have the highest density of 

archaeological sites in the Irryo National Forest and are subject to 

destxuction by woodcutters and off-road users. Rebuilding habitat and 

pdxctiq archaeological fead in Uese areas can be acccmplishd by a 

mratorim on woodcutting and limited vehicle access. (1642) 

RESWNSE: Strategies for the pmtection of all cultural sites, including 

road clcsures, will be developd as apprcpriate. Wcsdcuttirg policy and OHV 

10 
restrictim will be evaluated for the effects they have on the cultural 

resources of the pinyon-junip forest. 

m: cultural resources inventmy should be a high priority of the 

Forest S&ce. Mining, loggirg and ORV abuse should not OCCUT a any lands 

that have rot yet been hventoried (95%) for cultural "es. (1634) 

m: The effects of all on culhral resources will be 

considered prim to allawing that activity. The project: area will be 

inventoried and all sites evaluated for signi.ficance. Signtficant cultural 

sites will be protected. Continued "itor- will assess the effectiveness 

of proteAicm measures and remedial action will be taken where necessary. 

EM.": Pleased to sea recqnitim of the ne& for surveys and inventories 

of cultural resources. Did not sea any firm plan for protecting the areas 

prior to survey. (1900) 

RESCNSE: An e"mntal analysis is lpepared for any site specific 

prop3sal m activity which considers impacts on all resources including 

cultural resources. 

CaM": Regardiq the archaeological districts (such as Round Mnmtain - 

Casa Diablo), I feel that sheep should be barred. They do a great deal of 

damage, disrupt the soil, remsve grass, roots and all. (1900) 

REsP(1NsE: The allotment managenent plan for each livestock allotmest is the 

vehicle to outlhe protection measures for all resources including cultural 

resources. Public Participation will be invited in the developnent of the 

allotment management Plans. 

CaM": Regarding the cabin at Casa Vieja Meadows in the munt Whitney 

District, this cabin would probably not qualify as essential for the safety 

of srnv surveyors MT would it be essential to the a&inistration of Golden 

"ut Wilderness, thus the loq raqe goal is probably for remmal dess the 

sbx- is &termbed eligible for retention as a historic place. I do 

laym that this is a unique cabin that represents a way of life in the Forest 

Service that is gone forever. I believe it qualifies as a historic place and 

should be eligible for historic preservation. (33) 

m: The Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for wilderness 

inwrprate existing wilderness managenent plans. The Golden Trout 

Wildemess Managewnt Plan contains direction for the Casa Vieja Guard 

Station cabin. Before any action would be taken to remrnre the structure, we 

muld do a detennjnation of significance, which means to determine the 

eligibility of the structure for the National Register of Historic Places. 

Retention or remsval of the cabin could also be affected by its need for SIMW 

survey shelter. 

11 
CXMENl!: In the Inyo Naticmal Farest, there is m mtion of the area k” 

as the Mammth Consolidated Gold mine. The Town of Mammth Lakes would like 

to have this area desiwtezl to be maintained as a historical site. (1891) 

m: The Tawn of Manmth Lakes just recently decided to take over 

re.storatim of the mth mlidated Gold Mine and make it available to 

the public as an historical attraction. The Forest Plan will not deal with 

the “g-t of the mine as an historical attractian. RecreatFon direct^ ‘an 

for Manag-t Area #9 - Marmoth is to provide trail opportunities with the 

ccmnunity of Manrmth Lakes. This would cover access to the Mammth 

Ctmwlidated Mine. 

CUWINl!: There should be closure of scme 4WD roads in Pi- because of 

erosion, and people are steal- petroglyplrs. (1261) 

REspoNsE: The well presarved state of cultural resources in the PiManagement Area will be mdntaimd thrcugh appropriate measures which may 

include road Closures. 

CUWINl!: With such a high density of cultural sites, it is a shame that only 

five percent of the Forest has been inventoried. (1634) (1777) 

RESPCNSE: The inventory is biq as quickly as possible given budget 

and-. 

CUWINl!: The High Sierra Stock Users zlssociatim believes that certain areas 

Of the JhjO Naticmal F& show an hpc-hlt living part Of Our Mtirmal 

heritage that should nCrt be allowed to fran the American scene. 

One example of this is Jordar~ Hot Springs. Although we recOgnize that the 

Golden Trout Wilderness Managment Plan governs the use of Jordan Hot 

Sprjngs, we feel that it is incumbnt upcsl Forest S&ce leadership to take 

an active role in seeking to pressme aspects of cur cultural heritage. 

Although the facilities at Jordan Hot Spriqs are not ten tbousand years old 

as some of the Indian prehistnric sites my be, they have played an impcrtant 

role in the develoyrwt of this part of California. For this reasm, we feel 

protezt such sites rather than sinply 1ettix-g such sites be lost through 

inaction. 

Golden Trout Wilderness was created. (1666) 

m: 

if it is eligible far listing CUI the National Resister of historic places. 

very strcqly that efforts shuld be exprded by FmeSt Service 1- ‘P 

It may be that the em&”mtal p2IxlullmI SWuIq too far when the 

Jordan Hot Spings will be evaluated for significance to deta”s 

CUWINl!: A ccmplete inventory of the existirag prehistoric sites shDuld be 

implmented in the Pia country, and a prqram for research and protectian 

should be -idered. (1608) (1638) 

m: SeeApPendur ‘ A of the Plan for a list of plans that will be 

prepared dwil-g Plan inplementaticHI. 

12 
CCM-EXF: The Forest Service is to be comnended for recognizing the need for 

a &toring and evaluation prcgram. Before a program can begin, baselme 

data needs to be established. Species diversity as a category to be 

mxitored is allotted a low level of precision and validity. Tins is 

unacceptable; it must be improved. (2115) 

RESKNSE: This ccmnent is referring to vegetation diversity, and the 

application of diversity gudelines cm the Forest. The major concem seems 

to lie in the allocation of wetation ca"ities/seral stages cm the Forest 

and especially the allocation of old growth &fer stands. The Forest is in 

the of developjng an iql-tation plan for allocating old growth on 

a timber canparhnent basis. The "itorirg guidelines will be rrodified to 

reflect this and other -toring methods relative to diversity. 

C€MdENC Diversity, Plan IV-19. This discussion presents prublems. Where 

did the 5% m fm? It seems arbitrazy and insufficient. Please explain 

since dimity is measured Forest-Wide, the 5% figure for seral stage 4C 

(70% or mre canopy cover) could mean that the 5% left is in a non-lmkerq 

area and hence all the other 95% could be cut. This is unacceptable. The 

provisions of ParagraM 2 skuld be clarified to mcate how Stripping the 

Forest of the various timber types and seral stages will be avoided. How 

does this concept of managwsnt apply to We types whxh are mt logged 

such as foxtail pine? Im't alpine fellfield a plant cannunity? Does it 

fall within this management plan of diversity? Will seral states of shrubs 

be arbitrarily manipulated to achieve "desired" seral stage diversity ? This 

entire diversity section needs to be to wver many such questions. 

( 1431 ) 

"E: The Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for diversity were 

derived fron regional gudelines. These sharld be viewed as mini" rqured 

levels of diversity for the various successional stages, vegetation 

camunities and canopy cover types. In forested habitats, these levels would 

orily be implwsnted on lands identified suitable for timber manag-t, 

approximately 69,000 acres. The remainder of the Forest would mt be managed 

for timber hamest purp3ses. Thus, within areas prescribed for timber 

managmt, 10 percent would be managed in the older seral stages 

(app"te1y 40+% canopy cover). Outside of this area, there would be m 

reduction of old-growth forested stands. 

The diversity portian of the Plan has been rewritten to better incorporate 

variou sections of the Preferred Alternative. This information is currently 

in the Plan, but is scattered throughout several areas. 

CXBMENC: The EIS niust make clear that intemive timber harvesting will 

reduce biological diversity Forest-wide. The EIS axasionally aclamwledges 

this: DEIS N-28 States "suitable timberlands would shift toward earlier 

successimal stages and greater di-ity due to timber managaent". There 

is 1y3 sbrtage of earlier successional stages cm the Forest; by conixast, 

there is relatively little old growth and that amount is being g-rackmlly 

13 
liquidated. The EIS sbauld TBcognize that old growth enhances the Fcmst's 

overall biological divElrsity and that hmsthg such areas reduces 

diversity: this Euwides ancrthar paaful reason to prese2ve such areas. 

Intensive timbar hame&kg will leduce ths pateutlal habitat for 

(1649) (127, 1108, 1617, 1634, 2170) 

m: 

late seral stages on aily 69,200 acres allocated to this prescription. In 

areas hhera Jeffrey phe has been historically haNfskd (&ly Management 

Areas #5 and #7), the old gruvth should actually increase as 10% of this area 

will be allocated to old growth management. Chmmtly, there is essentially 

no old growth Jeffrey pina in these Mamgemnt Areas outside of the Indiana 

Sdt Natural Area. The areas where old growth is expected to decrease are 

in the loagepole pine timter types that fall wiW Management Areas #4, #5 

and #7. since the FEIS and FXMl Plan will recarmend that pure stands of red 

fir be removed from the timber base, species depenaent on this habitat will 

not be adversely affected by management activities. 

c"r: 

meet NFVA standards for n!aintainhg biological di-ity (36 CFR 219.27(G), 

36 CFR 219.26). (1634) 

RESPCELSE: The standatds and Guidelines for diwzsity ex& those set forth 

in the Regia guidelines. They also meet the legal intent for maintaining 

biological diversity as defined by NWA. 

It is my feeling that the proposed Guidelines fcu di-ity do not 

c"r: In the result of fire suppressicsl, it is doubtful that maintenance 

of 5 percent of each tinker type and 10 percent of each shrub type in each 

seral stage could bear much resemblance to an histDrically diverse condition 

(DEIS 111-22). Thts canparison should be made and retention standards for 

seral stages of naturally diverse vegetative types sbould be designed to 

address existiq deficiencies. The 5.4 peroent listed here as a mini" to 

be kept in Wds seral stage is nut emugh to maintain the Inyo's existing 

wildlife diversity and (2170, 2190) 

m: In shrub ccl"itiw, fire SupEneSsion and livestock grazing 

Wly influenced the change in vegetatim amnumities fmn a shrub-steppe 

tvpe to cme that is pmd"n * tlyshrubdcminated . Thegoal of 10 percent in 

each of threa seral stages would increase the diversity of otherwise 

mtypic stands. This muld rmra closely app" * te upland shrub habitats 

as they existed historically. 

The goal of 5 percent in each timber -/seral stage "bination is the 

"rm R@mal sbndard. The cmly area where this mini" level would be 

managed for is in those areas identified as suitable for timber managenient. 

Theremainder of the Forest: wmld not be placed under timber managment and 

thus would have percentages that exceed the mini". 

The 5.4 peroent cxiteria ref- caily to stands suitable for timber managenient 

that were allocated for old growth ~plrpases to meet diversity requiremen ts. 

While assessing needs for old gmwth, we determined that in order to meet 10 

14 
DIVERSITY 

percent old growbh requirements in areas suitable for timber management, that 

4.6 parcent cauld be obtamed ‘ us- areas unsuitable for tinbr management 

that were in- stands suitable for timber management. The 

remaining 5.4 percent would be allocated for old grawth management fm the 

suitabletimberstands. Theremaindar of the Forest would not be managed for 

tImberharvestpurposes,thusoldgrowthpercentagesontheseacreswouldbe 

higher. 

since the pure red fir stands will not be hanrested und€r the Preferred 

Alternative, this old growth allccatim applies primarily to Jeffrey pine 

stands, and loagepole pine to a lesser extent. 

m: We are not satisfied with the treatment of diversity in the Plan 

because it provides for maintenance of diversity in tenmi of the skucture 

and age of cc”ities. Biological dimity (the “br and relative 

ab”a of species) is not adequately addressed. We believe it is this 

facet of diversity that Chngres was seeking to protect in FLFMA and related 

legislation. The Plan does not show adequate ccolcern for the effects of the 

lnoposed increases in road building, timber harvest, grazing and recreation 

on species diversity. (1108) (65, 89, 104, 176, 381, 400. 466, 904, 938, 979, 

1107, 1216, 1232, 1332, 1431, 1433, 1485, 1509, 1541, 1565, 1617, 1631, 1634, 

1638, 1648, 1663, 1709, 1857, 1907, 1930, 1982, 1985, 2047, 2061, 2109, 2117, 

2130, 2147, 2170, 2178, 2190) 

m: Diversity is mch m>re than the application of vegetation/seral 

stage guidelines. It is the canbination of many different physical and 

biological phenanena that together make up habitats. Plant species, seral 

stages, crown closures, vegetation structure, snags, and dam logs are all 

criteria that ccoltribute to diversity. In the Forest Plan, diversity was 

addressed using rquh?mnts developed for vegetatim patterns; down 

log/snags; threat-, endargered, and sensitive species; Fies that are 

ecological indicators; species of special interst; harvest species; aquatic 

ecosystems; and riparian i-dxktats. The collcept of diversity is to insure 

that viability of all species and habitats will be maintained. 

m: Under the “mnitorjng objective“ wlm of “diversit$‘ activity, 

delete “Forest-wide”. Distribution of successional stages should apply to 

“pliance so long as the ovexaI.1 Forest average was met. (1431) 

RESWNSE: The Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines for wildlife habitat 

types state that requirements will be met on areas of app” ’ tely 10,ooO 

acres. This shDuld insure intersprsion of various vegetation ”ities 

and seral stages. 

each area. “Forest-Wide“ would permit - to be in 

m: The prutection of Wildlife habitat and species diversity shDuld 

receive priority over other uses. The follmirg managaient goals for Inyo 

are totally unacceptable. 59-6s decrease in old growth forest, 32-69% 

decrease in early and mid-successional brush, 17% decrease in wet meadows, 

and a 9% increase in grazing. This planned reduction of wildlife habitat is 

imespnsible and J?XZ managment. The Forest projects (DEIS Table IV-46) 

15 
DIVERSITY 

that inplementatian of the preferred Alternative will result in decreases in 

key MIS habitat. These decreases will significantly cmnb5hte to a 

n4uckicm in forest diversity. Neither the Plan IxX the DEIS address the 

reductions in MIS habitat in terms of decreases in diversity. (1730, 2047) 

(225, 381, 400, 466, 938, 979, 1180, 1216, 1232, 1332, 1485, 1509, 1541, 

1565, 1648, 1663, 1709, 1857, 1907, 1930, 1982, 1985, 2061, 2103, 2109, 2117, 

2170) 

RESKNSE: With the of pure stands of red fir fran the suitable 

timber base in the Final Plan, the reduction in old growth will be 

significantly less. Decreases in old gmwth will occur mainly in ldgeple 

pine within the areas intensively managed for timber harvest and in mixed 

stands of Jeffrey pine and red fir. Deaeass in old growth will occur only 

within the suitable timber base. The radniq acres of forested habitats 

outside of this area will have increases in the old growth cxmpnxznt. 

The decrease projected for mid and early brush seral stages is a result of 

"ag-t activities designed to reduce -typic mature stands to a stage 

mre indicative of historical dticns. This activity would result in 

increasing diversity in these stands, not dezreasing it. The decrease in wet 

meadows is the result of mt implementing watershed restoration on all wet 

meadrnvs on the Forest. 

a3": Diversity, Plan 11-5. SMd state that livestock grazing reduces 

diversity by canslrmirag preferred species, increasing the frequency of 

mnpreferrd plants and the -ion of annuals and alien species. (1617) 

REspopJsE: Light or moderate g~aziq can inp- species diversity. 

Overgrazing results in the demease in diversity by allmug invasion of 

exotic annuals and other "preferred species. Overgrazing can also he a 

causal factor in creating headcuts and streambank erosion. This in tum can 

lower water levels, resulting in undesirable charges in vegetation 

ccnnnmities. The key to effective livestock grazing lies in the ability to 

adequately mtzol stocking densities and distribution so that the results 

enhance habitats, not detract fran them. 

m: Diversity Standards and Guidelines, Page W-19. What is meant by 

managing for a "threshold level of vegetation types and seral stages"? 

Threshold of ecosystem or "nity collapse? A healthier standard would 

be: (1) Identify all ecosystems on the Forest and inventory all plant and 

animal annnmities and ppulation levels; (2) Manage easystems to retain or 

recover genetically viable plant and animal ppulaticm; (3) Manage for 

sufficient acreage and diqersion of each ecosystem to prevent frayentation 

and isolation of habitats. (1577) 

RESKNSE: The Diversity Standards and Guidelines have been modified to 

inprove clarity. Mrmber 1 is not realistic given the current buclgets. 

16 
tXM4ENC Developnent of hydro and geothermal power on the Forest should be 

limited to areas which already have substantial developnents of other types 

such as roads or buildings. (1027) 

RFSKSE: Geothermal resources and stream flows suitable for developnent do 

rot always mincide with previously developed areas. Developnent of these 

resources needs to OCCUT where the resources are located. In working mth 

potential developers, we enmurage the use of existirig disturbed areas, 

roads, or the clustering of facilities to the extent possible. An addition 

has been made to the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines under Energy to 

reflect this philosophy. 

aX": We support natural p3wer like hyazp plants, geothermal, solar, 

windmill or what- other type of natural energy sources are available, 

preferably in that order. (43) 

RES-: While implementaticol varies fran Forest to Forest, the national 

policy is to enanrage energy prduction on National Forests where it can be 

done in an enviranmentally acceptable fashion. 

aX": In your section titled I%Nircaynen tal Gmsequences - Assmptions, 

add: "Impads fm energy develapnent can be mitigated by reducirg the size 

of the developnent and/or its location: impacts can be pvented by denying 

the developnent when "mental are unacceptable. The 

clrmulative impacts of existing energy developnents on Forest reso-s will 

be evaluated, as dictated by the requirements of CEgA and NEPA, and measures 

taken to repair any damage to Forest resources that has already occurred." 

(2170) 

-E: We agree that impacts fm developnent can be prevented by denyiq 

propxed projects. However, inclw this statement in the EIS implies that 

the Forest Service has the authority to deny proped developmnt, which in 

scme cases it does not. Based on an analysis of a proposed snall hydro 

project, the Farest can reccmnend denial of the project to the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Carmission (FERC) if the estimated impacts are considered 

unacceptable. The FERC can, however, issue a license even if the Forest 

reccnmends denial of a project. For these projects the FERC will ask the 

Forest for inpact mitigation measures which the FERC muld include as license 

conditions. These mitigation measures could include a recarmended instream 

flcw which the project must maintain. 

Geothermal leases extend to the lessee the right to explore for and develop 

the geothermal resource, prwiding that developnent canplies with the 

oonditions set forth in the lease. The Bureau of Land Manag-t and the 

Forest Service jointly analyze the effects of geothermal developnent. The 

two agmcies may differ on the magnitude or importance of the identified 

impacts. The BLEl has the authority to approve geothermal developmnt wer 

the recoRnendations of the Forest service if agreement "miq impacts and 

mitigation effectiveness cannot be reached. 

17 
Actlvlties on Natiaml Forest system land are g”=d by the Naticmal 

-tal policy Act of 1967. Sam level of e”ental document is 

canpleted on all projects. These analyses include an -ate level of 

amulativa impact analysis, generally identified &ring the sooping process. 

We feel that including this xudirg wiW the EIS is “dant and 

-. 

Cammr: Managenent prescription #3, mxgy. Does this mean that m new 

energy aevelapnents can be installed? How about new p3war lines? This needs 

fw33-n~ explanation because bigbm sheep do mt react negatively to 

facilities such as pmer lines and tawers. Will “J be excluded fram this 

Prescription if it ccrnflicts with wildlife values? Based on the sheep that 

are located on the Angeles Natimal Forest, sheep respd to lack of food and 

human presence rather than the presence of facilities. The managaient 

direCt.cn that is given here for energy does mt seem ripe for a broad bnA 

stakment, but rather it should resp-d to a site specific case. This seems 

like a de fad0 wi-awal, subject to the interpretation of the current 

Forest Officer. Managgnent Fresxiption #4, Energy. Sam CDmnent as abwe. 

The assumption is that facilities will significantly affect wildlife values. 

why mt put this in the positive and say that the energy developments need to 

be cxnpatible with wildlife values. (29) 

REspcpIsE: We have included mrdirg suggested by your ament. However, we 

where identified impacts are -tigable and/or unacceptable. Ultimately the 

respnsible Forest official will make a decision based cm a site specific 

envirornwtal document whether or not a praposed project is appropriate. It 

should be clear that for Fresxipticms #3 and #4 the management aphasis is 

on wildlife and that wildlife needs will influence the extent of and 

restraints on ewgy developnent. 

have also retained the CaBlCept of against energy devel0pnent 

m: (xmnilative impacts of energy developmt, partiqlarly geothermal 

and snall hydro, need to be assessed. (1634) (91, 328, 1617, 1857, 2180, 

2190) 

-E: We agree. However, we do mt feel that the Forest Plan is the 

place to dDcument those effects. The Forest Plan does rot specifically 

pennit any energy developnent. The FEIS discusses energy developent as a 

pssible managanent activity, discusses in general terms it could 

“r. aclrncrwledges COllRitrnents which have already been mde, and provides 

management direction for addressing it on a site specific basis. Mative 

impacts will be discussed as dinxted by NEPA for specific projects at the 

time the projects are proposed and their effects analyzed. 

Cammr: Solar energy 

dDes rot adversely affect the e“mnt in areas such as water quality, air 

quality and mise polluticsl as geothermal does. The Inyo National Forest is 

lamwn for its high “br of sun days per year. (2115) 

A solar errugy proaudion plan shDuld be considered. 

18 
-: While we are inbrested frun an inf-tional point of view in 

solar developnent, there has been little indication that private industty is 

in- in solar developnent cm the Forest. We feel that prcduction or 

developnent plans should come fran industry, not fran the Forest. The 

impads of such a plan ad be analyzed onca it is Koposed. 

m: Prescription #5 - Energ. This is really ocslfusing! Here you are 

all- energy exploration or developnent. What ahout wind ewgy? Are you 

going to allow a wind fann in a Research Natural Area? Shauld thzs be the 

SameasPreScn 'ption #4 and say that the- energy developnent should be 

cmip2tible with the value of the particular area? Lands - Permit no utility 

right-of-way if not casistent with the energy direction. 

What are the Forest goals for wind energy developnent? Or here, are you 

talking about the Forest goals for SQne 0- TesouTcB (IV-20)? Have any 

guidelines for evaluation of wind farms been established in the Plan? Page 

111-10 is not clear. The Forest policy for wind fa?ms has mt been 

established. (29) (33, 129, 225, 1616, 1891, 2170) 

m: 

Prescription #5 to read "Allow no energy exploration or dewlopent". 

will be "sistent with the directz 'on under lands and minerals. 

There are no established goals or guidelines for wind energy developnent on 

the Irryo National Forest. National policy is that energy mction is an 

appropriate use of National Forest System land. With wind energy, as with 

small hydrcelcstric ene?qy, the Federal Ersrgy Regulatoxy Mssion (FERC), 

has jurisdiction over the issuance of energy pxiuction licenses. The Forest 

Service has M Ccsltrol over who applies for permits to develop such 

facilities. The Forest Service responds to the FEEC with license conditions 

based on site specific ernrircaunental &cumen* which analyze the effects of 

the prop3sed projects. Until nnre specific policy can be established, the 

Fmest-wide St- and Guidelines for energy state that wind energy must 

be anpatible with the attainment of Forest goals for othex resources. 

We have rewritten the energy maMgement direction for Manag-t 

This 

CCM4Wl': 

energy developnent or exploration"? (912) 

RESPONSE: 

have removed it. 

In regards to Plan IS?-58 - Energ, should this not read "Allow m 

We agree that the wording in the Draft Plan is inappropriate and 

m: It should be noted that "J Cnunty is in the p-ss of securing a 

grant to fund the preparation of an en- el-t for the County's General 

Plan. Policies developd fran the study may be appropriate for application 

to Forest as well as private lads. (1638) 

"E: We believe .that close coordination between the Counties and the 

Forest is essential when dealing with energy related issues. We will be mt 

interested in the final wording of the county's energy element. 

19 
m: Plea,% add a FareSt-wide Standard and Guideline for hergy aS 

follows: Investl ‘gate the potential for new energy developnents to provide 

affordable power to Forest facilities and lccal onnumiti-. (1638) 

m: The Forest is not in the business of prcducing power either for 

OUT own or others ccBIsLmp3ticB1. 

axWEIw: proceed with geathermal exploration and devel0pnent in the Hot 

cr%=k Airprt area only. No other areas. (2031) 

RESPCRISE: Mtl-”l developnent will depena on the location of a 

developable resource and restrictianS which are mt prchibitively expensive. 

Gnce ge0thenm.l leases are sold, it‘s up to the developer to propose a 

location for the deVelOpnent. 

m: Refusal of geow drilling on mche Meadows. (1376) (281) 

m: An e“mntal analysis was ccmpleted Wirg 1985 which analyzed 

the effects of leasing geothermal resources in the mche area. The 

Decision Notice written subsequent to the analysis denied geothemml leasing 

because the analysis identified what were mnsida-ed unacceptable impacts. 

Denial of leases does not prevent drilling; however, scme of the unacceptable 

impacts were directly related to the impowmat of access to the area. For 

some drilling activitiw, these same impads muld be incurred . Itshaildbe 

noted that the area has rat been withdrawn fran mineral entry. 

gwthwmal proposals would need to be reanalyzed based on up-to-date reSOurce 

information. 

CCm”: No further geothermal exploration or developnent should be allmed 

until dative impacts of existirg geothermal developnent plans on Forest 

values have been dek?”l and appropriate mitigation plans detailed. The 

heavily h6ustrial character of geothermal operations must be mre clearly 

recognized in the Plan and its major areas of impact should be mre 

specifically addressed. While these are, for the most part, mtioned in the 

Plan, their potential for serious disLIptian or lq-tam degradation of the 

enviroarment are not given the -is that we believe to be their due. This 

developnent on the Inyo Naticmal Forest. These areas of impact include air 

pollution fran ai” ‘c emissions and fugitive dust, water pollution fran 

accidental spills of geabemal fluids and chemical materials, degradation of 

aquatic ecOSyStemS and fisheries, disturbance of wildlife and destructian of 

their habitat, depletion of the system that supply Hot (seek 

and other hot sprjqs, depleticm of g”ter, cc“ptive watw use, land 

fm .transformation, visual jmpacts of bdustr ial facilities and operaticolal 

-, - ‘al mise, and incnasd vehicular traffic including heavy 

truckirg on the roads of the region. (466, 118) (274, 278, 329, 341, 400, 

467, 914, 923, 933, 950, 953, 954, 993, 1007, 1107, 1118, 1162, 1195, 1223, 

is particularly true given the moxbn . magnitude of future geothd 

20 
1252, 1317, 1399, 1407, 1430, 1433, 1532, 1545, 1565, 1573, 1583, 1599, 1617, 

1638, 1644, 1659, 1660, 1716, 1729, 1730, 1763, 1795, 1837, 1858, 1862, 1876, 

1884, 1891, 1907, 1943, 1948, 1954, 1977, 1991, 2030, 2045, 2060, 2071, 2077, 

2081, 2087, 2089, 2099, 2102, 2115, 2129, 2170, 2178) 

-E: We sbxmgly agree with the need to identify and understand the 

potential impacts, both individual and cumulative, which muld result fm 

geothermal developnent. As you suggest, they are many. Impacts have been 

identified in the followiq eminmwntal documents prepared for activities 

in the Long Valley Knmin Geothermal Resource Area: the National Leasing 

"mental Impact Statement prepared by the Department of the Interior, 

the Mammth-~ unit Planning - tal Analysis, the Leasing 

"mental Analyse for Lease Blocks I and 11, and site specific 

-tal documents for the past and current exploration and developnent 

proposals. As we understand lmre about the local geothermal system and the 

effects of its developnent, additirmal impacts may be identified. 

Based on many soufces of information, the Forest Plan attempts to identify 

what is the most appropriate use of any given parcel of land. The direction 

provided by the Plan can certaml ' y affect which site specific uses cccur; 

however, the approval of specific uses is mt authDrized by the Plan. For 

this reaso81, the Plan identifies, in a generic way, impacts associated with 

different uses but does not analyze those impacts in great detail. We do not 

feel that it's appropriate for the Plan to attenpt to detail the impacts of 

site specific uses or developnents, sane of which may never ham. 

The detailed analysis occurs on a project specific basis in a separate 

envirrmmental doclrment. CLrmUlative impacts are identified and mitigation 

measures are developed as part of the analysis. The mitigation measures 

would be included as rxmditions of exploration or developcent should the 

analysis mt identify unmitigable, unacceptable impacts. 

The decision that sane form of geothermal developnent in the Icuq Valley 

Known Resource Area is appropriate has already been made. 

Persmal philceophies will differ over the correctness of the decision, haw 

much or little developnent is appropriate, and where developnent should 

occur, if any. However, the leases extend.mg * the right to develop have been 

sold. The task rxm is to assure that the impacts which occuz' are kept to 

levels identified as acceptable in the envirrmmental documents. 

m: As well as jnvolvirg consmptive water use, geothermal energy 

developnent will inevitably wntribute to water quality madation through 

sedimentation and accidental spills of geothermal fluids and chemical 

materials. (118) 

FUSKtSE: We agree that ground disturb- activities cnntribute to 

sedimentation. The magnitude of the sediment pmblem would de- on haw 

successful mitigation measures are in preventfm~ sediment fm mwing to 

stream channels. We disagree with the implication that any surface 

disturbance will degrade water quality. We believe that the mplementation 

of Best Management Practices significantly reduces the potential for water 

21 
quality degradatial fran sedimentatccn even in thDss iveas Wbre sediment 

could reach live streams. Geothermal aevelapnent was included in the term 

"other facilities" because WB believe that the magnitude of sedfnm~tation 

caused or expezkd based 01 current operation and Plans is vwy small 

mnpared with ather Farest uses and activities. 

Accidental spills are always possible. Emergency plans are developed to 

minimize damage when they cca~. Hawever, WB wnuld disagree that spills are 

inevitable and that they will inevitably degrade water quality. We believe 

that proper design of facilities, jnpl-tatim of Best Management Practices 

and that careful handlm and storage of materials will prevent nust 

accidental spills fran affecting water quality. 

a"m: Theinheren t conflicts between the biustrializ- effects of 

~thcmal energy develapnent and the recreation priorities of the Forest 

must be ackmwleagea and mre fully adirss& in both the Plan and the EIS. 

( 118 ) 

REspcpIsE: Wle mt termed inherent ccmflicts, ths potential conflicts 

between remeaticmal developnents and developent were identified 

as an issue/cc" early in the p1ann.i.q pmxess. The discussion of 

conflicts is carried tluough the recreation section in the EIS. Geothermal 

conflicts are identified in the recreaticBl section of the Affected 

Envirornnent & the headhgs of Developed Sites and Dispersed Area where 

the discussion includes classifying geothermal dewlopent as "industrial 

ccmplexes". Geotllermal ccmflicts are further discussed in the Recreaticm 

Ooawquences section W (Tptsequences Gnnm To All as it would affect 

developed and dispersed recreation. These discussions are mt extensive. 

However, there were extensive discussicms of the caxElicts between recreatiDn 

use and geothenml developnent in the two leasing. We believe that the 

discussion jn .the EIS is -ate to i" that the CCBLflicts between 

recreation and geotharmal darelopnent will be thonxlgNy addressed durjq the 

analysis of specific develclpnental propsals. 

a"m: I believe that allowing geothermal developnent would create a risk 

of a severely lowered water table in an already arid cunmnu 'ty. Iwouldlike 

to see restrictions against Ws in the Final Plan, at least until studies 

can be done to assue the effect of that level and its effects on the overall 

ecology. (1372) (1586, 1949) 

-: We agree that ge&he"l developnent could result in lower water 

tables. The type of developnent which could result in such a g"ter 

decline is one which relies on groundwater for oooling purpsses. To date we 

developnent. ThecOrlywatmc"@ 'on prop3sed by existing plans: is for 

well drill-, human use, and landscape watering. It Md be mted that 

wording has been added to the Plan saying that new developents of any type 

in the Manmoth area will be denied if water is not available to supprt the 

need. Prior cunni-ts made by geothermal lease agreements muld not he 

subject to this cannitrent. 

have not received any Plans which have Lnopased to C@nStnlct this type of 

However, the ~rtarce plad cm water 

22 
"ption in the leasing docrrments would result in a detailed analysis of 

impacts fran gnnmdwater if it were proposed. 

cfxmw: Ge3- energy developnent is not mtid in the sumnary 

discussion of alternatives except as a sxuce of cash receipts. G&3e"l 

developnent will have significant to heavy impacts on various forms of 

remeatim use and enjoyment and cm the esnrircHnwtal intqri+q of the Inyo 

National Forest. It & be cansidered as me of the major factors to be 

discussed in the evaluation of the propxed alternatives. (118) 

RESP(1PJSE: This pzution of the sumnary discusses what management activities 

would ocmz under each alt-tive. Geotharmal developnent will not vary as 

the result of alternative hl-tation mr is it a Forest Mnagement 

activity. We agree that there should be a discussion of minerals/energy 

activities in this section and have added sone 1-e in that section. 

cfxmw: In the DEIS Sumnary, I suggest yOU add the fOllU&lg: GeOdevelopnent will result in periodic water pollution and stxeam degradation in 

addition to being a source of sedimentation. (118) 

RESXNSE: We disagree that water pollution and stream degradation are 

inevitable. They are not part of the existing e"ent which this section 

describes. 

a3M3ENp: In ref- to the DEIS Sumnary, there is M evidence that the 

effects of geothermal deve1-t have been considered in assessing the 

e"ent amsequences of hlementing Forest plannirg alternatives. (118) 

RES-: Geothermal developnent is not a cznsequexe of Plan inplementation 

since it could OCCUT whem or not an alt-tive is inplementea. The 

decision to lease the geothermal resources within Lease Sale Areas I and 11 

(ccmmmly lolown as Lease Block I and 11) was made based on pl- doczrments 

which existed prior to Forest Plan developnent. Activities which OCCUT 

within the leased areas niust "ply to the degee possible with the Forest 

Plan, ixmever, the leases extend a right to develop the fesanxe which CaTlIlOt 

be revoked or altered by implementation of any of the Plan alte.matives. 

m: In the discussion of the individual alternatives in Chapter 11 of 

the DEIS, I Suggest inclm a statement such as "The encouragement of 

geothermal developnent shDuld be conditioned by its potential conflicts with 

recreational values and uses. " ( 118 ) 

RESJXNSE: 

attairrment of national goals in energy and mineral developwnt. 

made to resolve the wnflicts between recreation and geothermal developnent. 

Geothwmal developnent cccurs in respnse to existing laws and the 

Efforts are 
ENERGY 

CXXMENT: In the Environmntal Consequences section of the DEIS, geothermal 

energy developwnt should be listed "g indicators of disturbance to 

cultural resources. (118) 

RESPQNSE: It is included in the discussion as a direct indicator of 

disturbaxe under indicators in the cultural resources section. 

Cx": In the Envimmental Consequences section of the DEIS, please state 

that geothermal developnent will have significant impacts on fish habitats as 

a consequence of siltation and accidental spills of geothermal flu& and 

chemical substances. (118) 

RESWNSE: Geathennal developnent is identified as having the potential to 

affect fisheries and fish habitat. 

(YBlt": IntheEnviroMlen tal Consequences section of the DEIS, geothermal 

developnent should be included as an indicator of impacts on outstandiq 

geological features. (118) 

RESPONSE: Geothermal has been added as an indicator. 

(YBlt": In the mvirOnmentEil ConsequenCeS Section Of the DEIS, under 

Recreation, the effect of geothennal energy developnent on recreaticmal 

resources should be expanded to include impacts of industrialization, mise, 

indUsixia2 traffic, inpacts on air and water quality, mnsumptive water use 

and visual impacts. On Page IV-146, geothermal developnent should be 

specifically discussed as a land disturb- activity and as a source of water 

pollution. On Page IS-178, it should be directly acknowledged that 

geothermal energy developnent and production involve short-term gain (30 to 

50 years) and loq-term negative impacts such as loss of top soil, land form 

alteration, and probable hot springs diminution or dest~~ction. (118) 

RESPONSE: 

specific geothermal developnent proposals. 

These effects are analyed in mre detail during the evaluation of 

COWE": Lands that have geothemal potential should be kept available for 

developnent. Because local demand for aggregate will increase as local 

som are depleted, sites with this potential should remain available for 

future developnent. (1432) (2048, 2179) 

RESPONSE: We agree that these resources are very limited in extent and that 

we should maintain the option to provide a supply of these resources in the 

future. 

CXXMENT: The proposed Plan has identified several areas within the Inyo 

National Forest where ged"al developnent should be allowed. In other 

areas it is not clear whether geothermal energy developnent will be 

permitted. Additionally, we have not been able to determine whether low 

voltage power lines requred . for geothermal developnent are capatible with 

24 
ENERGY 

certain Managenent Prescriptians or Managa”t Area Direction. The Plan 

should recognize the need for lower voltage pder lines specific to each 

geothermal project wherever geothermal resources are discussed. (1093) 

-E: The leasing of geothermal resources in new areas on the Forest 

would be on a case-by-case basis, either as mncanptitive applications are 

received or if the Federal wt shDuld choose to lease another area 

canpetitively. Bwh” tal documents would be oanpleted to analyze the 

effeds of additimal leasing. 

”ntal documents which analyze the effects of geothermal leasing muld 

include the effects resulting fran the location of low voltage perines 

needed to supprt specific geothermal developnent 1nop3saI.s. 

c”r: piease revise the Plan surrmary (Page 111-19, thini paragraph, fifth 

sentence) to read: “~lthough shallow subsurface testing has occurred, and 

four to five deep exploratory wells have been drilled, additicmal mrk is 

needed to better define the extent and quality of the resources.” (1093) 

“SE: We have made the suggested change. 

m: Managemmt Area Direction for Area #7 is deficient in reoOgniticm 

of geothermal developnent and subsequent manag-t direction. Additionally, 

Areas #8 and #9 have existirag leases and obvious potential. It would follow 

that these areas sbould have Managenent Area Dinxtion specific to geothermal 

h’t merit specific arsa direch ‘an reg- future lease actions. (176) 

(2175) 

RESPONSE: In general, the Managemnt Area Direction further defines how a 

particular resxxce will be managed if the Forest-wide Standards and 

Guidelines or laws and regulations are not Specific enough. We feel that the 

managemat of the ge&hemal resource is specifically defined by existirg 

la% and regulations that are included by reference in the Forest-wide 

Standards and Guidelines. We do not feel that additional i”ga”t ma 

DireCtian is necessary. 

resources. Forti- of Areas #3, #4, and #5 are also within the m, but 

c”r: A Forest map showing the first and seamd geo-1 lease blocks 

with areas of M surface occupancy and other restrictions should have been 

included in the map packet. (118) 

“SE: The map in the minerals section of the Affected hvirurunent 

chapter of the EIS shows the locations of the two lease blocks but witbout 

surface cccupancy restrictions. The “ber of maps included with the EIS was 

deliberately kept to those needed to display alternatives, managmt areas 

and prescriptians, and major public use areas (OW and OEjV use). If 

included, the large Nsnber of resource oriented maps would ovemhelm the EIS 

and Plan, would make the documents miderably larger than they currently 

am, and would make the printiq oosts prohibitive. For these reasons, we 

25 
CCt.URW: IUthxgh the &c"t includes a site specific map, Figme 111-12, 

showirg the lease areas withjn the Mzsm-Lca~~ Valley lhmn Geothermal Resource 

Area, itwouldbeusefultodisplaythebolrndariesoftheKGRAonabasemap 

to portcay the extent of the KGW. The identification of which areas of the 

KGRA are within the focus of the Forest Plan would be much easier to grasp if 

theacreagewasonabasemap. Iheuseof acreageNmnbarswithxtaMPAjust 

adds to the canplexity of the document package. (2175) 

Geothermal Resource Area) on a map In the minerals section of the Affected 

REspcpLsE: w3agreeagreehamincl~the~OftheKGRA(~ 

Ehvimament chapter of the -1s. 

CCt.URW: Manag€amntp;rea#7. ArryfuIvr€=geothermdLpower~ '(HI 

facilities propxed hare shDuld be encauraged, l2ucqh mitigation, to ixlude 

gnxlnd water recharge of the "waste" ccoling water to minimize the potential 

gnxlnd water withdrawal inpcts. (1608) 

m: Existing state and f&exal regulaticms prohibit the discharge of 

waste geothMnal fluids to surface &ahages . DeVelopnentproposalSonthe 

Forest rely on reinjecticn to dispose of these fluids. As ycu suggest, 

inj€ction of waste g- fluids helps prevf2nt reservoir pressure drops 

and lcwering of fluid levels within the reservoir and CCBllhected aquifers. 

03MWI': There should be a reamnendation for a full field EIS to assess the 

cnnbined inpact of the KGRRS (K" Geothermal Resaurce Areas). You should 

stress that geabhermal Faroposals will be lequirsd to provide a emulative 

inpact analysis with a casa-by-case mideration. (1845) (2178) 

m: We agree that dative inpacts of new developnent need to be 

analyzed on a case-by-case basis as developtent is propxed. We are not, 

however, in a psition to cnnplete full field evaluation of the KGRA (K" 

Geothermal Resource Area). The existing lease areas were evaluated for 

e"mntal impads at the leasing stage. The leases were sold with the 

stated right to pursue developnent based on the leasing analysis. Additional 

-tal analyses aredireded for specific exploration or developnent 

pmpasals. There are no provisions for an additional --wide analysis 

other than for cumulative effects. It should be rated that the analysis 

which was ccmpleted for Lease Block 11 was based on an estimated developwnt 

size of 200 megawatts. hundred -matts was believed to represent a 

full field developtent size for that lease area. As far as the Temainder of 

the KGRA is concerned, thera is m need to canplete an e"mental analysis 

of the effects of geothermal leasing if 110 me is interested in developnent 

inthearea. 

26 
ENERGY 

m: c%db"l plants have the potential to prcduce significant a"ts 

of tcmic effluents. Plans should be aeVeloped to mitigate the disposal of 

any brines and mling tower emissicns by these power plants. (1431) (487, 

2120) 

m: We agree that thera is the potential for these effeds depxding 

on the type of power plant facilities built. The section which you refer to 

(Aff€&€d m' - t) is rot the place to discuss these effects, however. 

-tal documents analyzing the proposed facilities would identify the 

types of potentially hazardous materials whieh could be part of the Forap3sed 

developnent and their potential affeds. 

m: 

areas. (2178) (1836) 

REspcpLsE: The decision to lease geothermal resources or to impcse mitigation 

measures on geoif"l developnent are based on an e"wntal analysis of 

the effects of the Faop3sed developnent. An ec"ic analysis is a part of 

the overall analysis. 

Need a ccst-tenefit analysis of geothermal develapnent in pristine 

m: The third paragraph uder "Issues, Crmcems, and opp3rtunities" 

sbould clarify the fact that it is the Bureau of Land Managmsnt which 

authorizes the developnent of geothermal resources on National Forest lands 

through consultation with the Forest Service. The Forest Service is not the 

aumizirg agency for geothermal developnent. (2175) 

REspcpLsE: Thewxdirigchangeshavebeenmade. 

m: Where on the west side of U.S. 395 is the "potential gmthermal 

area" located? How are they mitigated to minimize their effects? Is the 

corridor or an existing roadway sboulder being considered as a viable 

option? Are the visible impacts of this propal fran nearby high vista 

points beiq wnsidered? (1608) (278) 

REspoNsE: potential geothermal developnent west of U.S. 395 will be limited 

to the existing lease areas unless the Federal gwemmnt decides to lease 

additional land within the Known Geothermal Resource Area. The existing 

lease areas are shown on a map in the minerals section of the Affected 

E"mmt chapter of the EIS. Mitigation of potential impacts to resources 

such as visual quality are identified during the analysis of specific 

exploration or develapnent proposals. All psible mitigation, such as 

burying powerlines, is evaluated for use where the situation 1s appropriate. 

possibility of . the prolpsed p3wer line aloq an existing 

m: Of the nearly two million acres in the Forest, me is or would be 

managed with an enphasis on mineral developnent under the Plan. This is 

particularly ixoublirq because of the land that has been identified as 

27 
passibly having "ercially proaucible geothermal resources and has been 

leased to developars so those res4urces could be utilized. (1644) 

devel-t, the decision was, in effect, made to emphasize this use and to 

make other T~SOUTCB tradeoffs. There are rn other areas on the Forest where 

"lization is significant emugh to emphasize its developnent. In 

addition, mineral developnent is given an emphasis of its am in the way it 

is .treated by law. unless wi"fm minerdl en-, mineral devel0pnent 

can legally OCCUT on any National Forest system land regardless of the 

applied pmsxiptj.cn. 

RlsHmsE: when the decision was made to lease land for geothermal 

m: It wncems us that much of the land in Lease Block I1 muld be 

subject to a nzw manag-t prescription under the Foroposed Plan. 

current enphasis on timber procluctim is entirely cmpatible with geothermal 

devel-t. The popxed managemnt emphasis cm nordic skim would allow 

geothermal activities to be "modified or prohibited". (1644) 

RlsHmsE: The laws and regulatims which gwem geothermal developnent would 

allm developwnts to be modified or denied. Leasing the geothermal 

resaurces extends the right to develop if the resource is found: howmrer, the 

Bureau of Land Manag-t retains the right to mxiify plans of operation or 

to deny developwnt if identified impacts are unacceptable and unmitigable. 

In thecny, denial would rnt happen in areas where surface cc"y is 

allowed by the 1- c3"ient. We disagree that any particular enphasis 

will result in the modification or prevention of geothermal developnent. 

CCWU": The proposed Forest Plan paves the way for further restrictionS to 

be placed on currently developable acres. Having paid over six million 

omsider this to be cantrary to our interests and to the exlpessed intent of 

the Department of Agriculture. (1644) 

RlsHmsE: We understand that the wording in nu& of the Plan is such that 

existing management activities and land uses could be subject to new 

This is partly the result of 

the generic nature of the Plan. We reoognize that the geothermal lessee has 

been extended the right to pursue the developnent of the geothermal resource 

should it exist. We also recognize that the leasing document already remxred 

areas fruu developnent where CCBLfiicts with other surface uses were 

identified as unacceptable: these were identified as rn surfaca occupancy. 

It is our intent to accarmodate geothenual developnent as provided for under 

the twms of the lease while, at the same tim, maintaining as many of the 

other public uses and - as passible. 

dollars for the rights to develop the geothermal resources on that land, we 

fruu changes in management mphasis. 

CCWENT: There is little evidence to support the assumption that geothermal 

developnent muld have a significant inpact cm Hot creek (Plan IV-38). Mer 

mDst current developnent scenarios, 100% of prduced fluid is reinject&. 

Hence,thereisrnnetcc"ph 'on of geothermal fluids. As mling is 

20 
ENERGY 

accanplished in a closed system, using air as the ccoling medium, no water is 

o"ed at any point in the precess. Sampling pmgcams rl~w in place have 

not shown that geothermdl prduction has any appreciable effect on flaw, 

temperature, or chemistry of surfaca waters in Hot Creek or spring flaw at 

the hatchery. (1644) 

RES-: We agree that the scenarios which you have menticoled are true, and 

we have modified the mrdirag to make that point. We have retained a 

discussion of impacts to fisheries which could result fm the withdrawal of 

water fran surface sources since we have no way of guaranteeing that such a 

withdrawal will not be pro- in the future. 

am": The assuption of cumulative negative impact on Hot Qeek is not 

valid. It represents a mrst case scenario which, pending further study, is 

probably not accurate. (1644) 

-E: It represents a scenario that is potentially the nwst critical in 

ten of unacceptable impacts to lccal thermal features. It also represents 

part of a scenario which is the most unacceptable to the public in general. 

Until further refinement of the thermal hydrologic model demcolstrates beyond 

a reasonable doubt that withdrawal of thermal fluids by multiple users will 

not cause unacceptable impacts to Hot Creek, we will retain the assmqtions 

as stated. 

a": Geothermal developnent. We request a formal agreement for multiple 

use be prepared for each permittee and that plowed rcads for geothermal 

activities be either restricted to certain rrm-peak s~3w nrmths or carefully 

mitigate3 with current users. (1104) 

REspoNsE: We agree that there have been impacts to winter reneatimists 

fm slowplowing activities. We auld have dcole a better job of informing 

the public, pruviding for crossing points, relocating affected user mutes, 

and/or guiding users into areas away fran the plowed rcads. These types of 

measures are develaped during the evaluation of impacts fran specific 

exploration/developnent proposals and will be included in future project 

evaluations. The most important aspect of the pnxess is making sure that 

mitigation measures are inplementea in a timely fashion. We do not plan, 

however, to prepare multiple use agreements as suggested. 

am": The DEIS (11-70) equateS leasable *alS with total 

plants. The estimated annual output by decade 

indicates that the total output of power plants will increase fran one during 

the first decade to six during the fifth decade. Does this mean six per 

plants for the last ten years or six power plants for the fifty year period? 

(2213) 

RESZ~SE: Geothemal rwomces are the only leasable "ls on the Inyo 

Naticmal Forest. mating the leasable resource on the Forest with six (6) 

p3wer plants came as the result of evaluating the reasonable potential of the 

twD existirag lease areas. No developat scenario was developea for the 

first lease block; however, the exi- information suggests that there is 

The FEIS should explain this. 

29 
sufficient "e to sqpxrt ism power plants. The Lease Block 11 

-tal doclanent evaluated four 5olnegawatt plants as a developwYc 

scenario. A total of six pxer plants was used as a measure of leasable 

mineral rescurces for each of the alternatives. The nvmhr of pawer Plants 

listed far each decade is the total rnrmber estimated to be in existence by 

the end of the decade. The "hers are not additive. By tb end of the 

sixth decade there are expect& to a total of six power plants on the Forest. 

m: Cbvicusly, wa- on the Inyu supports mre wildlife than any other 

factor fcmd in the Farest. There a- to be whether 

hydrelectric develops& would even be cost-effective. You state that hydro 

would reduce the a"t and ccmditim of aquatic and riparian wildlife 

habitats, scenic quality, and water based recxeatim. The Forest Service 

&xld decide to prutect these resxmes that so many visitors and residents 

dew on (not to mnticm wildlife) and not allow any hydro developat on 

the Forest. To do otbmise seans foolish. (1205) (3, 134, 139, 157, 160, 

231, 281, 293, 319, 329, 358, 400, 430, 437, 449, 467, 481, 914, 933, 944, 

945, 980, 993, 1008, 1015, 1032, 1159, 1174, 1185, 1188, 1191, 1202, 1231, 

1236, 1248, 1269, 1295, 1317, 1332, 1407, 1429, 1430, 1485, 1487, 1545, 1583, 

1585, 1589, 1594, 1617, 1622, 1626, 1632, 1659, 1660, 1716, 1730, 1731, 1748, 

1757, 1776, 1784, 1798, 1804, 1837, 1841, 1858, 1866, 1868, 1876, 1891, 1893, 

1930, 1943, 1974, 1977, 1983, 1987, 1996, 2030, 2045, 2054, 2059, 2091, 2102, 

2115, 2119, 2120, 2129, 2142, 2147, 2152, 2161, 2170, 2178) 

RESWELSE: As you suggest, water deprdent ~esou~c~s such as riparian 

vegetation, wildlife and fi- habitats, recreatiapl, and visual quality are 

very important on the Inyu Naticmal Forest. While anphasiziq these 

resources, we nust, to the dqrea Wble, still be to National 

Forest Service gcals and objedives. These goals include energy 

developat. In Keparing am to the Federal !3nergy Regulatory 

carmission (FERC) for license ccnditicms, we canpare the estimated impacts of 

each -1 hydroelectric Fapposal with the Forest-wide Standards and 

Guidelines relating to water dependent resources, and we review regulations 

and naticmal policy. Generally, we wald recomnend in fa- of a SMll hydro 

developat which ad maintain an i" flow sufficient to suppxt water 

depenaentresources. Thejn&" flow -tion would be acocmpafll 'ed 

by other acticms which the developer would need to take to further "ize 

impads of the project. The Forest will amtinue to recormend against any 

project which could result in water de-t resources dropping below the 

acceptable level. 

03": Regarding yo~r don titled and Ccslcsms - Energy, in the 

application of the "General statement of respohlse" to hydrcelectric pmer 

developnent, there is a need to establish limits first, rather than allcwirg 

an unspecified degree of degradation and then attenpSting mitigation. (2170) 

RES=: We believe that the phrase "while establishing the limits to which 

such developnent can acceptably affect other resources and envirolmnental 

30 
ENERGY 

values" does what you suggest. Marry limits are alm defined by the 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines. These and otber limits, identified 

duriq the -tal analysis of pt"4 developnent, would be applied 

m a case-by-case basis if develogmnt was recarmended. 

-: F&-wide Standards and GuidelineS - Es2ergy. Ewgy developnent 

is inccslsistent with marry Forest goals, objectives, and management 

directions, particularly thase relating to wildlife, fish, habitat, diversity 

and riparian areas. Authorization of new hydrcelectric power generators is 

hamsistent with Forest goals as developnenks of this type are kn3n-1 to have 

adverse impacts on riparian resaurces, which include degradaticn of resident 

trout fisheries, wildlife habitat, and visual resources. At the time of FEEC 

relicensing of existing hydro p3werplants, the Forest Service should insure 

that "rm streamflow (as established by the Forest Service, California 

Deparbrent of Fish and Game, etc. ) are reestablished in all sbx%am dewatered 

by hydm diversion. Also, energy conservation practices shauld be applied to 

all Forest S&IX managenent activities. (2170) (953, 1015, 1107, 1185, 

1532, 1565, 1576, 1898, 1907, 1933, 1980, 2210) 

mFCNSE: A Forest-wide Standard and Guideline for fish calls for the Forest 

to "negotiate with the Fedaxil Ewgy Regulatory carmission and the affected 

utility canpanies to rewater selected reaches of streams for the 

reestablishment of resident trout fisheries." A Forest-wide Standard and 

Guideline for water calls for the Forest to "obtain water availability 

assurances for existing and foreseeable future nmmmmptive uses through 

the special use permit and the F-al watory Camnissim '4E report' 

pxceses." The Forest is currently mrkirg to reestablish instream flows as 

a part of the hydm relicensing process. 

CU+NRTC: What are the pt"4 plans for dam sites for hydro power on Big 

Pine cr€& and where will the dam or dams be located? (0120) 

RESC@SE: 

Big Pine Creek. 

There are currently 170 plans for additional dams or perbuses on 

CU+NRTC: We do rat need any mre hydrceledric power dewlopent. Rewater 

all dewatered slxeams to recover the riparian habitat. Guidelines should 

be: A) -bit winter flow depletions (Nov. - March) to prevent degradation 

of fisheries; B) Restore mean mthly flows (April - Sept.) to protect 

fisheries and riparian values. (1532) 

m: We agree that the guidelines which you have suggested are 

desirable frun a fisheries stanc?@nt. However, in many cases, they are 

currently outside of our ability to enforce. The Forest-wide Standards and 

Guidelines relating to fisheries call for mkirg with the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Camnissim and the affected utility cmparu 'es to mater selected 

reaches of streams; maintaining instream flows in unimpacted stream reaches 

needed to support existkg fisheries; and maintaining water levels in 

reservoirs and natural lakes to suprt fisheries to at least existing 

31 
levels. we fa that these guidelines provide 19-m di?=sdx 'on for 

reestablishmnt WOK maintenance of fisheries rsmrces. 

m: We believe that the Inyo Naticnal Forest sbuld considex developing 

a Farest-wide hy&celeCtric pcrwer management plan that could lead to a better 

assesgnent of the cumulative impads of these projects. Also, coordinated 

review of individual ~ederal hergy Regulatory carmission (FERC) applications 

with the Department of the Interior could increase oppcrhmities to provide 

better habitat won through FERC'S processes. (487) 

lWSKNSE: While a hydroelectric management plan is an in- ' idea, 

wittcut krwing specifically what ycu had in mind, we are unable to comnent 

on hau iappmpriate it wxld be to include it in the Forest !XS or Plan. It's 

quite pible that such a plan would cone under the autharity of the Federal 

B-iergy Regula- carmission (FEFC). We wxk clasely with the FERC in 

providing OUT best recarmendaticaLs for resource ptectim. 

m: underthereoent&rxxldl 'do M~tual Water Ccmpany vs. La Jolla Bands 

Mission Indians, any "ditims proposed by the Forest Service to the Federal 

* im with respect to the protection of natural. 

 sources in a hyckoelectric licensing p"g ' willbebhdingupmFERC. 

The Plan SbDUld include a discussian of the respmsibility dted by "La 

provided, and set forth objectives for past ermrs. It should 

indicate the criteria to be used, and a ccmnitmnt to require suitable bypass 

flows to protect riparian dependent resources. (1108) (978, 1843, 2080, 2183, 

2213) 

Energy Regula- - 

Jolla", identify cases in which adequate i" flows have not been 

lWSKNSE: In g-al we agree with your synopsis of the "- 'do" 

decisicm. We disagree with the use of the mrd "any" because recarmendations 

to the FERC are based on impacts identified in an -tal analysis of 

the project. canmt be just any recarmendations we &ght 

happa to cone up with. It's mble that sone people would profit fmn a 

description of the "La Jolla" case and an explanation of the Federal Energy 

Regulatory c".SS ' icn operating prax&ms. However, we have taken the 

pition that direzh 'on pmvided by law, regulation and general p3licy will 

be included in the EIS and Plan by reference and will mt be restated. We 

will be working in accordance with the Forest-wide StaMjards and Guidelines 

for fisheries and riparian resources to reestablish streamflows in streams 

listed in the Manag-t Area Direction for each Managemat Area. Our goals 

are lq-term, because we are cclnstrairaed by agreements which provide for the 

dire&im in the Forest Plan. The reestablishment of some flaw is already 

occurring as the result of SMll hydrcelectric relicensing activities. 

1q-term mtjnuatim of marry existiq uses/diversi~ regardless of new 

m: In the F&-d& Standards and Guidelines for w, should 

includa the evaluation of energy developnents, particularly hydroelectric 

projects, as thy affect fish, wildlife, and recreational resources. (1433) 

(2023, 2170) 

32 
RISKESE: We believe that the Standards and Guidelines for energy acoarrplish 

what you suggest. The wow refers the reader to other sections of the 

Standards and Guidelines by saying " ... canpatible with the attainment of 

established Forest goals for other resources or uses." The evaluation of arry 

props& snall hyazOelectric project would need to evaluate the -acts to 

fisheries, riparian resources, wildlife habitat, and recreation based on the 

standards and Guidelines for those resources. 

CxXWEM': oppose any further hydroelectric develapnent until a Forest-wide 

dative impad study and Forest-wide power managf?nk?nt plan that identifies 

all foreseeable projects and their impacts is prepared. (1108) (978, 1843, 

2080, 2213) 

RESPCRTSE: In October 1986, the Federal hergy Regula- Cbnnission 

ccmpleted an e"m tal impact sta-t which analyzed the effects, 

singular and clrmulative, of eleven of the largest propied hydroelectric 

projects prop3sed for constmction on the Forest. This study constitutes a 

Forest-wide clmollative impacts statement for these projects. The annulative 

effects of other prom mall wlectric projects will be studied on a 

case-by-case basis as the projects are prop3sed. 

We are unable to respcold to your suggestion "hg a Forest power 

management Plan as we are - ' what this plan would consist of. 

CxXWEM': 

of exlsting snail hydro facilities. (1430) 

RESKSEX: The ores st Service actively participates in regulating mall hydro 

projects. The Forest Service replies to the Federal hergy Regulatory 

Ccmnission (FERC) with licensing dtions or "htions for licensirg 

snall hydroelectrio projects; issues special use pMRits (with conditions) 

for cccupation of Naticnal Forest System lands by snall hydroelectric 

facilities; and participates in the snall hydroelectric relicensing process. 

As part of these three activities, the Forest Service assists in ccmpleting 

instream flow studies which assess changes to riparian vegetation and 

habitat, fisheries habitat, and visual condition. Finally, the Forest 

Service prepares environmental documents which document the potential impacts 

of mall hydrcelectric developnent on a site specific basis. 

The Forest Service should take a mxe active role in the management 

m: Regarding the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for energy, do 

mt encourage swill stream energy developnent. Allow it if requested and if 

it conforms to Standards and Guidelines #2 and #3. small stream 

hydrcelectxic developnent devastates the riparian zone. (1431) 

RFsFONSE: We agree with y~ur assessment of the word "encourage"; we have 

removed it. 

m: F&garding the discussion on hydroeledxic energy, replace: "It 

would be desirable... represented by many projects" with "prohibit swill 

33 
-1eCtL-ic develcpnents of this type because they are k" to have 

adverse inpacts cn riparian IB~OUTCBS which in turn wades resident ht 

fisheries, wildlife habitats, and -tic resxmes supply and demand." 

Replace: "the demand for Bnargy ...e all resxmes are considered" with 

"due to the fact that SMll hym-OelectriC dwelopnents pruvide less than 1% 

of OUT Natim's energy needs, loss of critical riparian areas and wildlife 

habitats is an unacceptable trade-off for such anall energy gains." 

to the sixth electricity report by the California Energy 

ocmnissicm, California has an wersupply of electrical gwexatiq capacity 

well into the 1990's. In Farest Plan Management Btphasis, add to "The Forest 

Plan establishes specific directicn... hydroelectric applicatirms" that "It is 

the Farest's gcal to prohibit new snall hydrW3lectriC developnents. In 

additioh, the Farest Will take Steps to insUre that at the Of 

FERC relicensing of existing kydrCf3lectriC aevelopnent, lnini" stream flow 

(as established by Fmest, California &parb?rit of Fish and Gam, and other 

public agencies and arganizatims) be reestablished in all streams dewatered 

due to dimcms of any type." (2170) (1617) 

REspoNsE: While we agree that mall hydroelectric devalopnent can adversely 

affect the resaurc8s you mentim, it is not the gcal of the Farest to 

p?xhibit snall hydma1~iC developnent under all circlmrstances . National 

National Farest System land. These goals ware established with the eqressd 

prnpose of inu-easing the total percentage of pmix p-cduced fm these 

acceptable levels of water dependent resources are provided for when 

miderjng future developrent and to reestablish acceptable levels of water 

depscdent resamxs whemver possible. Far these reasons, we have chosen not 

Your suggested wording relating to Farest managenent eqhds, in effect, 

goals call far pmvidilq the opprhmity to pxduce alternative energy fm 

swwx!es. within that ccpltext, it is the Forest's goal to assure that 

to make the first two suggestedwardirg charges. 

paraphrases what has been stated in the standards and Guidelines referenced 

by the existing wording. While it is aitnittedly iw" 'ent for the reader 

to search out the areas ref-, we believe that greater detail is 

pmviwby- ' thereadertotheseotherareas. OnaForest-wide 

basis, we expet to be able to imprmre the condition of the resources 

mentimed by managing accmding to the Standards and Guidelines. 

03W3V.: You should include the demlopnent and inplementation of a 

m"ring and enfoxenent prcr3ram "iq full canpliance of "I 

streamflow requirements at all FERC licensed projects within the Forest. 

When violaticms of the "rms cx!cur, the Forest Servica should mtact the 

FERC and the swRc8, and request apprupriate actirms pursuant to the Electric 

caplnrmers protecticgl Act (=A) and applicable State law. EBA provides for 

fines of S10,ooO per day for each day of violatim. (1269) (2213) 

m: chapter V of the Plan describes "itor- activities. Gne of the 

"itoriq objectives listed under the riparian resoutce is to "detwdne 

whether mitigation measures for mall hydro projects and geothe.nnal 

demlopnent are sufficient and effective in majntaining riparian vegetation 

and other riparian dependent habitats". Gne of the mitigation measures for 

34 
FACILITIES 

anall hydro aevelopnent is the maintenance of instream flow requirements made 

part of the projects license Ca-diticms. 

have Mted your -ti- annnmication with the mc and 

In&“ flam will be monitored as 

part of the precess of meeting OUT objective for the riparian resource. We 

SWRts in relation to violatims of i” flam. 

ax.lEm: All existing “ad0 inp” ts in the Forest includjq those 

used for the diversion of water or hydnxlectxic pzwx generation sbould be 

disnantled imnediately. 

REspcpIsE: The of all existing “ad0 hp”ts on the Forest is 

rwt a management qtim available to the Forest. Even if it were the 

Natimal plicy of the Forest Sdce to pursue this objedive, and existhg 

legal agreements between the Forest Service and those wty> constn~ctd and use 

these facilities would prohibit their raFoval for many years. 

cam”: Encourage use of public transpcartation in the Mamwth Lakes area. 

The great amsunt of traffic and exhaust fran vehicles is detz-tal to the 

e”mt. (1260) (62, 80, 95, 158, 481, 1333, 1490, 1654, 2191) 

“SE: We agree that irmeased vehicle use in sone areas is beoaning a 

problem. Mass, or public, tmnqzbtion is identified in the Forest-wide 

Standards and Guidelines as me of those options to be wnsidered when 

appropriate. The Forest Service axrdinates with the Town of Lakes, 

Mmo (Bun-, and the California Deprt”t of ”ransprtation to ins“ that 

charges in off-Forest traffic flow and volume created by on-Forest uses is 

anticipated by the other agencies and can be planned for. These other 

agencies assist in developing e”mental doclnnents which analyze potential 

traffic changes reSuli5x-g fm on-Forest projects. The jurisdictions for the 

different highway/road system belong to the separate agencies. It is their 

decision whether to provide public transportation or to encourage private 

developnsnt of mass transit systems. The Reds Meadow Shuttle is an example 

of the use of mass transit by the Forest on the Forest road system. 

m: In addition 

to the annnmity of Mannwth Lakes, the following areas could all provide 

points for a transit route(s) which would help in remvirg a portion of the 

au-bile traffic fian the arx?a‘s roads: Hot CYeek geothermal area, Hot 

Creek Fish Hatchery, the Inyo Craters geological features, and the develOpea 

-. (1608) 

“E: In the Forest-wide Standards: and Guidelines, it’s stated that we 

cansider mass transit options when vehicle use exceeds the capacity of 

existing roads or threatens to damage resource values. The opprtunities for 

mass transit go beyond this. A regianal mass transit systfm may have great 

appeal and value in the Mammth area. 

Give cmsideration for a regional mass transit system. 

There are many areas of National 

35 
FACILITIES 

Forest that receive intensive visitation where a mass transit system could 

m. However, the transit system would have to be centered in the 

COlTrmnity and integrated with those surmundirag areas that could benefit and 

becane a part of the total system. It would have to be eccormically viable 

and be able to pay for itself. Subsidized systems have been established in 

the past but have not lasted because Of shortages of flxlds. 

The Forest Land Managewrit Plan is not the appropriate document to direct 

which areas can best be served by a mass transit system. A mal for mass 

transit will initially have to be proposed by those entibes that could 

suppsrt such a system. The Fd Sexvice would be interested in "Itirg 

with any p1amh-g effort to fully identify the potential for such systems. 

We have added the following language to the existing Standard and Guideline 

pertaining to mass transit: "or when public facilities can best be slved by 

a annnmity wide system Koposed by mthar entity". 

-: Reestablish the Inyo Craters Interpretive Trail. Rehabilitate and 

@ate existing intapretive site exhibits. Rehabilitate the Mammth Visitor 

Cent- to aphasize self-service and after hours infomtion. (1099) 

m: Direction for rehabilitation of facilities and upgrading 

facilities is located in the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines under 

Developd Rea?sation - public: it applies to all develo@ recreation and 

interpretive facilities. All facilities will be maintained at full service 

standards; this includes the abve facilities. Since the backlcg of 

maintenance needs is major, sone the will be needed to fully rehabilitate 

all facilities if and when funding reaches full service levels. It may take 

10-15 years to fully rehabilitate all facilities. The Inyo CYaters 

Interpretive Trail and the Mammth Visitor Center will be prioritized along 

with all other projeds ohl the Forest. 

CfX4Wl': I was pleased that the basics of an interpretive plan were included 

in the Plan. The public wants to see wilderness rangers, entrance station 

-1, MtLIraliStS, and trdl crews out in the forest as mf of active 

management. A joint interpretive and enfonxwnt prcgram can do much toward 

solvirg scme of the more aggravating resource damage problems mch as 

-fire prohibition areas. I recormend a planned sexies of g-al resource 

and management information articles in 1- and regional newspagers and 

magazines. Well publicized tours of scenic, special interest, and 

politically sensitive areas increase public underst- of management 

dirwAi.cn. An imprmrea public relations -am by revamping the Forest Host 

training program. It seenrs to me that if any resource values are to be 

maintained, the prime hope is through well devel- educational programs. 

I do not find any effort to address this mpt seriously. "age the 

further applicaticn of well proaUCea self-guiding trail mets and 

informatian. (1252, 1900, 1608) (1099, 1359, 1820) 

RSEOEX: Direction under hterpretive se?xices in the Standard and 

Guidelines sets the stage for educaticmal programs oriented towards resource 

values. Specific opprtunities will be identified through District level 

36 
FACILITIES 

interpretive plans and recreation canpsite plans. 

would be budgeted at full SeLVice levels under the Preferred Alternative. 

The intwp?ative program 

cXX"r: Work with Caltram to develop winter - play parking access along 

U.S. 395 at sm>key Bear Flat. Utilize the California Sm-Park prcgram to 

develop parking areas for 9y3w play along the Manmth Scenic Loop Road. 

( 1099 ) 

mFCNSE: Add the following wording in the appmpriate recreation direction 

for Manag-t Areas #4, #5, and #8: "coordinate with Cal "ns and Mcolo 

county to Plan and develop parking and - play opprhmities along U.S. 

395, State Route 203, State Route 158, the Lake Mary Road and the Scenic Loop 

Road. " 

CXWE": Please consider arry mxres to coincide with the location of the 

White mtain District Office and the present Forest Service cmpnmd. 

( 1645 ) 

RESPONSE: The mlocation of the Forest SuperVisor's Office and the White 

bbmtain Ranger District office has been cansidered several times in the 

past. Consideration is still being 

given to the idea, but no decision has been made to inplement the rm-location 

nnve. 

The mt recent of these was in 1986. 

CXWE": The fitwe Mn-o Lake Visitor Center in Lee Vining is planned to 

serve as a r" gateway to the Irryo National Forest. This centex's 

future use and managwent should include a disoussion of how the future of 

Mn-o Lake will impact the success of ~ograms at the visitor center. (1617) 

(2170) 

RESPONSE: The Inyo Naticml Forest is preparing an envi?"ental impact 

statement which will evaluate the effects of different types of management on 

the ~bal ~esc~1113es of the Scenic Area. The evaluation will include an 

estimate of the effects on Scenic Area management fran chargffi in the 

dtians of Mmo Lake. Your torment has been forwarded to the leader of 

the team ptting the EIS wether. 

aM4E": The fo1lcwh-g indicators shDuld be added to the facilities section 

(3 11-6): Thera is a need to coordinate with local fire districts when 

planning structural developnents on the Forest. There is a need to Work with 

local Ccmrmnities and agencies when establishiq administrative facilities in 

or near camunity areas. (1638) 

m: The dim of the EIS referred to by this rxnment lists hzm the 

issues and cc~lce~lls identified during the public scoping prmess were 

ad&?s=&. Thera were no issues or ccolcerns identified relating to 

coordination with local fire districts when planning stcuctural developents 

or administrative facilities on the Forest. cXc"a ' tion between the Forest 

and locdl fire protection districts is currently accmplished thtough 

37 
FACILITIES 

caltinued informal comramication; wlrcqh m1Vment of the disixicts in the 

and wlrcqh I.IDtificatiCn.9 sent by axmty and city PlarmjlXJ aeparhnents to 

affected parties or gwermwt agencies of Proposed czc"ctim activities 

withjn the axmty or city. we agree that CantLNled annumication with the 

fire . districts is in ev3Lyme's in-, and WB believe that the 

cun-ent 7 accanplish that objective. 

-tal doannentatim process for props& developnents m the Forest; 

c"r: m are the power proaucUcn facilities, the unnnmity utilities 

and the Lee vining mer statim canplex to be Ininhbd ?- 

electxical utility lines, where appqriiate? 0z"ctim of mxe aesthetic 

vim to hide the utility facilities (wood slatted chain link fencing, 

cinderblock wall, etc)? (1608) 

provides for the developnent of a wrridx viewshed analysis and plan for 

State Route 120 fran the junctim of U.S. 395 to Ticga Pass. lhat analysis 

would address the visual impad of power prcd~ctim facilities, camunity 

utilities, and the Lee Vinirg Ranger Statim ccmplex. The analysis would 

"XI specific actions which mad be taken to hpmw visual dtion 

where iqpqriate. 

m: Management Area Direcllan for vt Area #2 - Lee Vw, 

c"r: Facilities Iv-21. 1. Please "...miStent with Forest 

goals and objectives and local plans for the lands senmi..". 5. Please 

revise: "...coordinate Forest highway pmjeds with affeded agencies 

including safety imprwements such as emergeracy access routes and avalanche 

sheds." 7. Please revise: "...provide new facilities wkem need can be 

justified and/or where mted by local plans." 9. Please add: "...or when 

local plans, and the Forest goals..." 11. Please insert: "...whenever 

p3ssible witbut mering the safety of users, before developing...". 

(1639, 1638) 

m: We agree with the need to coordinate closely with local agencies 

and, when appropriate, support local goals and obj&ves. However, we 

believe that is is not in the Forest Senrice interest to include the 

additions which you have suggested. We retain the right to disagree with 

local plans shDuld those plans be mtmq with Forest Service goals and 

objectives. We also feel that the existirg pzvzess of identifying and 

deal- with safety hazards is appropriate. 

pxm3ted in local Plans." 10. Please insert: "...level of developnent, 

c"r: Mjnimal expansion of parkirg lots and rest stops. (437) 

-E: We agree that parking lots and rest stops shDuld not proliferate. 

Specific propssals to expand parkjrg lots and build rest stops are received 

and analyzed on a site specific, case-by-case basis. These ~aoposals may 

cane fm in-imuse to respond to recreaticBl or other resource management 

needs, or they may originate fran the counties, cities, or Caltrans. 

38 
FACILITIES 

CC”: I am particularly eled by the e of bridges you people are 

REspoELsE: The Farest is cannitkd to providing and maintaining safe access 

alcmg major mutes within the Farest wilderness areas. To Ws end, there 

have been many trail bridges built over the past years. The specific bridge 

lccations and the standards to wch the bridges have been built, in sane 

part, reflect the philosophy camxnhg wilderness recreation at the time. 

The current philasophy is to cx”ct or trail bridges only 

where the safety of the user is an miding a”. In many cases, recent 

bridge cx”ctim has resulted fian a fatality or near fatality at the 

specific site. 

-. (2154) 

Roads 

CC”: The pian discusses several proposals that would incnase the use of 

Forest land, including mining, 1- and public use. Howevar, there is a 

very minimal discussicn of the type of impacts these actions will have to the 

existing highway system. The California Deparbwxit of Transprtation has 

identified several locations where them are sans major problems to the 

exi- facilities. The final tal impact statement (FEIS) should 

discuss the inpacts to the existing highway facilities. Also, the FEIS 

should hdicate sum type of cmparatiogl between the Forest Service and 

caltrans in deve1qi.q any type of hp”ent to the highway facility as a 

result of the Lnoposed Plan. (30) (1036, 1040, 1042, 1759, 1845) 

REspcansE: We agree that changes in Forest us8 identified iU the Plan would 

have an impact cn caltrans facilities. pbr example, it is likely that a 

masor - inusewouldoccurifskiareaswereexpamkd. However,ona 

broad scale, the Plan identifies appropriate uses of National Forest land: it 

defers the decisi.cn to actually allocate resources and approve land use or 

0“y mtil specific projects are proposed and their impacts can be 

analyzed. The apprwal of additional ski area developnent would OCCUT based 

cn the analysis of the impacts of a pmject as identified in a separate 

e“mtal document. The fact that the current ski area use contributes 

toincreased traffic ccolgestion cm U.S. 395 and within the Town of Mamnoth 

Lakes enphasizes the need for detailed traffic analysis at the time of 

project evaluations. We have m way of krcwiq whether or not any specific 

project identified in the Plan would actually hap which puts those 

specific project impact analyses Outside the scope of this EIS and Plan. 

ata”r: Roads fran Deadnan Gqgnxnd up Deadman M drainage and above 

the Obsidian Dane on the Glass Creek drainage should be either converted to 

trails or allowed to revegetate. (1759) 

m: Recreaticn directicm for Management Area #7 - Upper Owens River 

calls for a recreation wnposite plan that muld include this area. The 

alternatives for this secticm of road will be explored in that document and a 

decisicm made cn what type of access would best serve the area. 

39 
FACILITIES 

CUM": In the facilities element of tbe Preferred Altwmative (11-59), 

add: "To protect wildlife, scenic, soil and water resources, mduca road 

access by closure or obliteration wherwer possible." Roads degrade wildlife 

habitat, visual resmmes, and soil and water quality: unnecessary mads 

should be rem3ved or at least closed. (2170) (2190) 

FEsKNsE: The- 'm written in the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines 

which is to all of t3-e alternatives for facilities is to "Eliminate 

public safety or resource pro~m a"s, by miderjng closure, 

relocation or re"cticm of m-systen mads consistent with available 

budgets. " 

CCMmW: We amcur with the 

direction to not upgrade 4wD roads to 2WD and to obliterate mining roads 

after they are xn 1-a needed. The. Forest should systematically analyze 

the potential to obliterate or close off other roads in these prescription 

areas; there are many that are redmdant, pmrly muted or canstructed, 

unnecessary or deidniental to wildlife and scenic values. "develop M 

additimal...2WD or 4WD access." "Reduce grazing 

if fish or wildlife habitat aegraaatiavl is waxring." (1617) 

RESWNSE: 

1977 Interagency bbtor Vehicle Use map. 

Prescription #17 will be specifically designatea in that update. 

be 

duplicated. 

Management Frescriptirm #17 - Limited Access. 

Add: 

Add to the range element: 

The analysis which you suggest will cccur as part of updatjng the 

Roads open for use within Managmt 

Routes will 

for relocation or elimination where rcutes are poorly located or 

No additional roads will be available for public use. 

CUM": No new roads should be built into roadless areas in order to 

pmM them for future wilderness amsidexatim. The Fjnal Plan should list 

all the roads that are to be closed and/or obliterated and maps of the 

propased new roads. (278) (1634, 1673) 

RESWNSE: The Plan evaluates the wilderness attributes of all the roadless 

areas m the Forest. The & areas were ndified as a result of the 

Draft Plan public review and respmse. Sam of the roadless areas not 

attributes am3 are accessible by a limited Nsnber of existing lcm standard 

mads. These characteristics make them desirable for a limited access form 

of dispersed -tion, and they have been designated Management 

Prescrigkicn #17. The remaining roadless areas are included in other 

management prescriptions. 

No maps of project road closure areas or of new road cmstzuction are 

included. New ccnsbxctim is identified as part of plans for specific 

projects. The exact locatirm and total 1- of new roads are not kr" 

until these plans are ccmpleted. The estimates of projected construction on 

Guidelines for facilities have been rewritten to reflect the need to balance 

the- 'on of new timber sale and ather m-rezreatirm mads with the 

renwal of some existing mads. 

initially included in the wilderness Yxxmmdation have some wilderness 

the Fd are Our best Current estimateS. The Forest-wide Standards and 

The closure of specific mads will need to 

40 
FACILITIES 

be evaluated on a road-by-road basis at the time of closure in order to 

identify roads m3st suitable for closure. 

cCW!mr: Inevitably the 68 miles of new road for 1cggiI-g and develop3 

recreation access propzed will degrade high value ~*al resources such as 

deer migration routes, holding areas and "mer range; mtain lion habitat: 

old growth forest; and scenic values. meSe ccolflicts rrmst be specifically 

dealt with in the Plan, particularly for very sensitive areas like San 

Joaquh Riage and Moolache which are both very valuable to deer, muntain 

lions, spottea owls and other wildlife species as well as having outstanding 

scenic values. Retentian of high value natural resources should have 

priority over developmnt of any kind. Specific plans for closure or 

obliteration of unnecessary and resource damaging roads must be included in 

the Plan. The public identified the "need to reduce roads to prevent 

-tal damage" (Plan 1-15), and the Forest-wide Standards and 

Guidelines reoognize the need to "upgrade, close or obliterate road secpsnts 

as needed for public safety and/or resource protection." Also, there is m 

need to fx"& new trails in the White I4JIJIItain.s. A 1983 report on 

bighorn sheep in the White I4JIJIItains recarmended that m new trails be 

cxmsw in bigtom habitat. 

We believe that the handicapped, senior citizens, and hikers of today would 

not be able to see or reach their destma ' tion without mre im~roved roads. 

In other mrds, we can still maintain developnent of the land and told the 

impact areas. (2170, 43) (27, 140, 151, 157, 166, 170, 171, 214, 232, 266, 

278, 288, 289, 311, 322, 324, 331, 382, 383, 428, 438, 934, 970, 1161, 1176, 

1363, 1401, 1430, 1471, 1545, 1566, 1581, 1592, 1617, 1619, 1632, 1633, 1648, 

1650, 1654, 1656, 1691, 1705, 1717, 1721, 1757, 1780, 1781, 1908, 1933, 1936, 

1938, 1947, 1980, 2005, 2030, 2061, 2101, 2111, 2120, 2137, 2142, 2190) 

m: Sixty-two of the sixty-eight total miles of road propzed under 

the Preferred Altemative are roads which would be built in support of 

developd recreation. Most of these roads are internal campgnxlnd roads 

scheduled for existing and proposed v. Most of the new campgnxlnds 

would be within existiq amcentrated recreation areas. The impads of these 

roads would be analyzed as part of the overall project impacts as the 

projects are propzed for aeVelopnent. These analyses are beyona the scope 

of tlae EIS and Plan. 

The managerent eniphasis within the White Mmntains would be to "ize the 

develapnent of facilities. Few, if any, trails would be built as trails are 

generally not needed. When? conflicts with mtain sheep are identified, 

preference would be given to the sheep. This is specifically stated in 

Management Prescription #3. 

cCW!mr: No road building should be permitted until the cumulative impacts 

on wildlife and watershed integrity are assessed. (1664) 

m: The cumulative impacts of road fx"ction would be assessed 

along with thDse of the project which the roads mpprt. These inpacts would 

be analyzed 081 a project specific basis as projects are pmpsed. 

41 
FACILITIFS 

cu”l!: 1;an~abouterosionfMn~steepcarrycplroads 

-. In particular, Road lla f” the l3wqx PaECmse to the 

beginnjq of the flat area before descend.mg . totheLagcabinMine. Inabout 

entire 2.1 miles of road was washed cut. Because of the possibility of 

damage to the CarlyCm, I suggest that the traffic be tz-ansferred to tbe 

special use permit road far^^. (54) 

alaq shreams due to “lt “ff or heavy late sumnar-autumn tz-opical 

1957 after two c”tive days of afk” cloudburst type rains, the 

REspoKsE: The roads which you refer to are within the MOK) Basin National 

Forest Mc Area. The Forest is in the pxess of anpletbg a management 

plan for the scenir: Area which will include a -tian plan for roads. 

Road Clcsures will be - in this Plan. Your camnent has been 

foIwarded to the Mxrl Basin Planniy team. 

CC”r: In the -tal Oansequences sectian of the DEIS, mineral and 

energy traffic will undoubtedly use Farest roads in the future, as has 

already been &m in the past and present, and this impad an facilities 

should be discussed. (118) 

REspcpJsE: The use of Forest rcads is inClW urder the facilities &on. 

We agree, however, that the discusdm stculd be expaded to include 

maintenance responsibilities and we have added some aplpolpiate language. 

cu”l!: Support maintaining M&nzy Wackws at the existing level of road 

develoynent. New roads or campgnxlnds would conflict with deer, cattle 

grazing and riparian values. (1019) 

REspoNsE: The McNurry Meadows area lies within Management Area #17. The 

management fmphaSi.3 is for narle dear and limited access. In bth Cases, the 

existing loads wxld be maintained, and M new roads CcBlstrUcted into 

praviwsly unroaded territory. Road ‘an or realigrment could be 

made if necessary to protect resource values. No new roads are pld for 

this Management Area. 

cu”l!: Roads Md rot be built in non-wildexness areas unless there is a 

canpellm reasm to do so. One might establish a policy that the 

benefit/cost ratio rrmSt be at least 3 before new roads be built or old ones 

widened. (1316) 

-E: overall road cunstructim under the Preferred Alternative is 

limited to six miles of timber access road and sixty-six miles of recreatim 

mad, mostly within canp3gnxmds. Most of the Forest will be included within 

areas where new road cunstruction is limited or prohibited. 

cu”l!: 

Use Plan. (1519) 

I strongly support adoption of the 1977 Interagency Pbbr Vehicle 

42 
FACILITIES 

M: The Inp Nati- Forest was me of the agencies which 

participated in the aeVelopnent of the 1977 Interagency Witor Vehicle Plan 

(m). Ihe IMiW is currently in effect on lands administered by the Iqu 

Natimal Farest. The refarence to the IMWP is located in the Recreation 

sedion of the Forest-wide Standads and Guidelines unde?z off-mad vehicle 

use. 

cawmw: It is mt Clear where utility transnission line access or patrol 

roads fit into the mileage totals given. If they are uninventoried roads, 

closed to the public, please state so. (1093)- 

m: Ihe roads used to ccmkuct, maintain, and patrol the transmission 

lines through the Forest are not on the irnrentOry of Forest roads. They were 

built and are maintained by the utility canpanies who own the utility lines. 

For this ~easc~~, they are not Forest Service system roads and are not 

reflected in the mileage totals given in the Plan. You wauld need to use the 

Interagency Witor Vehicle Use Plan to deter" if these roads are open for 

use. 

m: For Management prescripticH1 #18, I recQnnend that the facilities 

element sbould also state: "Allow no new road 'm that would degade 

important wildlife habitat." (1433) (1836) 

R"sE: The Farest-wide standards and Guidelines which are cn" to all 

altematives and management areas *de detailed directr 'on for the 

pmte&irm of important wildlife habitat and riparian areas. Best Managanent 

practices and accepted erigjrezcjq me- are also c~mrol to all 

altematives and management areas. We are relying on these Standards and 

Guidelines to protect the wildlife resoace while at the same time allawing 

other uses of the land. 

CrMlmr: Lwe to see SQne of the funds in the road bUilW and maintenance 

buaget be redirected to badly needed trail ~truction projects. (182) 

( 1748 ) 

REspoNsE: While there is some flexibility in funding trail construction and 

rwmmkuction, most dollars are locked into specific uses as the mmey cones 

to the Forest. This is the case with most Forest funding ("ey for timber 

harvest, land acquisition, minerals administration, etc. ). These dollars are 

allocated to the Forests and the Districts as specific dollars to oanplete 

specific projects. Funding for trail has decreased as has the wexall 

Forest Service budget. Ccqmss could increase trail funding by 

redistributiq the current Forest Service burnet or by increasw the overall 

Forest Service budget with trail fundirg enjoyiq its Foroportianal Increase. 

Wail hpmwments can also be accanplished through private &mations of 

time, labor, and materials and voluntaq assistance fran the public. 

m: Pi- Management ?+rea. Add to the facilities element: "All roads 

in sensitive riparian areas should be closed. " (1261) 
FACILITIES 

RESPONSE: Specific roads will be evaluated for closure on a case-by-case 

basis. The Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for riparian areas call for 

giving emphasis to riparian values, for protection of streams and wetlands, 

and for preventing adverse changes in riparian habitat conditions. 

Relocating or closing roads that currently go through these areas will have a 

high priority. 

-: 'I.. .-txuct a total of 6 miles of roads for timber managemat.. . " 

conflicts with Page 111-28 "...21 miles of timber related collector road 

would be needed.. .'I. I Support the former, but only if th~ roads do mt 

enter existing roadless areas. (2185) 

RESPONSE: The six miles of road referred to is the nmhr of miles of road 

which muld be needed for timber managanent if the Preferred Alternative were 

selected. These miles are in currently maded areas not recQrmended for 

wilderness and suitable for timber harvest. The 21 miles of timber related 

collector roads referred to would be the nmhr of miles of road which could 

be constructed if all madless areas with suitable timber land were maded. 

Not all roadless areas are scheduled for timber harvest. The six miles are 

identified in the Preferred Alternative description. The 21 miles are 

described in the Affected Environment description. 

cOrm": We feel that the planned rate of road developnent on the Inyo 

Forest is not only needlessly expensive, but also exposes greatly increased 

Forest acreage to adverse environmental impact. The present -is on 

using National Forest to provide space for vehicular recreation is a mistake 

which damages the land and necessitates an unreasonable munt of enforcemnt 

work for already overtaxed Forest Service staff. The provision of improved 

roadhead camp- amenities is a proper way to localize and control the impact 

of recreational use while giving visitors an enjoyable Forest experience. 

.( 1562) (2142) 

RESPONSE: Recreational use of National Forest System land includes a wide 

range of activities frun backpacking to rmtorkmie canping at fully develop& 

c-unds to 4-wheel driving on primitive back cwuntq roads. Road 

construction supports one segment of the recreating public wb feel that they 

have the right to share the National Forest with other users. Even with the 

proped new road construction, a relatively snall portion of the Forest will 

be available to this user. 

CctMEN!: Facilities (111-11). The fourth paragra& of this section is 

inaccurate. (3urrent managment direction for scme Forest highways is 

inadequate for the daqer of - slides. Appropriate mitigation, including 

emergency access mutes, has yet to be sufficiently addressed. (1638) 

RESPONSE: In g-al we feel that the existing direction as identified in 

the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines is adequate. Forest Service 

maintained roads subject to avalanche haz- are generally closed during the 

winter. In addition, the Standards and Guidelines call for either uwacting 

roads to a safe condition or closing them where they are unsafe. The Forest 

44 
FACILITIES 

Service will wntinue to cx”a ‘ te with other agencies reqmnsible for 

highway rxnstruction and maintenance both for 1- range plw and solsite specific problems. In the past, site specific reviews between the 

Forest and the -ties or Caltrans have been prcdctive in deal- with 

project level “s. We believe that site specific problems should 

wntinue to be dealt with in this fashion. 

CCtMWI’: Close Highway 168. (331) 

RESPCHSE: We have m plans to close Highway 168. 

ClXM”: Do mt want to see you Close the road to ckccked aesk and 

co- meek in the White mains. (955) 

-E: -ed C&& and Cottcslwood roads will remain open fOr Current 

uses. The road to 

Sidehill Springs will be within a props& wilderness. This road will be 

teqorarily closed until designates the area a wilderness or not. 

If the area ke”s a wilderness, the road will be pemamntly closed. If 

mt, the road will be reopened. 

These roads will be within Manag-t Prescription #17. 

m: No trans-Sierra himay be built. (73) (402) 

SPCHSE: Tu OUT knowledge there are 110 trans-Sierra highways bedesigned, planned, or even discussed. 

CCtMWI’: 

abwe the Barcroft Laboratory. (2152) 

RESPCHSE: The White Mountain Peak Road is currently closed to the public 

a@p”tely one mile south of the Barcroft Research Station. The only use 

of the road above the statim is for maintenance of facilities m the top of 

White muntajn Peak by persoslnel of the research station. 

We ask the Forest to ccolsider closing the white mtajn Peak Road 

CU”: 

Mmache Meadolv area. (1205) 

WSKNSE: 

Management prescriptiOn #17. 

be ccB1structed. 

Keep roads out of the area east of the San J0aqui.n Ridge and the 

The Yost and Glass creek drainages and MMlache Meadows are within 

Existing roads will remain; m new roads will 

m: 

plowed and revegetated. 

WSKNSE: Roads within the South Sierra Wilderness were closed when the 

wilderness was created, September 28, 1987. It is the objective of the Inyo 

Natimal Forest to reclaim the road to Sdt Meadows. 

The road to Sdt Meadows in the South Sierra Wilderness should be 

There are 110 reasons for any exceptions. (382) 

45 
FACILITIES 

c”r: WeusetheMcQeod~Ioadtoaccesstheupperleaches0f 

Bttonwood creek and therefore oppose closure of that road. (989) 

m: These s€gilmts hava been reWx&d to incllcate that the road to 

McQd cap will remain open. 

m: ~theSbrwincreekRoadtopmvideapavedscenicloapfIom 

Mammth Lakes back to U.S. 395. (1359) 

m: ’Iherearecurrerrt1ynoplanstopavethesheawincceekRwd. The 

road is a gcd aggregate surfaced mad and will be main- to a standard 

gemrally driveable py mxt vehicles. 

c”r: Management Area #12 - Benton/casa Diablo. Close the Watt” 

!kcughs, Clover Patch and Dear Sguiqs roads and the roads between the 

watt” Road and the Owens me to all vehicular traffic ami 

establish Mtim plat Specis in dFshnbed areas. (140) 

PEsKNsE: These roads are not schduled for Closure as there are usars wb 

have a legal right to be in the areas served by these roads. Native 

vegetation will be used to Canp1ete rehabilitation on dishlrked lands wsw 

they are reclaimed. 

m: Management Area #13 - white Mountains. We recomnend CloSirg the 

main access Ioad through the Eristlexns Pine Forest at the Schlmn Qwe 

Research Laboratmy. We also “sd the follming roads for closure and 

rehabilitation: Tres Plumas Flat Road, McCld Rwd, Sage Hen Peak Road, 

Wyman Creek Road and Birch Creek Road. These closures are essential for the 

No new trails 

should be built and existirg trails skuld not be malntained. (140) 

REspopLsE: 

as p?qcsed wilderness, designated as Research Natural Areas, included in the 

Bristleccm Pine Forest, or included within Prescxipticm #17. Existing roads 

CcBLshUctBd. Few, if any, trails will be tx”cted within this Management 

Area. Existing special uses, such as #a research facilities at CYwked 

Creek and Barcroft will remain. 

Recreation Area and ObliteratLng its entire length to the white Mountain 

p”3ticn and re-creatim of the White Mxrltain ecosystem. 

mst of the white Mxrltain Management Area will either be included 

will generally remain open for use; however, m new roads will be 

clx” we strlmgly oppose the building of any new roads and support 

relocating Ioads out of fragile areas. The north fork of aottarayood Creek 

(White Ibmtains) and Sidehill Springs Roads shDuld be closed to protect the 

special values of these areas. No additimal roads shovld be built in the 

Mmache and Bakeoven Meadows areas. 

REspopLsE: 

(1923) 

We are plaming to ccmtmct a limited number of new roads. We 

rely the Forest-wide Standards and GUidelineS and Best Managanent 

46 
mm 

practices to limit pa%sible c"ticm in fragile areas. Large 

geographical areas are included in Management Prescripticms which limit or 

prohibit new mad construction alwther. 

m: 11-26, Wlcgy. Do you mean 1200 acre-feet over the next 25 years 

or 1200 acre-feet per year? (1634) 

RISXNS: The 1,200 acre-feet fig-ae is per year. 

m: Despite any recent activity in the Mammth area, it is still an 

active seisnic z.cme. of magnitude 6 or higher are possible any 

tims and probable. The real possibility of a major earthcpake and/or 

volcanic empticn must be amsidered in any future developnent of 

"eaticmal facilities in the Marmrsth Mmntain region. (1263) (411, 481, 

2178) 

REs?"z weagree. Thediscussl 'on Of the geOlcgy resourCe h the EIS and 

the staliment cn geology in the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines address 

the both fmn the standpint of risk to Forest facilities and to 

Forest users fran seisnic, volcanic, and landslide prmeses. The effects of 

these hazards would be addressed dw5.q the mviromtal analyses of 

specific projects. 

m: A guideline sbuld mize interpretation of geologic pheMmena 

in this area. (1099) 

-E: 

the intmretation of local geologic features. 

We have included an additimal Standard and Guideline emphasizing 

CC@MNR The geological fmtim in the area of the Inyo maters and Glass 

Wnmtain are beautiful in thair solitude. They are so very special because 

they provide easy access to examples of volcanic action which enables the 

public to see how cur oontinent was formed. Haw would they be protected? 

(95) 

REspoBilsE: Oxcently there is rn specific form of protgtion afforded to the 

recent volcanic features located between Mammth and June Mnmtains. 

Examples include Wilson Butte, Obsidian Dcme, Obsidian Flow, Deer Kountain 

and the Inyo craters. Sane of these features have been identified as 

candidates for designatim as geologic Special Interest Areas. This 

designation muld provide protection fmn future disturbance. 

m: Management Area #9 - Marmmth. Add a geology direch 've: "Identify 

and protect for study special geologic areas." (1988) (1433, 2170) 

47 
HERBICIDES 

RES-: The Forest-wide Standards and Gaidellnes dmect the Forest to 

evaluate candidates for classification as Special Interest Areas on a 

case-by-case basis and to naninate them by 1990. Outstandmg geologic 

features are identified as possible candidates for this classification. No 

other areas withm Managwent Area #9 were identified as having Special 

Interest Area qualities. 

COMMENT: Please add a Forest-wide Standard and Guideline for geology that 

reads: "conduct avalanche hazard mapping in conjunction with Caltrans and 

i%m County, and assess mitigation feasibility for endangered mads and built 

areas.'' (1638) 

RESPONSE: We have added a Forest-wide Standard and Guideline for geology 

with mrdsg similar to your suggestion. 

HERBICIDES 

m: The report mentioned that aerial application of herbicides in 

silviculture is unlikely to occur; dever, I wish to emphasize that I think 

ground level applicatim should always be impmved. (783) 

RESPONSE: With Integrated Pest Managwent, the alternative used will be 

based on the desiked results and impacts. No use of herbicides is planned on 

the Inyo Forest wing this p1annh-g period. 

CCMMElW: I oppose the use of toxic herbicides on the Inyo and all other 

National Forests. (96) (140, 151, 278, 1549, 1632, 1775) 

RFSWNSE: 

perid. 

No use of herbicides is planned on the Inyo Wing this planning 

COMMENP: oppose the use of herbicides especially if the cut requires 

herbicides to provide a certain level of sustainable yield. The Inyo should 

develop a Plan that does not de@ upon herbicides. (1108) 

RESFONSE: The Inyo Plan does not depend upon herbicides for timber 

management. 

m: The Inyo National Forest predicates its timher yield and yield 

proaUction costs on the selection of the Preferreed Alternative of the 1983 

Vegetation Managemnt for Reforestation DEE, Page 2-39. The types of 

herbicides proposed for use on the Irryo National Forest and the number of 

acres on which those herbicides will be used annually should be discussed in 

the FEIS. (2213) 

48 
-E: Site-specific treatments are not within the purview of the Forest 

plan. 

The Inyo does mt plan to use herbicides for timber managmt durirg the 

planning period. 

Those will be decided by emi"mta1 analyses for each Foroposal. 

m: In the Standards and Guidelines for special uses, please lnsert in 

#1: 'I.. .with established Forest and COTrrmnity goals. " In #2.C., please 

revise: "Private uses that will meet onnnmity needs identified in lwal 

plans." For #3, please add: "D. Private (exclusive) uses." (1638) 

"E: We agree with the need to coordinate closely with local agencies 

and, when appropriate, suppsrt local ccnnnmity goals and objectives. 

However, we believe that it is not in the Forest Service interest to include 

the additicms which you have suggested. We retain the right to disagree with 

local plans should thrxse plans be in conflict with Forest Service Coals and 

Objectives. 

m: In g-al, we do not suppcdt the outright acquisition of 

additicmal lands for Forest Service prcgram. Where land adjusbwnts are 

needed in order to improve achinistrative efficiency, we urge you to exhaust 

all exme efforts as a first priority. (1432) (27, 139, 281, 319, 944, 

1249, 1261, 1269, 1532, 1776, 2152, 2183) 

"E: The Forest land adjustment prcgram is designed to am high 

priority parcels of land. The land might be high priority because of its 

wildlife habitat, for its recreational quality, or hxause its current use 

sc" detracts from uses or activities on adjacent National Forest land. 

Land aquisition often results in minor lmundaq adjustments which mmes 

managenent in adjacent areas. Specific reccmnendatians for land acquisition 

are mainkrind in a Forest land acquisition plan. Except under unusual 

Circllmstances , most acquisitions are made by trading other National Forest 

land for the desj.1~3 parcels. Since the private landowners must want to 

trade, the Forest must wait until the private party is interested in 

exchaqing, or until a secad private party wb wants a specific parcel of 

National Forest land purchases the private parcel and offers it for 

exchange. In either case, the aoquisiticm prcgram on the Forest is a 

lcslg-term prcgram whse goals may not be attained for years. 

mi: Sane of the permittees on the Forest also function as the primary 

emplayers for local "mities. The lack of affordable private land near 

the employment site has created a job/kusing Mance and resulted in 

substantial CQnrmtes for much of the local work force. kcal jurisdictions 

have been unable to accampdate the fluctuatjq busing demand of seasonal 

employees and wins ' andoverpayment haveresulted. The 

following indicator should cxmqumtly be included: "How can the Forest 

assist in meeting the lccal housing demand generated fran activities on the 

Forest?" (1638) 

49 
RESPOEGE: We agree that the current land ownership patterns and the heavy 

eu%rlniC reliance on seasonill lecreaticnists and part time employees has 

resulted in a real housing pmblen. However, we feel that our current 

diredicpl is apFnoFniate in this cas8 and will not add yan suggested 

indicator. m, if not all, of the increased private activity of pennittees 

m Naticmal Fcrest land has bean at the BIyxxlcagenent of the 1- 

cn"ities and the permittees. Fbr this reason, WB feel that is is largely 

km&g 

the ?.Fspndbility 

fran the private 

of the 

land 

annumities 

base. We 

and 

feel 

the permittees 

that private 

to 

land, 

pIUKi.de 

identified 

- 

thruugh cu"ity planning pmwsses and devaloped by private parties, is the 

prqer place for employee housing. The Forest will cnkinue to consider 

exchanging Naticmal Forest system land-into the private land base. The 

indicator which reads "Should Natimal Forest Lands adjacent to growirg 

cn"ities be available (thrmgh exchange) for private developnent 

progrinns?" and the Forest Standard and Guideline for lands which in part 

leads "?ipply the folloWirg priorities when dispaSing of Federal land: A) 

Trads inside or adjacent to c"ities when such tracts wxld be used for 

public purposes, such as affordable ~~ indicate cur futura Carmitment. 

CXMtWl': The Plan fails to meet 36 CFR 219.20 (A) which ?xx&res that "Lands 

in less than satisfactory aditim shall be identified and eiate 

action planned for their hratim." The Plan also fails to meet 36 CFR 

219.20 (B) which requires "...direction for rehabilitaticm of lands in 

unsatisfadcny ccmditim." (2170) (1617) 

RSFCNSE: The first paragram under 36 219.20 states that "In Forest 

p1anni.q. the suitability and potential capability of Natimal Forest System 

lands for proaucing forage for gazing animals and for providing habitat for 

Manag-t Irniicatm Species shall be determined as provide3 in paragram 

(A) and (B) which you reference. Lands so identified shall be managed in 

aa" with direction established in Forest Plans.". The Stam%rds and 

Guidelines for range TB~OUTCBS in the Plan provik this direzh 'cm. The 

identificatim of specific -1s of lard are outside the scope of the 

Farest Plan but would be identified as part of individual grazing allotmnt 

Plans. 

CXMtWl': Pl- modify the DEIS (11-59) to include: "Lands for SUmner 

recreation developnent in Lee Vhhq and Lundy Canyons will not be acquired 

until an analysis of the human carrying capacity of these areas has been 

&ne." (2170) 

RSFCNSE: An analysis of human camying capacity is me portion of a 

cauposite plan which is canpleted before any developnent is started in an 

area. Hawever, acbptim of your Suggestion would reverse our current 

pro=ass. We have no way of lolaKing when, if ever, these private lands would 

becane part of the Naticmal Forest System. &rerally we will not aniplete a 

canposite plan m land unless it is part of the National Forest System. Even 

if cur goal did not include sane form of developnent, the Forest Service 

would still be interested in acquiring the private lands within Lee Vhjq 

and Lundy carqcms because of other resourcB values. 

50 
LANDS 

03Wmr: 

ownarship is correct, we question the statenwit that this Managmt Area is 

ccqcsed &ly of private land. Actually, & of this area is Naticmal 

Forest system land or Los Angeles Department of Water and F”er land. 

(2190) (1433) 

m: and OWnersNp within Management Area #9 is much mpe of a 

canpsite than the opening sentence under the &scription would indicate. 

Thevaxdilghasbeenchang@. 

Management Area #9. Asslrming that the Forest map which indicates 

c”?r: Because your Plan recognizes the value of day-use activities and 

open space djacent to the ca”ity, we should not give up mpe Forest 

Service land for Mamnoth developrent. Nordic skiirg 

and private equestrian use must be midered for this open space. (1645) 

(1260, 1261) 

m: In cannunities where privately owned land is scarce, the Forest 

No mre land ex-es. 

service has often rssponded to requests for land exchanges by allowing 

federal land to mve into private, ccnmty or city ownershl ‘p. These requests 

generally originate fran the local govemwnt organization or fran private 

individuals vjho have Plans for addttic?€lal developEnt within the cx”i*. 

In payment, the Forest Service could receive a parcel of land of equal value 

or land plus a sum of cash to make up the differences in value. Through this 

precess, the Forest Service acquires parcels of land it considers valuable 

for a variety of resource reascns. This policy will ccsltinue on a 

site-by-site basis. 

CfMfWr: The Town of Mamoth Lakes would like to see the dcolation, exchange 

or acquisition by the Town of the area of land between the cumnnu ‘ty center 

and Minaret Road (State Route 203). The area is north of Forest Wail and 

south and west of Minare t Road. The Town would like to see a possible 

donaticm, land exchange or acquisition by the Town of the area north of the 

firestation, approxuna * tely 35 acres lavJwn as the cmpmnd. 

The Town would also like to see the donation, acquisition, special use permit 

or land excharge of the area east of Shady Rest Park, north of State mute 

203, or south of 203, east of Meridian or the area east of the south gateway 

for a passible golf course. The area would cover approximately 170 acres. 

The Plan should consider the donation, land exchange or acquisition by the 

Town of the area known as the south Gateway area. This area could be 

utilized for a canbination park and civic center area, a swimnirag psol or 

ow uses needed by the Town. This area should be wnnected to the Mammth 

CYeek Park and extend fran State Route 203 to the Mammth Creek Road. 

coveriq the area between the Town and U.S. 395. 

The Town of Mamoth Lakes supp~rts all the policies of Management Area #9 

except Mrmber 4. This should be mDdified to permit exparsion of Shady Rest 

Park to the east. (1891) 

51 
LANDS 

REspoELsE: 

theownershl 'p of specific parcels of Natiad FmeSt System lands &d be 

initiated and wcdd OCCUT subsequent to apKopriate review on a case-by-case 

basis. 

The -imtion of specific parCslS of land for acquisitiapl by 

the Town of "th Lakes is kycrld the scope of the Forest Plan. changes in 

m: When establishing priorities for land dispsal to private 

ownership, the Forest sbould give preference to lands idmtified in lccal 

general plans for cc"ity expansion or identified as valuable open space, 

or to areas identified as marginally developable due to ~bal hazards such 

as avalanche. (1638) 

REspoEIsE: The Forest land acquisiticm prcgram is prjmarily direded at 

acquiring land that has a high priority for achieving Forest goals and 

objectives. Sane lands having a high priority frun a lccal cmnnmity 

standpint may also have a high priority frun a Forest Service &andp5nt. 

We are cannittd to mrkirg with the lccal ComrmnitieS wherwer passible to 

accanplish shared objectives. However, we will not include the wording which 

you suggest as it limits our flexibility to achieve goals which my conflict 

with those of local Camamities. 

c€c"r: YoUrideaOfwi+zM"g ' lands is just in reverse of what it should 

be. You should be developiq lands and "g ' the people. Our 

population is grmxing, especially when we are legalizing 10.7 million frun 

other countries yearly. These people cannot be expected to live like cattle 

in your big cities, especially during a cold nuclear war. (43) 

REspcpIsE: The Inyo Forest Plan is cme of many plans which are currently 

being developd for the entire Natid Forest System. Each plan is Wque 

based on the resources available on a specific Natid Forest. As an 

WviW Forest, we recognize an obligation to provide varicus c"xb 'ties 

such as timber, Wals, develop3 recreatiosl, and range to the lccal 

camnmities. This Obligation is being fulfilled to the extent we feel is 

-le. Q1 a tie basis, we have an obligation to provide high 

quality wilderness areas which are not available in other areas. The use of 

these areas increases each year, and it is obvious to us that this use will 

cantinue to increase in the future. While wilderness areas are not 

COrmJdities in the same sense that lmker or cattle are "x% 'ties, there is 

a demand for these areas and, in creatirg them, we are supprting people. 

c€c"r: I request that permittees, including sumner m permittees, be 

kept at present levels. (73) 

RES~~PLSE: and is made available wider special use permit if the pmpsed 

use is cmpatible with the established multiple use objectives of the area 

affected and if rn suitable private land is reasmably available for the 

use. ~enerally, public uses have priority over semi-public uses which in 

turn have priority over uses which benefit the hdividual. There are Iy) 

numerical quatas on special use permits mr upper limits on the numbsr which 

can be in effect. We believe that the overall nmber of special use permits 

52 
LANDS 

will gradually jJEEaS3 as new activities cccur on National Forest land and 

as Forest-operated facilities are turned over to private operatian. 

m: Management Area #16. The lands element should read: "Designate a 

one mile wide utility corri&r centered on the Pacific Dc intertie." 

Management Area #13. The following statement should be added as a lands 

element: "Designate a ore mile wide utility corriwr in the vicinity of 

State Route 168." 

Plan 111-17, fourth paragraph, third sentence should read: "The route 

parallel- the major interstate right-of-way for the Pacific Dc Intertie 

will be designated a utility COLTidDT as will a route between Big Pine and 

Deep Springs in the vicinity of State Route 168. The need for other routes 

will be "sidered." (1093) 

REspcRIsE: The Forest has agreed to participate in the cnnpleticm of an 

analysis of yible transnissim line corridors across National Forest land 

on the Inyo. wording will be added to the Plan to provide for the aaopticol 

of the analysis and of any -ti- when they are available. The size 

and location of any potential corridors will be factors ccolsidered as part of 

the analysis. It is the intent of the Forest to "ize the number and size 

of potential corridors to the mini" necessary and to locate potential 

corridors whera the ewixmmntal inpacts are the least. For these reasons 

we feel that it is inappropriate to add mrding to Management Area Directicol 

which establishes corridors before the canpletion of the analysis. 

CrXW": Management Prescriptim #4. A lands element should be added to 

read: "Pennit new utility rights-of-way which are mnptible with the We 

Deer Habitat -is. Ccnstnxtion of new facilities would laced to be 

acmnpanied by appropriate habitat preservation measures such as "izirg 

new road developnent." For Management Area #12, a lands element should be 

added that reads: "Cmsider the use of alternate utility corrihrs if they 

canmt be accQRIDdated on existing corridors." Wdify the visual element to 

read: "Utilize existing pmer line routes as nu& as possible for the 

location of additional werhead lines. r.knlml 'ze the creation of new routes .. through the area." 

Management Prescription #11. A lands element should be added to read: 

"Pennit new utility rights-of-way which are mnptible with the Range 

Ehphasis. New facilities would need to be a"panied by appropriate habitat 

presemation - such as minimizing new developnent." 

Manag-t Prescriptiosl #17. A lands element should be added to read: 

"Permit new utility rights-of-way which maintain the unroaded charac-bristics 

of the land and which do mt -lid with recreation and wildlife 

objectives. (1093) 

53 
IIEspoELsE: We believe that the wxdirg which you have suggested for inclusion 

as InanagaEllt diredian rnder MaMgemnt FTeSmx 'ptia-bs #4, #11 and #17 and 

Management Area #12 are either antrary to the Ruest's intent to minimize 

the poliferaticm of new rights-of-way and utility CorTicbrs or are already 

stated in the StandKds and Guidelines. The intent to minimize rights-of-way 

and utility corrim is clearly stated in the Ruest standards and 

Guidelines and participauon in the utility corriax analysis with the BIM 

Cent0I-s anxlnd this need. In additicn, WB f€el that the -tal 

analysis of site specific rights-of-way and utility mi&r Fnoposals will 

identify whem unacceptabls amflicts with other rswnes exist, if they 

exist. We do not mieve that it is appmprlate or necessary to add the 

wxdilq which you have Suggestsd. 

COEMENT: Th"t the documents the high voltage direct current (HVDC) 

intertie could be referred to as the Pacific Dc Intertie instead of the 

-ate, elhninatirq s~ne amfusicn abcut the oparating voltages of the 

tranmclssicm line which have been changed in the last few years. (1093) 

750-HVDC 0regCpI-S~- intertie. This IMIW would be IKWS 

IIEspoELsE: weagreeandhavemadethechanges. 

COEMENT: Management prescription #5. This prescripticm allows energy 

exploration or developnent, but does not specifically pmit a utility 

right-of-way. If energy is developed, a means of coklveying that energy is 

required. The lands el-t should be modified. 

-mer major axx!ern is the management directi on which would appear to 

this canpany to relocate its existing 115 KV transnissicm lines in 

Managment Areas #4, #5, #7. #11, and #14 at such time as it is necessa~y to 

upgrade the lhes. This line @des p3wer to the Mammth and June Lake 

cQ"ities. However, if the various Proposed alpine and nardic ski areas 

are develOpea with a "spmdirg irmease in residential and carmercial 

developnent, it may be necessary to wads the existing transnissicm line to 

meet the higher energy &mad. The cost of upgrading the existlng line ad 

substantial costs associated with ralccaticm would be bme by all of OUT 

custanars for the relatively benefit of nuvjq the impact of the 

transnission line from one lccatim to another. (1093) 

m: Mmagemat -ipticm #5 has been mitten to eliminate energy 

prcducticm as me of thxe activities which will be considered appropriate 

for Research Natural Areas. The rewrite precludes the necessity of adding 

wording providing for utility rights-of-way. 

The 1w-m Forest goal is to reduce the visual impacts of "ade 

developnent wherever possible. Wording in the managemat direct^ 'on for 

Manag-t Areas #4, #5, #7, #11, and #14 is specifically direded at 

reauChg the Visual impaCt Of power lines. In many places 081 the Forest 

these are the mly "a& intrusion and eliminating them from the view of 

the Forest user results in major visual imp"-. We u"d that 

cost and the existence of an acceptable alternate aligment are important 

be amortized by sale of the additicmal power transniw: however, the 

54 
MINERALS 

amsideraticms. We do feel, however, that it is reasomble to require those 

off-Forest people who benefit (utility customers and canparry) fran a Forest 

to pay for minimizing impacts to cm-Forest people wln use the Forest: 

(recreationists and the public in transit) it's reasmably possible. 

CxXW": The Illyo Natimal Forest includes lands in an area vital to 

regional transnission of e&&xic energy resources. The 750 KV Dc 

celilo-sylmat line, operated by LAMnlp, is already a fixture in this area. 

The potential for mtional use of this mi&x is high; southern 

California continues to ~TW and hcrease its demand for energy, and the 

Pacific Nxthest and Interm4stain states are poi& to provide this 

energy. The Inyo/BishDp area is in a key pition, due to its geqrawc and 

topgraphic situaticm, to accarmodate these transnission needs. In addition 

to the 750 KV DC line ami-, other canplementary COrridDLs have been 

identified by irdmtxy in this area. The Plan is lacking and the DEIS is 

incanplete because this is not addressed. It is OUT . thatthe 

Bakersfield District, Bureau of Land Managewnt (BLM), is udxlAuq astudy of corri- opticms in the Inyo/Bisbp area with input and "peration fran 

the Inyo Natimal Forest and Nevada EJIM. Sierra Pacific strcqly reconnends 

that the EIS and Plan be scheduled to incorporate the results of the BIM/Inyo 

National Forest study. We believe that to fjnalize the Plan withcut N1 

cm&deration of this important social and ecoIlcmic issue renders it 

i"@ete and cuntestable. (28) (150, 1093, 1261, 1532, 1608, 2192) 

m: The Forest has age& to participate in the capletion of an 

analysis of vible tranSnission line conidors through the area. 

CxXW": We support withdrawal of all Natimal Forest system lands fmn 

appropriation under the mining laws. (298) (140, 151, 166, 171, 438, 934, 

970, 2101) 

"E: Withdrawal of the Inyo National Forest fran "sal en- is not a 

managewnt qtim available to the Forest. Gnly Oongress, through 

The Forest can, and has, recQrmended withdrawal of National Forest system 

land for specific purposes such as wilderness, administrative sites, and 

Scenic areas. Through the mining laws, Corgress has given the general public 

the right to enter mto public land. Given that Cmqress and the 

Administration have on "erous 0Ccasia-s declared their intention to 

encourage and foster mineral prcx3~ction fran public la, we do Mst feel 

that such a "xmdation is appropriate in managing the Inyo National 

Forest. 

legislation, can withdraw federally mstered land fran mineral entry. 

CCMIEXf: Do not permit geothennal developnent. 

(13, 495) (8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 21, 22, 44, 78, 140, 298, 450, 481, 1399, 1408, 

1434, 1435, 1436, 1437, 1438, 1439, 1440, 1441, 1442, 1443, 1444, 1445, 1446, 

Please do not permit mining. 

55 
MINERALS 

1447. 1448. 1449. 1450. 1451. 1452. 1453. 1454. 1455. 1456. 1457. 1458. 1459. 

1460; 1461; 1462; 1463; 1586; 1592; 1774; 1781; 1820; 1858; 1947; 2017; 2026; 

2120, 2136, 2137, 2197) 

REspoELsE: The Forest Service is mt in a position to unilatwally prevent 

mining activities on National Farest System lands. The mining laws give the 

general pblic the right to enter onto public land and Ccqress and the 

AdminiSizati.cn have on nunemus occasions declared their intention to 

encourage and foster mal prduction frun public lands. The 

Steam Act of 1970 made geothermal resources available for developnent via a 

system Of leasing. Geabwma resources on the Inyo Forest have been leased 

and the federal g"ent is a partner in ccm- with several potential 

developers. Preventing these lessees fran explorjng for and developig 

geothenMl "es would be a breach of ccmtxact. 

CX": Minjng op~A5ca-1~ on Forest lands ad be allowed to mtjnue: 

howevar, new -ti- ad be clasely and cooy?eratively reviewed for 

their legitimacy. Speaking as an explcration geologist myself, I krrw 

"tion, drilling sites, millsite pqsration, and even pkny qerations 

in entirety have been ~EWI to happen many times. A legitimate exploration 

ccnp3any should be allowed to pmceed in steps after careful review and 

wceediqly destroy visual quality. A qualified geologist(s) shDuld be in 

the enploy of the Forest Service. (65) 

RESXSE2 We would prefer to deal with "legitbate" exploration and 

deve1og"t canpanies. However, there is mhiq in the minirag laws which 

allows us to evaluate a miniq canparry on its legitimacy or to require that 

any professional people be emplayea by the mnpany. We evaluate the 

blend those activities with eKisting uses and resources. As lcmg as a mhiq 

ccnp3any is able to achieve cnu requirements, we ham m reason to susped its 

motives. 

pwxmally that marry lnil?&q operaticms are pmly to begin with. Road 

"ing for potential that warrants further Krk and does mt 

activities which the canpany Plans to pursue: we WXk with the canparry to 

CX": NO new roads for mines or mine exploration. (467) (3, 329, 376, 

377, 466, 923, 936, 953, 956, 957, 1188, 1232, 1282, 1374, 1430, 1504, 1659, 

1660, 1868, 1930, 2115, 2161) 

REspoNsE: THe U.S. minFng laws give the awners of minirag claims a 

mlusive right of access ac~oss the public lands to their claims. This 

right is my for the purpose of mzintainiq the claims and as a mans of 

lpmoving the "ls. such access must be in -with the nlles and 

regulatims of the surface management agemy. For the Forest Service, these 

regulatims are located in 36 CFR 228. These regulations prwide the 

auMty to apprwe the mute and method of access to "he surface 

disturbance. 

CX": I am coglcarned with Managenent Prescriptiopl#18. Frcm my 

of prescn 'ption #17, it warld .seem that this would be a better solution to 

56 
allow legitimate access to mineral claims and allow for current recreation 

use. I think you should eliminate Prescription #18. (1205) 

m-: We have chosen to rem Prescription #18. Minirag access is 

equally provided for LI&X both prescriptions: however, recsreation 

opprbmities provided by the two prescriptions are different. We feel that 

both prescriptim are needed to provide a full raqe of recreation 

opprhmities. 

m: Any new mining service sbould not cause the degradation of water or 

riparian ixmes. The Forest Service should more clearly spell out means of 

protectiq these areas including the width of the zo87es to be specially 

managed to pressme riparian values. (1332) (914, 978, 2213) 

FfESWSE: The conflicts between mining and water quality and riparian 

protection are difficult to resolve. We agree that water quality and 

riparian resoufces have very high priority. The Forest-wide Standards and 

Guidelines in these two areas have been written to clearly state our intent 

to imprwe the dtion of these re?am%s. We believe that specific 

restrictions on activities around streams and riparian areas should - fm 

the evaluation of site specific pqxsals, not fmn the Forest Plan. 

CCMEWl': The sea=& paragraph LI&X Minerals: Leasable (Geothwmal merSy), 

Plan 111-19, sbould read: "BLM issues all auttmrizations for post-lease 

actions with inout and "ma fran the Forest Service". Also. the 

supply and & parqaph needs @sting on resource verification. (176) 

(2175) 

RESPCBVSE: We have made the appropriate chqes. 

CCMEWl': Wfy the Leasable Minerals section on Plan IV-24-26 to clarify 

the fact that any work niust be dcsle in ccmjuwtion with the Bureau of Land 

Manag-t. (176) 

RSFCEWZ: We have made the appropriate charges. 

CCMEWl': RWW the Fore~t-wide Standards and Guidelines and the Affezted 

B"mt description for Leasable Minerals and Geothermal hergy, these 

ssdicns should include the need to analyze the clrmulative impads of energy 

develapnent, particularly geothwmal projects, CBI fish, wildlife, and 

rezreation resources. (1433) (1648, 1843, 2170) 

": A clrmulative impacts analysis is rquired by the National 

-tal Policy Act (NEPA) of 1967. NEPA regulations are located in 40 

CFR 1500 and apply to all fdxal agencies. These regulations are 

inccaporated by reference in the Forest EIS and Plan. It is understood that 

ewi"mtal dDcuments which analyze the iqacts of specific projects will 

canply with the regulaticm in 40 CFR 1500. We believe that the best time to 

57 
cawmr: 

It is =-renewable and any land classified as eized should be drilled 

with a did core drill before they are pt into parks or wil-. Not 

just one hole, but a rwn-ber of holes, drilled like a minjng canpany does, 

befare they dig. (465) (486, 1432, 2048, 2179) 

REspoNsE: we make long rarge land we decisions based m the most onplete, 

detailed info” possible. Often the funds or the is not available to 

do that, and we & make land use decisions based m the best available 

available infonnaticm. 

wmlq is the most i”tant of all the activities in the Farest. 

infonnatim. we rely heavily m the expertise of OUT employees, of other 

gwanment agencies, and of the public to assist us in the best 

cumwr: The f0llawing are specific mRnents having to do with the Plan. 

Minerals Management (IS-25): 2. what activities does the Farest have in 

mind? Seemsvagueinterrnsofminirg. Eitheryoucanmineornotmine. You 

ca“t limit a mining activity in a valid existing claim. This needs 

Clarificaticm. 

Minerals Management, Leasable Minerals (IS-26): 3. It is unclear what is 

meant by this paragraph. Ate these pKe-lease EAS or are these m lands that 

will be put up for lease? Are these the same EAS that are not wittdrawn? 

Locatable Minerals (IV-26): Is this necessary for a guiaeline? I thught 

that land is available. This would indicate that sone lands are not 

available that are not witi-drawn. Saleable Mnerals (IV-26): 2. What is 

defined as unacceptable damage? (29) 

m: public Law 167, enacted in August of 1955, pmvides the autbrity 

for the surface management agency to approve Koposed vaticas, require 

mzdification of Koposed opratims, or @bit an aspect of operations an 

 mini^^^ clainrs for the protection of m-mineral, surface ~,-urces . Specific 

direction relatiq to the Forest Service is located in 36 CFR 228. 

The Fm-wid0 Standards atid OUidelinaS for leasable WalS have been 

rewritten to separata the pre- and &-lease envFroaynen tal document process 

and respmsibilities. 

The ForeSt-wide Standards and Guidelines for locatable minerals have been to 

indicate that all land not specifically withdrawn fmn mineral entry will be 

administered subject to existing mining. 

Reg- the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for saleable ”ls, 

“unacceptable” is defined by the decision maker subsequent to an 

e!”mmtal analysis of the proposed sale. 

CCxwEW: What does ‘“carage leasirag“ mean (DEIS, 11-42)? What actions are 

omtenplated under this term? Does this mean that Wals, as a resame, 

58 
MINERALS 

has equal priority with all other resources okl the Forest? I%w are you going 

c€mflictS with sone other Forest ra~cume? 

~n qard to the ~orest-wide Standards and Guidelines for cc" variety 

really undefined and will be a trouble spat for managers for years to cane. 

What is unacceptable to me perscsl may not be unacceptable to sc"e else. 

This Standard and Guideline sI-rJuld be changed to express what you really 

intend to say. Any dim of a mineral material is going to cause sone 

dishrbame to the dace "me, but -it may not be significant or 

unacceptable. (29) 

REspoBvsE: TheStanaarclsandGUidelinesfor . IS have been reworded to 

mxe accurately represent the Forest's responsibility toward leasing of 

energy resources. In the mall management program 081 the Naticmal Forest 

system lands, mal - are CCBlsidered equally with other resources. 

Gmflicts with other r~sourc~ management goals and uses are identified in the 

analyses of project specific impacts. Resource trade-off decisions are made 

subsequent to thDse analyses. 

In the Standards and Guidelines for saleable minerals, we agree that the word 

"unacceptable" is ambiguow. In this context, unacceptable is defined by the 

decision mer subsequent to an e"mcmtal analysis of the proposed sale. 

The dim of mineral materials will result in surface disturbance and 

whether or not the impacts of the disposal are unacceptable will indeed by 

decided by diff-t people wln could have different points of view. 

tomanagethemalresaurceifthe ' 1 leasing miniq pmposal 

minerals (DEIS 11-43), how do yoU defh "unaooeptable dmage"? This is 

-: Eescxiptim of Management Prescxiption #12 - Concentrated 

Recreation Area (DEE 11-52). If the area is not wi" fnm mineral 

entry, what are you going to do to "ize energy developmnt? This 

conflicts with your Standard and Guideline for minerals. Are you @DJ to 

withdraw all lands fran mineral entry that you do not want conflicts to 

arise? The same ccrrment applies to the description of Management 

Prescription #16 - Nordic Ski Areas. For Management Prescription #17 - 

Limited Access (DEIS, 11-53), what is the reascsl to Close mining roa& to the 

public after the minirig opration has been cunpleted? If no safety problem 

exists, why not leave the road open to OW use as lcolg as the use is confined 

to the mad? (29) 

RES-: The discussions of "cmtrated recreation areas and nordic ski 

areas in Management Prescriptions #12 and #14 refer to "izing the 

conflicts with energy developrent. There is m inplication that these areas 

are taryeted for withdrawal or that energy darelopent will be "ized. 

Where asnflicts between the different land uses arise, the Forest will work 

with the different land users to eliminate the conflict or lessen its impact. 

Prescriptim #17 is designed to maintain a specific recreational experience. 

We feel that increasing the number of roads in these areas, regardless of the 

reason for which they were built, will gradually diminish that experience. 

59 
MINERALS 

a3"r: ThebadqmmdszxAxJn . for "l S (pS. 111-47) n62dS further 

djszussion cm histmy. one amden$& sentence does not truly reflect the 

actual past. Since past mining activity is i"t and lcq standing, a 

detailed discussion is nxz%xzy. A figure including minirg districts, major 

past-,and- 'ty identifiers could be included. In order to 

suggest length of the secticm, a canparism to the recreaticH1 

ssciicm indicates 17 pages as an appmxhate mark. (25) 

REspcpJsE: While we agres that a detailed discuss icmof minirghishycmthe 

Forest would be in- ' ,wedisagreethatitisnxz%xzyindescribing 

the current "mnt and resource "genst characteristics cm the Inyo 

Naticnal Farest. We feel that the existing discwsicm is appropriate given 

the current state cm mining activities cm the Farest. In additicm, we 

disagreethatthelengthofthemineral sdiscussicnshouldbedetr ' lby 

the length of other resource discussi caw. 

CCWmJ!: Thereshouldbesamdiscussicmcnthelargest~ .mining operatsans (DEIS 111-47). Further, there is very limited discuss ian on the 

mineral p3xntial cm the Farest. What is the mineral ermk"t that would 

be affected by the Lnoposed management activities? lJnder the managerent 

concerns for locatable minerals, there is 1y3 a" for the impad of other 

resourcescmtheminerill resaurce. Washbgtm Office policy is that "ls 

Ty3w have an eqllal standkg for CcBlSideration as all the other resources. 

Tharefare, managenst should be just as mch about how mineral 

qloraticm will be affected. 

How abaut a discussicn cm wind (IV-30)? The assunph 'caw listed do mt speak 

to the This entire dcm is very weak 

and dDes not adequately ad&ess the effect of management activities 081 energy 

developnent. It is difficult to refer back to all management direzh 'an to 

determine for myself the camsequences of managenst activities 011 energy 

developnent. 

In this secticm OBI mineral s (I?-59), a discussicm cm access to mining 

OperaticaLs is needed which includes limitatims, existing problem areas, and 

oppcahrnities for new road cm. I nust capliment the autbrs, 

however, in that you did an excellent job cm land availability for "l 

en*. 

On page I?-62, the total a"t of land available for mineral en* is lower 

undex the preferred Alternative as canpared to the alR Alternative. Yet, the 

you have given in the "l field is to enccurage mineral 

developnent. Nm that wilderness has been established, this should not be a 

currently withdrawn be reopened except for wilderness? (29) 

RSFCNSE: We do mt believe that a msre detailed discussim of cqoiq 

mining activities will significantly jnprove the descripticm of the cuzrent 

envirOamnent and cuncent managaent charaderistics of the Farest. The fact 

an .idiCaticm of 

This sbould be discussed. 

of wind or solar fanns. 

factnr in new land availability. How abut . thatsanelands 

that these mines exist and that they are in FJrdWAicm is 

the current mineral envirokment. In mxt cases we do not have prcdwtian 

infonnaticm. A detailed dasmipticm of the Site specific facilities, mining 

60 
MINERALS 

activity, and geologic dtions is outside the swpe of the Plan. The 

hf-tion provided is a -is of U.S. Geological Survey and Forest 

service information. The maps and reports which portray the site specific 

informatian are available for rwiew at the appropriate Forest Service 

office. We agree with your concern abt management canermi for locatable 

this area. 

For your co~~cern ~W~adhg wind eruzrgy, please refer to the CCmnents and 

resposles for energy in this pppendix. We agree with your camvat regarding 

mining access and have included "g addressing the question of access. 

We do not feel that any all inclusive statement or restrictions can be listed 

in the plan as restrictians or surface use requirements would be based on 

site specific conditions. 

The lower numbers of acres available for mineral exploration and developnent 

reflect the irmeased acres of wilderness withdrawn fran mineral entry under 

the PRF as canpared to the A review of land withdrawn frun mjneral 

en- in support of Forest Service pxgams (not including wilc?hmess) is 

under way. The decision to mtjnue or rem~ve existing withdrawals will be 

made on a case-by-case basis. 

minerals and have included wo- which indicates the management axK%zn in 

m: The mineralization of the White Wwntains and Inyo Mountains is 

misrepresented in light of their present and "bly expected future 

developnent. EaxuxlN 'c cmstraints make future mining a slight possibility at 

best. (1565) 

REspohtsE: Inf-tion on the existing mineral condition of the white 

Mountains and Inyo Plxmtains was canpiled by the United States Geological 

Survey and publishes in 1983 in several separate reports on mineral resource 

potential. The sumnary of mineral pzbntial acreages found in the EIS is, in 

part, based on the hfomtion in the USGS reports. We feel that the USGS 

reports accurately represent the existing mineral conditicm within the white 

and Inyu Mountains. While charaging e"ic cxmditicms make any given 

mineral depsit mre or less developable, they do not change the natural 

mineral character of the demit. Future econaRic conditicms may make future 

mining a slight pxsibility or they may make it a highly profitable venture. 

-: Mining should be kept at a level which does rot damage the 

environment. (1592) (950, 1885) 

m: All mining activity results in some change in the c"mat. 

Thesechaqesareinheren t to an industq which requires roads for access and 

various a"ts of surface dishntawe for cpsrations. The Forest Service 

has been given the authority by congmss to work with the claimant/aperator 

to accanplish mining oprations and "ize surface intpacts to the extent 

mible . 

61 
a": Fbr the Forest Coal for minerals m Plan Iv-5, chaqe ",..Forest 

resources are "id." to "...Forest service resances may be "ized." 

( 1845 ) 

-: we disagree with the Euqmsed WdkSJ change. n-m Forest will 

always wxlc with the clahant/operatca: to nclnIrnize the adverse affects of 

nlinirq activities even when other resanxa values are traded off in favor of 

mineraL developnent. we will wmk bxiard achieving whatever "Um is 

possible given the site specific 7. 

CXMmm: we are oppased to the Clcsing and/or restrim of any minirg. 

(1157) (1619, 1888, 2024) 

RESP(EGE: 'rhe Farest sarvice has bean given #a authority by Gzqress to 

wxlc with the claimnt/cpexatnr to accanplish minhq oprations and "he 

impads to surface reswmzs to the extent possible. This autkrity has been 

given to the Forest service because of its liability UI&x other federal 

legislatim for cultural and histmical resarrces, threatened and endangered 

species, water and air quality, and its management -ibilities for other 

resources such as visual, wildlife, mticm, timber and vegetatim. It's 

not for Faaposed mjnjng activities to be in some form of elid 

with athsr resaurce management activities. When tkse &licts arise, it is 

often necessary to eithx f- other resaurce uses or alter Frcoposedmining 

activities. 

CXXM": The average annual cutputs by decade figures such as in Figure 11-4 

for each alte~~~~tive with respect to minerals is mt appropriate. Minerals 

output should be related to mirerals proaucUan quantified in tims, ounces, 

or short tcm units. indicatcns of activity level, 

but do mt delineate the stages of developnent on these active clahs. We 

recDmnend you break this group of aperating plans into appropriate stages of 

developnent. (25) 

RESPCELSE: We agrea that actual prducticm in amces, pxmds, or tcms would 

be a more amate form of measllIjng minxals outputs. However, we have 

little prcdwtim M-tim to work with. Some prcdwtim data is 

prcprietary and many snall miners do not report the output of their 

OparatiCHLs. The me measure of activity that we do have is n" 

of cpxating plans suhnitted for review. This informtim is in itself 

suspect as same miners cboosencrt to Suhit Plans. As you have suggested the 

Illrmber of plans -lies little about what type of activity prom or 

whether it is a snall cme-man cperatim or an open pit mine hvrdrds of acres 

in size. Plans are baing made to keep track of the type of information you 

have suggested for use during the next Plan revision pericd. Developnent 

activity would be gainea fran plans of operaticsl and m-site visits. 

Fg. 11-176, Figure 11-32). An attapt should be made to discuss minerals 

within these areas. Us- available infomatj.cn, an idea of mineral worth 

could still be presented. USBM mineral resource studies of selected 

wilderness areas (Ilower, John luhrir, Golden Trout, High Sierra) sbould be 

operatins plans are 

CXMmm: Miwal potential is UnlaYJwn in designate3 Wilderness areas (DEIS, 

62 
MINERALS 

available at your office. We cculd furnish yau with minerals b3W'ky 

iocation system (MILS) p~&~touts and pnxlucticm Monnation, if needed, to 

properly canpleta this discussim. (25) 

patentid within exi- wilderness areas is mt essential. The Wildexness 

Act of Septmhr 1984 states: "Subject to valid existing rights then 

act as wilderwss are withdrawn fran all fm of agpopriation under the 

nlirliq laws and fran disposition under all laws p?=Mmng . tomineralleasing 

and all an"ts thereto". subsequent wilderness acts have included 

m: For the puIp~@~ Of the EIS and Plan, a diSCUSShl Of lllineral 

existing, effectin January 1, 1984, the lllinerals in lands designated by this 

w0rd.i.q which has wimawn the land wiW the designated wilderness fran 

mineral entry subject to valid existing rights. The resources withh 

existing wilderness areas are not subject to management activities and would 

not be affeded by a management alternative. 

m: We recQrmend that you cunbine a minerals potential map with a map 

indicatiq land available for location (legal and managemnt 

amskajnts), thus directly relating minerals availability to minexal 

potential. The public and your decision makirg boay will then be better able 

to analyze the potential impacts on mineral developwmt. The; cost of addkg 

an additimal map shortld be snall ccmpared with the value the map wDuld have 

canplemnting the Plan. (25) 

m: All land on the Forest Iyst qxsifically withdrawn is available for 

mineral entry. Exanples of land withdrawn from further mineral entry 

include all wilderness areas, the lubno Basin Natimal Forest Scenic Area, 

ac'bninistrative sites such as ranger station 1ocaticu-1~ and v, and 

same rights-of-way and special use sites. Mitigation measures which would be 

to lessen the impacts of mining activities on other surface 

resourcas muld be identified on a site specific basis. This infonnation is 

not available 011 a Forest-wide basis and is Outside the soope of this 

Planning document. 

m: Your mineral potential ratiq and availability rating 

classificaticns (Figure 11-32 m page 11-176) are useful; Inever, we 

rem"d a" system. Our office reviews numerous EIS dawnents and has 

came across an excellent classification system as shown in Attachmnt 1. We 

suggest a rodification of this using percentages as opposed to acreages. We 

feel it is easier to envision the ccmparism and capxbnd the effects each 

alternative may have on mineral resources. (25) 

RSFCNSE: We agree that reprtirg percentages often has advantages over 

using acreages. Many reports written using data frun the Forest Plan report 

the infonMtion in this form. HcwemT, there are several reascas why we have 

chosen to display information in acres: we have been asked to do 90 by the 

Regimal Forester for Region 5; the use of acres is consistent throughout 

the document for most resources except where "hers of units (AW, PAGTS, 

SAarS) or miles are mre appropriate; and the reader can calculate 

percentages ?"iq acreages if interested. 

63 
m: Management Area #14 - Rock cseek/Pine creek. The f1-W Pine 

Cnek Tugsten Mine sbauld be closed imnediately. 

then be &velopea as a caxentrated recreation area. (140) 

REspcpIsE: The Pine Creek Mill Site, Rrtal, and much of the original 

wark.tngs are on patented (private) land. wet of the mrkiq.ls, 

while udex Naticplal Forest land, are mtrolled by the patentea 

warkhqs. As lcmg as the Forest Service requirements for the uses of 

adjacent Naticnal Forest System lands are being CaQlied with, the F& has 

m reascm or authority to force the closure of the mining operatian. 

The 808 acre site should 

c": If mule deer 

habitat has sanething to do with mineral exploration, then it sbild be 

clearly spelled out. Mine exploratim slnuld not be diminished simply 

because deer are in tbe area. There should be specific guidelines so that 

minerals can still be exh-acted witbut hannirg the deer. (233) 

m: The mining laws pruvide statutory autlmrity for mining activities 

on National Farest System lands mt withdrawn fm mineral entry. The mining 

laws also give the ares st Service the autlmrity to manage minjrg operatiapls 

to aaxmdate, to a reasamble &gee, other surface resources. The 

impwtance that the Forest service gives to deer or sam other surface 

resource vary depending CBI the location and type of the proposed mining 

activity. Minirag activities within lightly used sumner range, for -le, 

would cause relatively little cc"~ anpard with mhhg activities 

popxed for a hemrily used migration corridor. Specific opxatiomd 

guidelines which pruvid!= directl 'on CE-I how mining would coexist with other 

resources would be develqd on a site specific basis. Mitigaticn measures 

are unavailable cn a Farest-wide basis and site specific mitigaticns are 

outside the scope of the Plan and EIS. 

The address- of mineral qioration is not clear. 

m: The limited access and other restrictive designaticm (wilderness, 

bighom sheep, RNA) for nearly 808 of the White muntains will inhibit the 

exploraticn for and deVe1-t of mineral resources in the White mtains 

which are described by the Forest Service as the mDst heavily mineralized 

mtain range in California (Plan IV-120). (486) 

REspcpLsE: We believe that describing the White hhmtains as the rrpst heavily 

mineralized rrountain range in California is an overstatement of the facts and 

have remnied that sedicsl. You are mrrect in saying that the designation 

of wilderness areas and Rwls would restrict mining activities as these areas 

would be wi-awn fran mineral en-. wet of the remaining area in the 

White ~tains would be covered by PresCxipti.cn #17. The limitations which 

applv under this presnipticn would limit off-road vehicle use to designated 

mutes. Access for mining activities would still be permitt& based on a 

Forest Service evaluation of routes and access methods by the mining 

pcpznent. The majori- of land identified by the USGS as having auy 

potential for ecaarmic mineral prcduction has been left out of any popxed 

areas will be mxe rstrictd by toposraphy than land classification. 

wilderness or research MtLU3l area. k€XSSS into ll!ZXly Of the mineralized 

64 
-: In the Forest-wide Stanclards and Guidelines for riparian areas, you 

do not speak to mining. Does the first standard and Guideline in tius 

eon mean that mining is not allowed? What does “give emphasis“ mean? 

(29) 

RSFCNSE: Riparian areas and riparian dependent rexmxes are given priority 

wer other resource uses when there are amflicts between uses. This does not 

mean that mining activities are prohibited in riparian areas. It does mean 

that the Forest will review prop3sed activities in these areas mre 

critically, work toward alternative minirig metkds not imm1vh-g occupation 

of riparian areas, or mrk toward minimizing mining activity in riparian 

areas where it can‘t be avoided. 

CX”: The area that is under the 

designation of Faropasad wildemess of 53,915 acres swms to ccmtajn “highly 

“lized and unpatented claim activiw. It also ccmtains passible 

water rights for the Gray Eagle and White Eagle TALa, and due to the legal 

descriptiosl, or absence thereof, it is hard to dete”? . the exact location 

of said water rights. Will the water rights of the Gray Eagle and White 

Eagle mines be anpxdsed because of the ~oposed wilderness plan? (201) 

RSFCNSE: Altbough there has been scme litigation on the subject of water 

rights within designated wildemess areas, there do not appear to be any 

all-encanpassing federal regulations m this subject. Water rights are still 

within the jurisdiction of the individual states. If the claimants of these 

mines have cx“ptive water rights on file with the state, then the 

designation of the wildesness area skuld not have an effect an the executi.cn 

of tbse rights. 

Management Area #18 - Inyo Wnmtairs. 

aM4EW: The current mineral withdrawals should remain in effect. (1632) 

-E: A review is be- made of mineral withdrawals made in Support of 

Forest service pngams. This withdrawal review does not include wildemess 

or other areas where the withdrawal was established by ccslgress. It does 

include such locations as -, Pager Stations, and other 

administrative sites as well as potential adhninistrative sites never used for 

their intended purp3se. The continuation of the withdrawal status of these 

areas will be made on a case by case basis. 

CX”: 

( 1258) 

REspopJsE: The viability of the minirg jrdusby depends on market amditicm 

such as COrmDdl ’ty prices, Fation costs, and the availability of the raw 

prcduct. The management of Natid Forest lands cartaull . y influences the 

Cast and availability of raw materials; however, the Forest sbould neipmmte mr discaurage the minirg indusky as a whole. 

I would like to see nnre of a minirig industry on the Sierras. 

65 
c”?r: ~au: locatable and saleable -s, wildemess, wildlife, wildlife 

hahitat, riparian and low impact recreaticnal values should be given 

devalopnent. If “hg is mavoidable in sa& areas, methods of access other 

I3-m-1 buildirg new roads shalld be used. (2170) (914, 2007) 

m: The Forest sarvice has ccnsidsrably different autbmity with 

regards to the adnhhbxticn of locatable awl saleable “l materials. 

The dispositixxl of saleable minaral materials lies solely with the Farest 

Service. The decision to fw the excavaticn and use or sale of mineral 

materials can easily be made if EscUrce impads warrant the 

trade-offs. The pmpceed use must be eliminated or a seccndary san-ce of 

materials nust be found, often with its own associated resource impacts. The 

laws regarding locatable -s are much mxe extmsiv~ and do not afford a 

similar latitude far ccmtzol. Ths minirg laws make gov“mt lands 

available for dneral related activities to varyirg degrees. With sum 

notable exceptia~~, Farest resource managanent must, at a mini”, consider 

“a developnent on an equal footing with other resaurces. Impacts to 

cultural resaurces and threatened and elxwgxd species are managed under 

their own regulaticns. The Forest must cansider every propasal to develop 

mjneral resources andes7aluate the -of the prqasd developnent. 

precedence mrer miniq develqnmt in enVirormental1y SenSitLve and rcadless 

w, particularly with regard to road -cn for new rlriniq 

am”: The mining Clains in Lead canycn are not clearly depicted or 

described. Will this in any way affect the current holder? (201) 

m: If the Clatns referred to are the Inyo meen, Inyo Queen 2, Irryo 

meen 3 and Inyo meen 4, thy are 1” wim the Further Plannlq Area 

#5064 and would be wim F”scription ?oxa #2, hroposea Wi~derness. If the 

area m designated a wildecness by Gmgz-es and the claimants desired to 

develop the claims, a validity exam wild be requested. Should the claims be 

determined to be valid, a plan of cpratim which outlines any proposed 

developnent md be required . The Forest would wxk with the claimant to 

develop the claims while maintainirg, to the extent passible, the wildemess 

characteristics of the area. should the claims be Wid, the 

Farest would probably pursue a contest of the claims. 

c”?r: Directiopl for Management Area #7 is deficient in recqmition of 

ge3thennal develapnent and subsequent management or dsredi on. Additicilally, 

Management Areas #8 and #9 have existing leases and obvious potential. It 

would follow that these areas should have direction specific to geothermal 

resources. portions of Management Areas #3,4, ti 5 are also within the KGRA, 

but &”t merit specific area diredi on regarding future lease acticm. 

(487) 

m: The Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for leasable minerals 

have been -itten to indicate the relation that the Forest Service has with 

the Bureau of Larid Management which has permit authority for post-lease 

geothmml develOpnent on National Forest SystPm lands. The description for 

Managmt Area #7 has ben rewritten to state that the area mtains 

66 
geatharmal leases. 

-. 

We believe that a~33Lticma.l I4anag-t Area DirwAicm is 

m: Therspztslackamineral potential map to check with the 

iulportant because sevaral FTescripticms are withdrawn fran InjASral entry, 

preferred Alternative map sixwing Management Presmx 'ptims. This is 

are 

Fnoposed to be withdrawn fran mineral entry or have limited vehicular access, 

or no new mineral devalopnent (1 to 9, 13 to 17). Pnsscripticns #9 to #13 

have 1y3 statement about minerals, mly #18 seems: to be really open for 

document should discuss the relationship between locatable mineral 

developnent an3 surface management decisicms. Management decisicns 

cn"iq air quality, visual characteristics, recreatim, etc. can 

sipificantly impact the ability of a claimant to develop his claim. A 

discussim should be included as to the types of repmtS/data (Le. visual, 

archaeolcgical, endaqxd species) which may be required for a certain 

Manag-t Area in regard to "ral developnent. Claimants wxlld then be 

aware of the Farest Service's &am c"s withjn that area. 

Data m Page IV-62 are hard to relate in significance to the PRF map and 

&wing mining claims or leases, makhg it impossible to relate mineral 

intexest to mineral potential to PRF areas. Wfy the leasable minerals 

sectim (IV-25.26) to clarify the fact that any wxk W be dcsle in 

CCslj~ceI with BIM. (2175) (487) 

m: These 

maps are available for inspecuon at the Supervisor's Office for the Inyu 

Natimal Forest or at the separate Ranger Districts. We appreciate the 

difficulty that faces the reader wln truly wishes to analyze the effects of 

thesa maps, we considerably re&ca the size and expense of prcducing the 

Final EIS and Plan. 

We do not believe that there will be any imnediate or drmtic effect on 

midq claimants by -1-tatim of the Forest Plan. The mining laws and 

regulations which will be followed under the Plan have been in effect for 

many years. Sam charges may occur over time as surface resomce aphasis 

changes and proposed plans of operation are reviewed in light of the new 

emphasis. The need for site specific environmental analyses, inclw which 

resources shDuld be analyzed, are discussed with claimants. 

For the purpase of analysis in the Plan, mineral interest is "red by the 

general locatim of the claims and appropriate geology and have been 

txanslated by the U.S. Geological Survey and OUT minerals staff into acreages 

of high, medium, low and no mineral potential. The changes in these acres by 

alternative (resultirg mainly fmn different acreages of pmp~~ed wilderness 

purpose of identifying the relative a"t of land available under one 

managerent alternative or amther, m additional detail is needed. The fact 

that under one alternative there are 28,000 acres of high mincxal potential 

mineral developnent an3 the wal potential here is not Shawn. The 

understand if and how mineral developnent may be Fmpactea. There are no maps 

There are no resource maps included with the EIS' or Plan. 

the proposed lnanagmt Plan on varic4Js w. FImmer, by rot including 

Other withrlrawn land) are displayed witbut regard to location. For the 

67 
Cl3MEWR Pest Manag-t, Item 3, IV-26. Tha problem of the phytotoxicity 

addressed. Since &ax is water soluble, it will ultimately leach out of the 

stumps and into the watershed. Careless and indiscriminate application by 

people in a hurry will cunpurd the problem. The use of Ix)IuI1 cmpxds as 

fire suppressants was stoppea some years ago because of their tOxiClty 

towards other plants. (382) (1634) 

RISFCME: Borax registered for use cm &fer stumps is essentially the same 

as torax sold as a wllly~l household laundry detergent. It contains 13-15% 

Ix)IuI1. It is applied in snall quantities to individual stum~ surfaces; there 

is no aerial drift. Borax that eventually enters the soil is broken down by 

micraxganim that utilize it as a scp1113~ of energy and nitngen. 

of boron caupounds toward certaln ' other Plants has nst been Carefully 

cx.": There is mthing in the Plan about mnitoring for exotic (foreign) 

plants which can intrude into the forest and, if established, have a serious, 

disruptive inpact c~1 native plants. Seeds are brought in on car tires, med 

almg trails by mud 081 shoes, etc. Look what has happened to the stand of 

wjnterEat in Little Cl" Valley because of the intzducticm of salsola. 

(382) 

REspopJsE: The states and -ties &tor &CUIS weeds. The Forest Service 

cooperates wit3 other federal, state and local agencies in the control of 

&ous weeds as appropriate. The Inyu Forest is in the precess of prcducing 

a sensitive plant management plan which will set guidelines for &toring 

and prota%iq sensitive plants cm the Forest. 

-: 

moth and 

mainly mthiq. 

carmerad the Forest Servica's past record with regard to the pandora 

that in the future the same practices are carried out - 

It is obvicus fran the lmg historic record of the cyclical 

infestaticms that this insect dDes lninhal damage. Itsprimqimportance to 

the forest is probably in term of nutrient recycling, c"g . pine 

ceedles to fertilizer fran the caterpillar grass, and a short-term food 

supply for birds and other wildlife. (1631) 

RESPCNSE: Integrated Pest Management requires analysis of all valid 

alternatives. The preferred method for dealing with insect and disease 

problems is dete ' ~1 in a site-specific e"wntal analysis. 

m: In the DEIS (111-54). the Great Basin tent caterpillar is listed as 

a "p&" defoliator of bi-.Where has this been a problem, and what 

is the magnitude of the damage? If this is of a", why is bitterbrush 

prcpsed to be re"d preparatmy to clearcutting, when the mtinuaticm of 

the much less damagjng selective timbering methDd would preseme the 

bitbrbmsh? The a"t of bitkrbmsh eaten by caterpillars cannot begin to 

ccmpare with the effects of livestock, and these are not even listed as 

"p3Sts". (1631) 

68 
PEST 

m: l%e western tent caterpillar has pericdically defoliated 

bitterbrush stands in several areas on the Inyo Forest, most recently on the 

Mamnoth and mrn Lake Districts. It is CCBlsidered a potential pest because 

of the importance of bitkdxmh as a brume species for both danestic and 

wild animals. Tent caterpillar impads on bitterbrush are mt well 

understood. 'Ihe Inyo, in cmpwation with the Regional office, is currently 

crmduw a multi-year evaluatim to better del" the M- and extent 

of thase impacts. Effeds to range and wildlife in regards to bitterbrush 

and legging are analyzed in site-specific er"mtal analyses. 

cfxm": Pest Management, Plan IV-26. We opp3se the use of the area-wide 

lnoadcast sprayirg technique as a timber managaent practice due to its 

potential deleterims effects u~0l the general sz"kq * vegetative 

fl-rvironment as well as p the wildlife population. This should apply to 

both Management prescriptions #9 and #10 and also to #11 insofar as it 

relates to proposd range conversion pmjects. (1431) 

RFsxmsE: Inyo has mt used broadcast sprayirag for timber management. 

No use is pla1-1~3 &ring this p1anni.q period. 

The 

cfxm": pest management. Insects and animals listed are native species 

when even-aged management is inplemented to "ize timber producton. 

--aged management is inapprqriate cm the Inyo National Forest, and these 

native species should not be treated as pests. Mistletoe brries, beetles 

and tent caterpillars, for example, are all important food sowces for birds. 

(1548) 

m: The Inyo F& reCqTdZeS the hlp?7k1I%% Of Me- hsed3 and 

othsr animals to the fLmcti.* and health of natural ecosystems. 

in-& to the mth Of Mturd they Ody becane "~feTocls" 

This is 

exenplified by the recent decisions to let pan&ra moth and tent caterpillar 

outbreaks run their natural course. Diseases, insects and animals are 

oxsidered pests only when the damage they cause unacceptably interf- with 

meeting resource management goals and objectives. --aged management does 

mt, "a priori", cause insects and other animals to beoame pests. 

cfxm": The argument under pest managemat (DEIS l3-66) that even-aged 

stands of trass offer the best defense against pest damage is seriously 

flawed. bbncudtures of type or age are much more susceptible to attack by 

pests or diseases. It is precisely the genetic and life cycle diversity seen 

as needirag "managemnt" which provides the resilience in natural 

caamrLties. Replacing forests rich in species diversity with bxe farms 

mly invites a repeat of the kind of widequead forest die-off occurring in 

YoSemite, whem the essentially mgyxulture tree stands of l-eple pine are 

.su"hing to epidemic attack by a leaf miner . (1631) 

RESKNSE: The namative to which you refer does not state that "even-aged 

stands of trees offer the best defense against pest damage.". Healthy, 

vipxus trees and starids am generally less susceptible to inseds and 

diseases than poorly-gm.&?g, unhealthy trees and stands. sound vegetaticm 

69 
management, regardless of the ‘‘qst”’ used, is a gocd way to cxeate and/or 

maintain healthy stands and “iza susceptibility to unacceptable insect 

and disease damage. The situaticm referred to in YoSemite Naticmal Park 

primipally involves two ~tim insects (the ldgepole needleminer, a 

defoliatar, and the mocllltain pine beetle, a bark beetle) in extensive, 

playiq a significant role in the ~t~al successian of these pine stands. 

urmanaged areaS Of Mum lodgepsle pine- essenCe, the hSe&S are 

caw”: The canmt be seen as a collecticm of tree plantaticms 

withxt risking e”mtal disruptions. For example, the projected 

(DEE 11-26) cm the Farest is directly related to pest management policies. 

decline lmder the prefarred Alt0rnative in the “nber of hO1e-nestin3 species 

Snag-dependent species and species -t old growth W an Cglly 

exist lmder forest luax3g-t practices viilich recognize goals other than 

timber quotas, and permit the unaoceptable level of pest damage which 

characterizes their habitat. -, the int0rpn3tatim of acceptable 

versus unacceptable levels of pest damage needs to be reassessed with the 

health of the forest ecosystem, not timber quotas in mind. (1631) 

anly 12% of the for8std lands an the Inyo are managed for timber 

produdian. snag mtentim ??x@”b are included in the standards and 

vig3rous farest with maximized timber growth - not volume harvested. 

m: 

Guidelines for timber manag-t. At least 10% of these manage3 lands are 

allocated to old growth. The objective of timber “g-t is a healthy, 

Ci3n”: Any chemical applicatia wii5d.n the Lahmtan Regia should be dople 

with awareness of the Regimal Board’s g-al surface water standard which 

-bits cxmcentraticm of pesticides in waters of the regim greater than 

the lowest deteztable mwentraticms using the most recent detection 

p3”s available. 

m: Regional policy rquks coordinatioBl with the Lahmtan Water 

Wity Board prior to any chemical application project for pest control. 

Ci3n”: The al-iate pest manag-t is the one recarmeraded by the 

Paiute-Sinskse Indians: leave the forest alme and nature will take care of 

seriaus damage to arergreens and yet gccd remwq toak place in the 

follming years. (1732) 

RESCNSE: Each 

insed or disease problem is evaluated separately and trea-t will depend 

on all the factors that relate to the problem. No treatment may be very 

appropriate in m-3 instance and unacceptable in another. 

it. A ~$4 example has been seen in YoSemite National Park where there was 

No -treatment is cme option under Integrated Pest Management. 

Ci3n”: Pest ccoltrol should be inqlemented when it threatens to 

destru&vely imbalance natural eoosystems including humans. (65) 

70 
land available for exploration and developnent and under another alternative 

are 110,400 acres is of importance . We recognize that this analysis 

process is very simplified and does not display the fact that neither the 

CQmDditieS Imr the oppz&LEli.ties to develop the mineral COmMdl *ties 

are spread uniformly over the Forest. -ally speaking, the goal has been 

to maintain as many acres of high and medium mineral potential land available 

for access as possible, regardless of its location. 

CZW”r: The FEIS should discuss the precess for develophg “mntal 

documents such as cumulative Wct analysis of herbicide projects and 

site-specific -tal analyses. This discussion should include the 

pnxese~ for public ratification, torment and appeal. (2213) 

-: In the NEPA (National tal policy Act) process, public 

involvement is rapired for all project analyses. The Forest provides pblic 

participate in the project analysis. Depending up the scope of the 

project, this involvement can be minimal or extensive. All notifications 

include a description of the public’s right to camnent and appeal. 

mtification of all potential projects and the public has the oppxtum ’ty to 

CZW”r: In the Plan, effects over five decades of “a derate level of 

timber site preparation, a large a“t of new road and trail ozm.+huction, a 

moderate level of new alpine ski area developnent, a large amxulf: of new 

recreation developnent, and a high level of projected mineral activiw are 

said to prolluce cmly “slight“ impacts on riparian areas and “low-moderate“ 

for waw. TMS is indeed difficult to believe and the- ~ore~t Swxice 

may find the statmmt equally difficult to defend! Not mentioned is the 

proposed 9% increase in livestock grazing - a prim degrader of riparian 

areas. It seems that, as with most of the Inyo‘s -, thereare 

serious ccolflicts between the Preferred Alternative’s generally stated 

managanent dh32tl ‘on for riparian areas and watershed (generally 

praisemrthy), the actual managanent situation (greatly increased resource 

developnent over the next 5 decades), the detailed area-specific managanent 

direction (nnstly m-existent as pertains to potential problems, their 

solutions, and protective measures), and the evaluation of results of the 

greatly increased developnent (supp3sedly minimal negative consequences). If 

the Final Plan is to be defensible, these deficiencies will have to be 

corrected. (2170) 

RESCHSE: There will be no increase in grazing and m road construction for 

timberl-mmshq ‘ purposes durirg this planning period. This Plan is only in 

effect for the next ten years. Durirg Plan implementation there will be 

adhered to, resources are being protected or enhanced, and managanent 

direction is prcducirg the desired results. The Plan can be ded or 

revised at any time if these dtions are mt beirg met. The 50-year 

projections in the Draft Plan were for reference only. Both natural ~esouzy3e 

amtinual nmitorirg to ensure that the standards and Guidelines are beiq 

71 
PLANNING PROCESS 

and socio-mnanic conditions are to0 variable to be predicted with validity 

for mre than ten years. 

a&"C: Any changes in Management Prescriptions for specific areas which 

were mt considered under the alternatives discussed in the EIS will 

necessitate a supplment to the EIS. The supplement will ham to be 

circulated for public review. (225) 

RFSFCNSE: Subsequent to implementation of the Plan, such changes would 

require an a"t or revision to the Plan, dew on the extent of the 

changes. 

m: As an avid outdoors person and a believer in wilderness for the 

sake of wilderness, I believe this is much mre than a local issue. A 

hearing on the draft planning docsuments in the San Francisco Bay area would 

allow all Californians to participate m the decision process. Thus, 

I am requesting that the Forest Service set up worksbps and/or hearings in 

the San Francisco area so that all opinions can be voiced. (98) (34, 36, 37, 

38, 40) 

RFSFQNSE: All Californians had an opportunity to ccmnent on the Draft Plan. 

The Fmal Plan is the result of these carments, which came fran all over the 

country. Issues relatlng to National Forest planning are local, regional and 

national and are treated as such. Public Response Appendix documents the 

public Cccrments and the Forest Service respome to them. 

m: we are mcerned mt just with om Lake, but with &e ecological 

health of the Pbco Lake watershed and that of surrow habitats occupied 

by wildlife that utilize Mom Lake and the Scenic Area. The Inyo Plan and 

the Pbco Basin Scenic Area Plan cannot be isolated fm one another: the 

manag-t of one area affects the other. This is particularly txue of the 

management of lands witkin Pbno Lakes's hydrologic basin. We disagree with 

the statement on DEIS 111-52 that "the Scenic Area is mt likely to conflict 

seriously with activities on adjojnjng Forest lands," or on DEIS IV-65 that 

"there are m Forest activities subject to the Forest planning process that 

have the potential to substantially affect scenic, recreational or scientific 

values" within the Scenic Area. The view that bth planning documents are 

mutually exclusive will result in a piecemeal planning process that ignores 

potential cumulative inpacts of management decisions on these areas. It's 

oanplicated but I think the Forest Service should attempt to manage the 

entire watershed as a *le. (278, 1617) (1634, 2170) 

RESF€NSE: The Forest Plan acts as the mbrella document for the Pbco Basin 

Scenic Area Plan. In the Forest Plan, the lvbno Basin National Forest Scenic 

Area corresp3nds to Managemat Area #1 and is managed under Frescritpion #6. 

The specific management of the Scenic Area will be discussed in the Scenic 

Area Manag-t Plan which is being develope3 on a separate timeframe as 

directed in Title 111 Section 304 of the California Wilderness Act of 1984. 

72 
PLANNING PROCESS 

m: I was pleased with the efforts that you made to bold public 

nkz&iqs. (1539) 

RESPONSE: 

phmiq process to ensure an adequate representatim of views. 

The Forest att-td to involve as many people as pxsible in this 

m: The ~ahoe Naticmal Forest publishes a quarterly bulletin which 

describes all major projects propsd. It includes timber sales, road 

ccastruction, hydccelectric prujeds, etc. I &"t lamw if the Inyo 

publishes such a bulletin, but, if not, it should. (916) 

RFSF€NX: The Forest is props- to publish a tabloid or bulletin that 

would inform the public of all upmirg projects €or the fiscal year. 

m: It is apparent fran the lack of comnents from ranchers, miners, 

hunters and fishermen that infomation has not been available cm these 

prqxxals. The -le in this valley and Esneralda Ccunty have been 

deliberately kept in the da&. Two wpiffi of the proposed changes were 

forwarded to Esneralda people, cme of wkm has been deceased these last eight 

yeats, and one to the County Ccmnissimers. (1219) 

RESFCNSF.: The Forest was infomd that the Fish Lake Valley and Ermeralda 

Ccunty residents did & receive an adequate "her of maft Plans. 

Additional copies were sent to them and permnal contacts were made by Forest 

service personnel to ensure that that area's - and comnents were 

adequately addressed in the Plan. 

m: ~n order to review yaur Plan, I had to borrow it from a friend; 

your office told me there were no "3 wpiffi available when I wrote. 

Perhaps you sbould try harder to keep users of the Forest info-. The 

unavailabilitv of the Plan within a few weeks after its release is sufficient 

grounds, all i;y itself, up 

(2170, 2171) 

to base an am of the plan. (47, 1539) 

m: An effort was made to ensuxe that a copy for review was available 

for anyone within reascolable limits. Cnpies of the Draft Plan are available 

at lccal. libraries and gwemmental offices, with individual mpies sent to 

thDse cm the Forest mailing list. That list included anycsze who had 

expressed an interest in Forest management. Budget cmstxaints Lpohibited 

unlimited printing and distribution of the dwannents. 

m: 

review CQrment period. (1845) (48, 283, 2048) 

m: 

For such documents, a mini" of six mmolths sbaild be allowed as a 

Thereviewperiodissbxbrd~ 'zed in the NEPA process. 

m: 

relaticmship between Sbort-tenn uses and long-term pnductivity: and the 

My cx" regards the adverse in@a& that ca"t be avoided; the 

73 
irreversible or Frretrienmble amnitment of lesances. 'Ihe Foarest service 

has corwrrent jurisdicticn with FEW, in the regUlat.i.cn and mitigaticn of 

impads associated wi- hydroelectric developnent (sea the &zind~ 'do court 

decisi~n) (EIS, IV 176-181). Does the Farest Service in- to allow the 

"kmvarsible" ard "peSmanent" alteraticn of "soil ard hycku1cgi.c 

characteristics" of riparian zl3nes? This seems cctltrary to the minj" 

management requirenents and standads and Guidelines already spelled mt in 

divarsitydue to the "xal of old growth forest is an adverse impact that 

can be avoided and mist be, to meet the diversity Ie@re"t llnder m. 

(1617) 

REspoNsE: Were may, as the result of a project, be adverse impacts, 

reductim in lcxq-term productivi*, or -ble ar irratrievable 

cannimt of sesaurces. The envhmwntal analysis prCCeSS is &se to 

"ize these and provide for mitigaticn measures, if possible. 

There will be a&quate seral stage diversity when the Plan is jq"2nted. 

Over 40 percent of the Forest will be old gmwth. 

the DEIS plan and to the mandates Of NFW4 and NEPA. 'Ihe lOSS Of seral Sbge 

Cnmmr: h underlying weahess is that the prcpsed Land and Rasource 

Management Plan and the Mcau, Basin Scenic Area Management Plan are isolated 

fron each other. 'Ihere is 1y3 real substantive discussicm linking the Scenic 

Area to the rest of the Forest. It's as if the two were entirely separate 

entities. This is an i"tant point because standards and Guidelines and 

policies established in the Fd Plan will eventually be incrnpcorated into 

the Scenic Area Management Plan. The Inyo must recognize that the MBNFSA is 

an integral part of the Irryo. Management strategies should be designed to 

resource ccnflicts Fd-wide. An exirmple of a skrategy which 

problem an the Forest. A guimary cause of the prcblem is dust proauCea cm 

relicted lands as the lake level recedes. This dmst prcblem is not 

restricted to the MBNFSA. It effects the Forest as a *le. A solutim to 

this widspread air quality problem lies in a recent court decisim. In that 

decisicm, the court affirmed federal awnershl 'p of the relicted lands in 

qu&m (State of California, State Land carmissim versus Unite3 States of 

America, Ninth Circuit Court of ws, 12/06/86). To solve the abwe 

-it& air quality problem, the Forest service is encouraged to exert its 

authority to establish "um lake levels, thereby preventing the mtinuing 

exposum of dust-pmne soils. Additional questions need to be addressed in 

coordinating the management of the MBNFSA and the m Natianal Forest. 

mZeS the h-al Mh Of the is the mt quality 

1. what impads to the MBNFSA can be expeded fm resource management 

activities under the varicus alternatives? 

No discussim is given to water availability cm the W. What impad 

can be expeded fron geoulermal dwelopnent and ski area developnent on 

water available to the MBNFSA? 

3. what is the potential for visual impacts to the Scenic Area fran 

gee- aevelopnent and timber ha"3 ' intheWxoCraters? Please 

note that due to the interrelationship between the Scenic Area and 

2. 

forest lands, a reevaluatiosl of certam * Forest policies for 

74 
adjacent area9 may be necessaTy follq mnpletion of the Scenic Area 

managenent plan. (2169, 1638) 

RF5": Interim management direction for the Pkxn Basin Naticmal Forest 

scenic Area (MBNFSA) is mtained in pppendur ' G of the Forest Plan. The 

scenic Area will be managed under the in- dinxtion until such time that 

the fa management Plan for the MBNFSA is developed. Many of the 

guestioos you ask cannot lyxll be aTlswered with dinxticm in the interim Plan. 

Hcwever, marry of the questions will be addressed in the formal management 

Plan. Sane of your questicns are site or project specific in relation to 

timber l"?&hg or geothermal developmnt activities. Any grcund 

disturjling activity prcpxed for "g ' on the Inyo Natimal Forest 

would be a&&essd in a specific project envirosnwtal assessnent. 

Q"s regardtng water availability are very mnplex and would be 

discussed as part of specific planning or project J3s and on a cumulative 

impact basis. If impacts are identified that affect the Scenic Area, the 

NEPA process would deal with these. 

Visual inpact fm either timber or geothermal developnent would 

be discussed in specific project J3s for the respective T~SOUTCB. The Forest 

Plan will not deal with project specific impacts. 

CCM4Em!: I am aware of the fact that the Forest Service receives significant 

rwenue fm ski ticket fees. Already wilderness lxundaries have been drawn 

in such a way that it is difficult not to believe that insiders have for some 

time intended massive developnent. The pblem of a possible ccmflict of 

interest ammg Forest Service decision makers should not be overlcoked and 

responsible public servants must undoubtedly take this into account. 

Integrity demands detachment. (1183) 

-: The Forest Service dces not benefit fm ski area developnent. 

There are returns to the U.S. Treasury fm ski area pxmittees as there are 

frun "essicplaires, timber operators, mineral operaticas, 

ccmmmicaticns installaticns, and othsr uses of Forest lands that require 

special use pxmits. Naticmal Forest System lands are public lands and, as 

such, praride opporhnu 'ties for public use that may not be available on 

private lands. 

CCtMlXC: The Plan should have a streamlined methDd of adjusting to lccal 

pl- documents without subrcgathq applicable e"mntal analysis. 

(1845) 

m: Project-level envirC0ynenta.l analyses cannot be superseded by local 

pl- documents. Lmal planmbg documents will always be included as a 

significant part of the analysis praxss. 

Ci3"': I'm overwhelmed by the volme of paper generated and its cost in 

man hours and dollars. Wt of the written material is beycold ocmprehension 

unless me has the time and patience to wade through a quam of tables, 

75 
prescriptions, asampticas, assoLted fads and cvnclusions. would it not 

have been possible to prem ccmise managanent plans for each Ranger 

Dish-id and keep the text to 25 pages or less plus a few maps? Such a 

donrment wxld serve the purpse well, people amld wdersk& it, and it 

would be a lot easier to chuck into the Stare whm the time comes. (113) 

(1619) 

REspoRIsE: It would not have been possible given the mnplexity of the 

current prmess which is intended to respcwd to the re&n"ts of the 

Naticmal Forest Manag-t Act. Some respdents want even mre information 

Forest service is what you describe. 

than is in the draft doouments. The former unit Planning precess of the 

m: Areas of "possible" conflict must be clearly identified and 

definitive pxcduml guidelines resolved in the Plan. Haw are riparian and 

developnent, or OW use is being conduded. (2142, 466) (214, 232, 400, 904, 

1099, 1161, 1193, 1202, 1253, 1496, 1509, 1532, 1844, 1865, 1883, 2005, 2147, 

2170, 2180) 

m: "Possible" conflicts are infinite, given the "nber of resources 

that are managed 081 the Farest. The FOreSt-wide Standards and Guidelines 

address each resource's needs for ptectim or enhancement. 

wat€sshed areas to be pixcted wtES3 logging, rcadbul 'lW, grazing, ski 

m: The RPA Alternative appears to be mislamed in that where conflicts 

ammg goals occur, it would met cmly those RPA goals for cc"% 'ties. The 

Forest and meland Renewable Resources P1armi.q Act (RPA) specifically 

addresseainp"g ' the yield of tangible and intaqible gccds and services. 

This al-tive would result in drastic reductims in wildlife habitat and 

species dimity, ccsltrary to the clear intent of Ctqres. There is a real 

need for the Forest. especially under this alternative, to lzy to met all of 

the 1980 RPA targets and goals. The prescriptions listed, in mst cases, do 

not even meet Minimunr; Management Resuiremen ts or standards and Guidelines. 

( 2190 ) 

REspcpLsE: In the Fhal Plan, RPA targets are IlDt met in s~ne cases because 

mxe detailed analysis ccu~luded that they are mt -le. RPA targets 

are derived fmn mre generalized analyses and are to be used for 

reference. 

m: I Support the Amenities AlteznatiVe fa the Inyo National Forest. 

This alternative seem to aaDnj the maxi" pmtecticn for wilderness and 

wildlife. The prjmitive and disparsed recreaticm it would allow is most 

cuqatible with the natural elements that already exist in these lovely 

areas;itwxlddDthemosttomakecer" ' that this part of Wifornia 

stays as mtcuched as passible. It is better to protect OUT lands 1y3w and 

let future gereratims decide if it is mre reasamble to further develop 

CQmDditY areas in the Forest at a later date. (1010, 69, 26) (72, 78, 104, 

134, 319, 387, 390, 392, 397, 410, 444, 455, 906, 914, 1415, 1431, 1539, 

1802, 1836, 1952, 2112, 2149) 

76 
-E: The Plan aphasizes the wilderness, recreation and wildlife 

resources as in the Amenities Alternative but also prwides for the use of 

all resources cm the Forest. All projects will be analyzed in site-specific 

enviwlmenM analyses with public irnrolvement. 

CCW": Support the RPA Alternative with the follawing mdifications: the 

range management land allccations and prescriptiuns fran the Preferred 

Alternative should be d: watershed improvement land allocations and 

management prescriptiuns from the Preferred Alternative should be used; 

alpire ski areas and prescripticms fran the Preferred Alternative shDuld be 

used: manage the San Joaquin and Glass Mnmtain areas fmn the Preferred 

Alternative: and amid special designatim for the south Fork of the Kem and 

San Joaquin Rivers. (309) (280, 283, 294, 330, 469, 1432, 1869, 1919) 

REspcpLsE: The RPA Alternative Koposed targets that m>re specific analyses 

were not realistic at this time. The Plan provides a mix of 

levels of resmrce use based on the public CQrmentS received in mspnse to 

the Draft Plan. The south Fork of the Kern River has been designated by 

Chxpzss as a Wild and Scenic River. 

CCWlEW: There are some acceptable provisions in the Preferred Alternative 

and AMB Alternative, but Alternative RPA is unacceptable for it emphasizes 

livestock prducticm at the expense of other Forest values. (319) (944) 

RES=: The Plan prqoses no increase in livestock pxduction. The 

current prcgraln will be nlaintaind. 

CCWlEW: Alternative AMB would ccn?centrate management for the developnent of 

recreation and wildlife. The Forest Service should me mnpletely examine 

the cxmflicts to wildlife that are inheren t in a Plan that emphasizes 

recreation. 

m: The Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for wildlife are designed 

to protect the resource regardless of management emphasis. There is also 

additimal specific directxm in the various prescriptions for wildlife 

resources. 

C@mR?I!: There should be a benclrmar3c far maintenance and enhancement of the 

biological enviroamnent. (DEIS, Chapter 11) (225) 

REsPms: Thelxn&mkswerecsllyusedtodetermine mini" level 

management Costs and cutputs, the "rm physical and biological capability 

of the Forest to proauCe key resources, and the mxt econanically efficient 

mix of manag-t activities by "izirg Present Net Value. 

CCWlEW: Alternative LEU should have been midered in detail. 

and enforcement required under the Preferred Alternative. (225) 

There is m 

guarantee that fundhy will be maintained to provide the ?x?salrce rronitoring 

77 
REsp(NsE: As stated in Chapter I1 of the DES, Alternative LEW did rnt 

rem3 to major pblic issues and Werefore was disqualified from detailed 

study. Implemantatim of the Plan is &penaWt upcn tudget appmpriaticms by 

c3xgEss and allocaticms to the Farest by the Regional office. 

c"?r: 

some new visitor facilities and less riparian damage, but M ski resent!) 

slgpx-t the Am Alternative over the PRF Alternative in genaral. (121) 

REsp(NsE: The Preferzed Alternatiw has been revised to reflect WliC 

comnents received in respxse to the Draft Plan. 

slp&rt the I?MN and Am AlternativEs (e less Clearcutting, 

I 

c€"?r: oclnsidar an alt0Inative which shows the effects of no timber 

harvest on the Inyo. (1099) 

RESPCELSE: The timbar resource is cme of the multiple-use resaurces of the 

Forest. It is a necessary mrpxpwt of the Forest's pxgran in prwiding a 

prcgcam, significant to the local ecoplany. 

mtjnued supply of wood proaucts to users. This includes the fUe1wmd 

cxwllwr: 

plan that has been prepared by Earth First! 

I specifically supprt the well researched and detailed alternative 

all loadless areas under wilderness desiptim, and no further ski 

developnent for Manoth (which I see as the greatest threat to 

ecolcgical/hydmlcgical balance in the Eastem Si-), no cutkirg of red fir 

old gmwth or Jeffrey plm stands, eliminatioPl of g-razh-g frnm National 

Forest (and BIM) land, and M further road or trail building. The meager 

all0blEnt of wilderness to the white-Inyo canplex, Paiute/Mazmrb area, 

l3enta-1 Range, San Joaqdn and Wheeler Rimes, Mzm craters, Glass Mountain, 

and Excelsior is appall-. All these and the other BIM WSA's on djacent 

land should be wildamess. I suppcnt the full potential of 962,697 acres as 

wilderness. (1271) (170, 331, 450) 

"SE: The Inyo Natimal Farest is "aged for niultiple-uses. The Plan 

pmpzses to manage all the resources of the Forest for the best mix of uses 

after rwiewjrg both resource needs and public mnnents. App" * te1y 

60,oOO acres have been add& to the wilderness recarmendaticsl, primarily in 

the white mtajns; red fir stands west of U.S. 395 will not be harvested 

because of recreation values in that area; and grazing will ccsltinue as an 

apFapprate resource of the Forest. Ski area developnent will take place 

under the auspices of the Mannnth Mountain and June Mountain Master 

Developnent Plans. Additional developnent will require a cumulative effeds 

This plan calls for inclusion of 

studyand- tal Impact statement. 

CXMENF: I urge your supprt of the Preferred Altemative for the Inyo 

National Forest. (1520) (14, 350, 1629, 1893, 2142, 2152) 

REspoNsE: The Findl Plan reflects the draft Preferred Altemative with 

revisicas that have resulted fran the public Ccmnents received by the Forest. 

78 
armmr: The Preferred ~ltemative dces not meet the needs of -le who 

truly cam for cur last natural areas and their wildlife and vh believe they 

should be pmtwted for fear we may be the last gmzxatias to have the 

chance to enjoy then. (1534) (27, 492, 1248, 1269, 1331, 1844) 

REspcpGE: The Plan is designed to protect ~wal areas and all resource^ 

while pmvidbq for public use 081 public lands. The wilderness 

recQrmendaticBl has been increassd by qmnately 60,oOO acres in the White 

C!C”: While the Preferred Alternative attmpts to establish a middle 

ground for the Inyo Farest, it fails to meet many of the needs of mxt of its 

very diverse user groups. Neither the amenities gJmup Iy31: the CQmDdl *ties 

group will be very happy with this am at gi- some of the pie to 

everyme. (2170) 

REspoNsE: 

pruvj.de a wide range of public benefits in the multiple-use managemst of the 

Forest. 

and Inyo Wxlrl- to provide pt&m for unique ernrircknwts. 

The objective of the Plan is not to satisfy crs user group, but to 

o”r: I strcngly support -tias made by the M- of the Inyo 

for the Plan. Please take this apportunr ’ty to fulfill your -ibility to 

protect wildlife habitats and speoles diversity which lrmst receive priority 

over uses such as minirag, downhill skiing developlent and timbar 

developlent. (1218) (3, 90, 96, 108, 110, 116, 133, 136, 140, 141, 146, 154, 

165, 226, 227, 232, 267, 287, 292, 329, 400, 430, 953, 1009, 1029, 1033, 

1097, 1316, 1346, 1350, 1500, 1509, 1515, 1524, 1539, 1550, 1554, 1558, 1653, 

1664, 1667, 1692, 1693, 1697, 1701, 1707, 1778, 1781, 1800. 1801, 1804, 1809, 

1813, 1818, 1819, 1820, 1839, 1863, 1876, 1952, 1968, 1975, 1977, 1985, 1996, 

1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2019, 2020, 2029, 2034, 2046, 2113, 2117, 

2124, 2147, 2188) 

m: The comnents of the miends of the Inyo have been -rprated in 

the Plan, tcgether with ccmnents from 0the.r user groups. All resouroe uses 

are evaluated in a multiple-use ccmtext, and wildlife habitat and species 

diversity needs are incorporated in the utilization of all resourceS. See 

the standards and Guidelines for specific protective measures. 

aM4EW!: I wcsuld like to see the RPA Alternative a&pted, if any at all. We 

do not med mxe wilclemess and limitea access areas. I support multiple-use 

and BcaBy3mic stability, with sound use of cur natural resnmxs. You can 

have coexistence through multiple uses such as skiing, minirag, range, 

recreation and wildlife, with differing degrees withh the same land base. 

(1254) (357, 955) 

REspcpGE: The Plan is designed as a multiple-use plan with a mixture of 

resnmxs 0~1 the land base. Forest-wide StandarcEs and Guidelines describe 

the protective measures necessary for all resources that will be inaxprated 

into each Prescripticm that enp3hasizes me T~SOUTCB. Each Manag-t Area 

will then have a mix of F’rescripticms. The RPA Altemative provided targets 

for resources that mxe specific analysis indicated are either not “able 

or not achievable. 

79 
m: I was impresses by the carpnehensive nature of the Inyo Plan, 

partiaiiar1y in selecting a wide range of alternatives for consideration. In 

general, I feel that the DEIS is an excellent document, especially when 

canparedwithothers. (351) 

REsEmsE: Thankyou. 

CU-MWT: A fellw gecgram at California State University, Fullerton had a 

dream of a Sierra Crest Naticmal Park; it was the subject of his Master's 

thesis. I would like to sea that come he sum day to pres" this area 

and its grandem for my children and grandchildren to enjoy, and to save one 

of the jewels of California. (481) 

m: Designaticm of f&al land as a National Park is the sole 

reqmsibility of Cbqress and is outside the scape of the Forest Plan. 

aX+lE": Add the nine deer herd plans written for the Inyo Forest and the 

G&tc"d M Wild Trout Management Plan to the secticsl that addresses the 

re1atimshj.p of existing plans with past and future p1armh-g. (2170) 

REsm": Theseareinclucaed. SeaApPendur ' A of the Plan. 

EtWlDTC: Want sustained yield of Forest and range and maintenance of "nn 

species diversity. (88) 

m: Ths Forest will be managed for ' yieldsof bothtinbrand 

range with maxi" species di-ity. See the Standards and Guicaelines for 

specific manag-t direch 'an. 

txw": The folimiq carments apply to all desmipticm (Management Area 

Direction IV-85-141). Area-specific managemnt problems must be included. 

Without adequate hfomticm, the cancsmed reader -3-t krcw if 

prescriptirms and direch 'ons are adequate: management area clirecb 'cm for 

range must be included: thDusands of acres are allocated; riparian area 

inchdtd; and the fo1lmi.q are just a few specific management areas having 

several problems that must be individually addressed in the Plan and EIS: 

mm ~asin/Parker Canycm, Coyote Flat, Cottnnm Carryca, and Kern Plateau. 

(2170) 

WE: Area-specific management problems are not included in the 

Management Area descriptions because they vary with changiq ccazditians. 

proSect-level e"enW analyses enable the public to camnent 081 specific 

resource problems. The pmfessional resource specialists "sku&& the 

resource respca7sibilitiffi. The interdisciplinary Managemnt Team rwiehed 

problems, prescriptim, direcb 'rms, standards and guidelines must be 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines to address prOblanS =law to their 

all standards and Guidelines. Range management "hasbeenamed. 

80 
m: when it comes to lands east of U.S. 395, the Plan and the DEIS show 

a curious insensikvity, almst a hostility, to these mre arid and less 

glaciated landscapes. (2152) 

RFSFONSE: There is more discussion in the Plan about the lands west of U.S. 

395 because of the high level of recreation use in that area and the public's 

expressed interest in it. The Forest Servica places as much €yy?hasis 

professionally on the lands east of U.S. 395 as on those west of the highway. 

COEIIMENT: change the designation of the north side of Deep Springs Valley 

fran Prescription #18 to Prescription #17 for the following reasbns: thexe 

are springs in this area which lie within the Black Toad range; there is a 

stand of unique lay elevation bristlecone pine; and this will retain the 

integrity of this area with the rest of the Deep Spriqs watershed which is 

currently under Prescription #17. (1522) 

RESPONSE: Thishasbeendone. 

at@ENT: All madless lands ureviouslv in Manaa-t Prescriution #18 should be redesignated Management F&escripti;n #17. c322) (3, 324,- 381, 400, 481, 

1757, 1758, 2142) 

RFSPONSE: Thishasbeendone. 

m: The nmbr of Management Prescriptions could be reduced. For 

example, Prescription #9 and Prescription #10 could be dined. other 

examples would be Prescription #7 which could be canbined with a prescription 

for all Special Interest Areas and Research Natural Areas such as 

Prescription #5. Prescriptions #13 and #14 should be dined. The 

prescriptions should deal with the natural reso-, mainly the vegetation. 

Prescriptions #17 and #18 do not seem to have anythmg ' to do with the. 

resource. (29) 

RFSF€EiSE: All Prescriptions are necessary to address the various resoeqhases. Prescriptions #9 and #10 reflect two levels of managmt of the 

timber rem-. The Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest (addressed in 

Prescription #7) is managed very differently fran all other Special Interest 

Areas and Research Natural Areas as it is a very popular recreation-oriented 

area, in addition to be- a scientific research area. Prescriptions #17 and 

#18 deal with one of the most critical resouTces of the Forest: its users. 

Frescriptim #17 addresses the semi-primitive recreation experience; 

Prescription #18 addresses all levels of use with no particular remmphasis. 

m: Prescription #10 seems to provide no managemsnt direction for 

wildlife, diversity, or old grauth. The Prescriptim #10 procedures are to0 

disruptive of "nes for use in sane of the lands indicated on the 

Preferred Alternative map (north half) such as the Glass Mountain and Hartley 

Springs areas. Prescription #10 to the east, north and northwest of Glass 

81 
-tab wuld be highly thstm&im to scientifically inprtant “xs 

and sharld be change3 to Prescription #17. (971) (466) 

RESPCKSE: prescription #10 will not be iInp1-M west of U.S. 395. 

Provision for wildlife, diversity and old gmwth alaq with othar specific 

resource manag€ilient directicn is dkcused in the Farest-wide StandKdS and 

Guidalines. The area east of U.S. 395 will reMin in prescription #lo. 

cxmmw: t Prescxiptim #18 does not ccntain fisheries, riparian, 

wildlife or- el-& and managgnent directicn for as included 

in other prescriptions. other p-scx3.ptia-s cmly mtain m or two of these 

elements. Prescxipticms #9 thmqh #18 should hlu& specific management 

dirazticm for fisheries, riparian, threatened mered or sensitive 

species, wildlife and watershed. These management ‘rms should include 

“itorjrg, specific Vaos, water quality bqcd the “best management 

practices“, limitations of road buildirg such as ttcse for wildlife under 

hescripticH1#14, and specify an SMZ buffer preferably greater than 200 feet 

under the riparian element for F?re&cripti.cm #15. (1108) 

RESPCNSE: 

in the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelh. 

The basic diredA.Cn for Il”t of each resource is discussed 

resource specialists cm the Fore& with additional inpt finm TesouI13e 

pr0fessicmaI.s frcm other agemies and plhlic Wt. 

inc1uM in relevant Frescriptims as needed. 

in chapter V. 

These Were canstructed by the 

=ti& dixeclx ’cm is 

t4mitorhg plans are ircluded 

m: The eticmal cost figure sbDuld be increased to refled the 

(2190) 

RESKNSE: The~toriqgcostshavebeenincreased. 

Stream &U&L- Utilizing GAWS are recarmended by the (IIFG. (V-6) 

cxmmw: we note -&at most of the outputs of the Preferred Alternative are 

lawer or mt significantly higher than those in PA for the first decade, but 

- the wets ara identical. Thus, it wxld seem that the RPA Alternative is 

prductive 

efficient 

from 

fmn 

a resaurce 

a business 

manag-t 

management Wint. standpint 

The 

as 

Plan 

well 

should 

as beirg 

analyze 

- 

the potential effeds of budget shortfalls. We do not refer to developnent 

of a wet driven “low budget“ alternative, but rather to an analysis of the 

way in which the Forest Service would meet the goals of the Plan withh 

limits of “trained budgets. Within this amtext, it seem that the 

analysis should provide: (A) a clear description of the buaget cuts between 

pxgram elmts; (B) a clear description of the inpact of the buaget cuts on 

each prcgram element; (C) a clear description of the inpact of hdget 

reductions on pMI, cash flm (to the +zeasmy as well as to a=unties), 

e”ent w”l ‘ties, and other social and eccarmic parameters; and (D) a 

clear description of any changes in land allocations, resource pqrams, or 

82 
managemnt that might be needed to meet the Plan's basic goals under a 

It wxld be appurolniate to make such an analysis for Varying 

also address the questicn of ovtput backlogs. IWly, these analyses should 

be made for each alternative, but, as a mini" , they shcxlld be displayed at 

a single location in the EIS. A canplete display of analysis will help in 

framhq fum budget requests and will, we believe, add to the @se that 

overall "ental in-. (1432) (49, 128) 

REspoNsE: The Plan states hay the Forest will be managed during this 

p1arni.q period. The Plan has been ccmstxum with extensive public 

invo1venient and the public has a skmg interest in its inplenentatiosl. The 

Pian's prugram will be the basis for budget requests to cclngress. Any 

deviation fmn the Plan's prcgraru resulting fmn wet shortages will be 

doclmwted and the public will be able to track accanplishmnts and related 

casts. This will provide accountability and pmvide Ccqress with better 

infonnation for their decisim-mkhg. 

budget. 1-1s of budget -fall - 808, 608, and 40%. The discussian should 

fully flX&d Fd prcgralTS are in the Mtim'S best -C and 

m: wander hay marry of the gxls are realistic. Aware of the serious 

wet cuts in the various agencies and am "e3 that deparhnents 

czrxxn& with envh"tal study and protection seem to be the m3st 

severely cut. For instance , hay can riparian habitats be inpnovea , andhc3.i 

can m3nitcd.q programs be carried out if ths Forest Mce lacks -1 

to do the jobs? How can be imprmrea and new trails hilt? Are 

we being given pranises which cannot be fulfilled? (134) (297) 

m: Forests have been assured that the Plans will be used to deter" 

resource priorities for the allocaticn of fucds. However, if the total 

eiaticn fmn Qslsress to the Natimal Forest System is redud, then 

specific projects will mt be iniplemented. 

-: The Forest Service budget needs to reflect adequate fundirg to 

@de for the following: inf-tim, intapretatim and enforcmwt 

through field presence along with mmitoring. (2210) 

m: Those Costs are included in the Forest budget. 

-: We questim your statement that there will be m wet limitation 

as this does not reflect the present .trend. This srxtim should mre 

realistically provide a prioritization of managemat activities should 

How else will the public k" whether or 

mt Forest resamxs will receive adequate protection? The preferred 

objective for deer habitat should state '"ajntain or increase the Forest-wide 

deer habitat capacity.". (1617) (225, 297, 2170) 

RE"SE: This statement is misleadiq as it merely mans that there was m 

budget constraint built into the FORPLAN model. There are always budget 

constraints in a federal agency. The Plan reflects the manag-t priorities 

for this planning pericd. 

furding not be available. 

The Plan also reflects the increased emphasis on 

83 
m: The lxlaget for the Fjnal Plan has been 7B3uced fran the Draft. 

carmodity pxg-ams for the most part will continue at current levels although 

the timber PSQ has been reduced. The Plan is designed to -de an 

approyoiate mix of COTllDdl 'ty and Iy3pI-c(rmDdl 'ty outputs that reflect public 

mspmse to the Draft Plan. Refer to the Budget Appendix in the EIS 

CC"r: How will buagets be allocated to the various resources if the 

budget is cut? This subject was not bnxght in the propse5 Plan. (0297 006) 

REspcBvsE: The Plan reflects Forest priorities and requests for funding will 

be based on the Plan. Ctqress apFnoKiates "ey to the Natimal Forest 

Systa by resource so that ultimately Omgx-es decides how Plans are 

implemented. Jhriq the mzmitm5-g and evalmtion precess, implementation 

canbereviewedandc!ome&l 'as made in either the Plan or bucQet requests. 

CC"r: Firebreaks sbould be kept to an ahsolute mini" because they are 

aesthetically unpleasing and they enmurage the illegal remmal of snags for 

firewood - (78) (140) 

"SE: Proposes fuel breaks must ga through the -tal asesswnt 

pmxss prior to o" . Visual Quality Objectives must be identified 

an2 met dun'rg this process. Forest Service Manual 'on is specific to 

the width and design of shaded fuel breaks which takes into cmsideration 

aesthetics and remnrill or disposal of &dual wood. 

REspcBvsE: The Forest Plan pmvides for the establistmnmt of fire management 

units which practice fire suppression strategies other that full cantrol 

objectives. 

m: Ch Plan 111-22 under PMm, please add: 'The Forest Smite 

fire mission is wildland fire p". The Forest, however, also contains 

districts will respond to stxucisu.-al fins on the Forest through mutual aid 

or interagemy agreements, most fire districts have little input in the 

certain develcpnents on the Forest such as geothermal have significant fire 

protectroll "sidrxaticns that sbould be dew& by the local sbmcture fire 

-on agency prior to a"&icm. The Forest should cmsequently 

formally include the local fire distrid in the review of all structural 

developnent prqcsed for the Forest to ex" adequate design and n&tigati.cn 

for fire pmtectl 'on inpcts.'' 

structures that r€qure * structural fire p". Although local fire 

developnent review process of new devel~ts on federal lands. 

84 
cum": Please add: 

adequate structural fire proMm m the Forest." (1638) 

m: Structural fire protedian is the respmsibility of other 

agencies. Their c3xx"s and -tiom will be included in all new 

developnents and cwered in the annual ampxators' msetirg dealing with 

-al fire protediool. 

"Specific guidelines will also be developsd to ensure 

-: We note that there is no fire management plan at present for the 

Reds Meadow area next to the Devil's Postpile. We would like to have input ' 

to the developnent of the fire management Plan for this area. (487) 

Currently there is an interim fire management Plan for the rrryo 

Natimal 

m: 

Forest. vpcsl canpletim of the Forest Plan the remainder of the 

F& will be included in the fire management plm effort. 

agencies will be contacted for irg& into that plan. 

All affected 

cum": I am very happy with your enlightened attitude towards fire. 

Definitely in favor of using the ccslfinement and contairment strategies cm 

all fires, no matter what their cause, should be similarly amsidered. (91) 

(140) 

m: Currently, regional policy is to use a control strategy on all 

human-caused unplanned igmitions. The primary purp3se of this is the 

potential liability of those reqxmible for starting the fire. 

mch Of the ForeSt. HUman-Caused fires need nOt autnnatialy be Suppressed; 

cum": I ccnclx with standard and Guideline #3 for fire. However, 

-is ad be placed cm all- natural fires to burn thmugbut the 

Forest, except whera risk is placed m people and property. We loak forward 

to mrkirg with your persannel to designate areas wheze this would be 

beneficial to wildlife. (1634, 2190) (65, 140) 

m: This is already policy as prescxiked in the Interim Inyo Fire 

Management Plan for wilderness and the white Mxntair~~. ?dditional areas 

will be added in the future. 

cum": I supprt a "let-burn" policy for lightning-caused fires. (345) 

(151, 266, 318, 380, 399, 447, 448, 1483, 1484, 1567, 1781, 1810, 2172, 2173, 

2174) 

m: Currently a "let-bum" policy does mt exist. Unplamed M~WX~ 

ignitiom are managed under me of three mion strategies. Those 

strategies are control, con tairwent or ccmfi"=nt. Each unplamed ignition 

is evaluated based cm weather, locaticm, available resources and other 

85 
ca.t.": The statement "the Farest service fFre nclssicn is wildland fire 

prdecticn'' Md be replaced by stathq "the Farest service fire missicm is 

to USB fire as a lesource management tool." (1193) (140) 

RESPCNS: This statement has been addedto Farest GXls for protedicn. 

ca": setting an arbitrary limit of 50 acres (Plan IV-50) m natural 

lightning fires is rot realistic. It skuld be replaced by a range of 

figures backed up by Current "h and statistical study of past fire 

behaviors and regrowth in this area. (193) 

m: (XlrrentlY the Inyo Fcuest is operating lader an interim fire 

management plan which gives certain acre objedivss for each supIpessicn 

strategy. This acre objective is supparted by current research ami study of 

pastfirehistcay. Thefigureof50acreshasbeenrerwed. 

ca.t.": In Managenent Prescription #1- Designated Wilderness, we suggest 

Department of Fish and Game and other in- groups to develop Plans for 

the following be added to the sectiopl an p": ''WOIlc with the 

prescribed bum areas to allow fire to assume a mare natural rule and to 

restore wildlife habitat." We believe that cmly "y fires ShCRild be 

permitted in SenSIrtive farested wat€?rSbd 

In large forest areas, fires ad mt be allowed to bum out of ccmtrol. 

(2190) 

REspoRLsE: 

of fire rnanagmt Plans. 

such aS the South Fork Kem. 

Current policy is to jnvolve all affected agencies in developlwt 

ca": 

native plants and animals. (298, 1632) 

RFsEwm: The bterjm fire manac3€mnt plan for the wilderness and the white 

and Inyo mtains calls for suppesicm strategies other than full mtroi 

of wildfires. This interim plan will be replaced with a fire management pian 

which will allow fire to resume a ~t~al rule in the ecosystem. 

The historical fire suppressicm policy has had adverse inpacts on 

CCWEZW: I agree that the Inyo National Forest should -ider a rwisim of 

agree with the Forest on us- prescribed fites to imprwe wilderness 

habitat. Specific fire management plans should be developed for large 

ungulate species like bighorn sheep, mule deer, and p"xn antelope. 

(1433) (298, 1632, 2101, 2170) 

m: 

its fire C%Tlbl policy to allow MtLlrd fh to bum XlW w. I alS0 

Fire managenent plans are prepared and approved to allow fires to 

burn under different mppmssion strategies. The objectives of fire 

86 
ObjeCUves are 

Plans 

seadary 

are primarily 

other than 

to 

allreduce wildfires 

-cm 

to assum 

costs: 

a 

- 

natural 

role. Specific resource objedives am met with prescrited fire. Clxrently, 

the Inyo has plans to burn for wildlife habitat enhanwment and other 

resource cbjedives. 

a”: It is not clear to me how ”ant can be achieved with no 

cm-the-gnxnd acticm. It is difficult to ag~~ with a “M &on” policy 

witkut the designated areas delineated 081 a map. Them are mamy areas cm 

the Illy0 that are probably well suited .to cmnf-t or con-t 

particularly in the Illy0 and white mtains. HcwevSr, these ateas need to 

be carefully studied for potential resource clamage and tlme needed for 

regeneration, particularly regarding wildlife habitat. (33) 

RlsKNSE: Ccmtabiwit is om suppressicsl strategy that may use natural 

barriers to stop the forward spread of the fire. A ”nt strategy may 

also be used in areas witkut ~t~ral barriers but minimal acticm will be 

Wen to stop the forward rate of spnsad. To assume that “no cm-the-gm”’ 

acticm is the same as mtai”t is not always true. The areas in the white 

and Inyo Nznn-~mtainS are delineated on a map and are available for review. 

These areas were carefully studied for potential resource damage ciurjq 

canpleticm of the interh fire management plan. Future efforts in fire 

management planning will cxmsider potmtial resource in addition to 

other criteria for selecting the appropriate sqzessicm strategy. 

CXlWENP: The response to the issue/cc” regarding appropriate fire 

manag-t is too sketchy. There are appropriate areas to let natural fires 

bum, and imple”~taticm of such a policy would increase the 

cost-effectiveness of fire management cm the Forest, increase diversity, and 

pteot wilderness values. While detailed @*lines for fire suppression 

can wait until a fire managewrit acticm plan is ccmpleted, policy and 

direction need to be addressed in this Forest Plan. A “let-bum“ plicy for 

parts of the Forest is desirable for e” ‘cs and resources. Without such 

direction, co~3ems that a fire management action plan might be biased 

against reductians in the level of fire suppression sbuld be addressed. 

( 128 1 

m: Folicyanddirectx ’on am outlined in the Forest Plan under Forest 

Gxls, Objectives and the Standards and Guidelines. Specific direction on 

hau to implement this policy and diredion will be included in the Inyo 

Forest Fire Managemnt Plan. 

a”: Management of the Golden ”ut Wilderness should specify relaxation 

of mtmt and mbml plicies where single .tree lighining fires in 

areas with no g”d cwer are corm3n. (128) 

WE: The Golden Trout Wilderness will be included in a forest fire 

management plan which will be ccmpleted after the Forest Plan is appruved. 

87 
management planning efforts give spec Eic acre objec 

suppression strategy based on the above criteria. 

ives for each 

UXMWl': Ths Golden hout Wilderness has a dangerous accLmaiLation of natural. 

fuels. We need a fuels treatmmt presmiptim to carrect this build-up. 

(1522) 

REsFmsE: This area will be amEssed in the forest fire "ent PlaI-rIhJ 

effort. 

UXMWl': R-ze the need for and values of "aging vegetation to achieve 

protection fran fire and to establish a mxe natural ccmnunity age class 

distribtion. 

Without nvre specific details a"g * haw fire will be used 081 Inyo 

vegetation. We request that this infcmnatim be provided before OUT review 

can be canpleted. (1108) 

m: €kw fire management will be used is addressed in Forest CQalS, 

Natimal Fd, WB Cannot &Uah the pOt.dZhl MtiW 

Objectives and the Standards and Guidelines. Specific objectives and 

suppression strategies will be addressed in the forest fire managemnt plan 

upm canpletion of the Farest Plan. 

cawlam: t-tinq-t Area #1- miYY Basin. Mxx3 cake - no llew grazing 

manag-t priority must be the protectim and ed"lt of riparian areas 

throvgbout the Basin. w the Prefened Alternative, degradatiaol of these 

should be allowed here to eryxxlzage the native wildlife. A 

areas as a result of grazing is allowed to mtinue. This kind of sacrifice 

of natural resources on Forest service lands is unacceptable. Also, 

miderable riparian habitat is located within the IANP bolmdaries. The 

Plan sZrruld make a -bent to tcy to acquire these areas or at least to 

pursue a coaperative interagency agreement to grazing fran these 

riparian areas and restore them. (1843, 2170) 

REsFcsE: Grming in the " Basin scenic Area will be adm-essed in the 

Scenic Area Plan which is currently being prepared. 

cawlam: Management Area #3 - Walker. Ths public and private lands adjacent 

to U.S. 395 (on east and west sides) sbould be dsipated as a range recovery 

area. Gcazirgsl-mldbeterrmna * ted imnediately. This area would be a gxd 

place to test varicw range recovery techniques. (140) 

RESPCPYSE: Nearly all the land adjacent to U.S. 395 on both sides is private 

or state land. Sam areas are in the Mxm Basin National Scenic Area. We 

88 
RANGEMANAGEMENT 

have M mmtrol over the private lands. The lands in the Scenic Area will be 

addressed in the Ps3X-n Basin scenic Area Plan. 

a”: Management Area #4 - June Lake Loop. Under range, change to 

Limited Access Prescription; the destructive effects of grazing on riparian 

areas make it an inappropriate activity for this part of the Inyo. (2170) 

m: We have not changed the area mdfx Prescription #11 - Range 

EnplESis. However, Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines for fish and 

wildlife habitat, riparian resources and range have been mdified. 

a”: Managcmnt Area #3 - Walker/Pa&er. vnder range, include range 

management directl ‘on aimed at w“g . the severe wergrazirag M3w 

cccuming. For example, redesignate range eqbsis areas as Limited Access 

areas, with emphasis on recovery of degrade3 riparian and wildlife habitat. 

Because much of this area is owned by the City of Los Angeles, consider 

acquiring key riparian and wildlife habitat. At the very least, try to work 

mre with L.A. in recovering these valuable areas. (2170) 

REspoRLsE: seeahRreresp3nse. 

a”: 

fact that parts of this area are important to deer is missing. (2170) 

REspoRLsE: Please refer to the description of Management Area #5; we have 

inwqmrated information there about the deer herds in the area. 

Managcmnt Area #5 - Glass bbmtain. For range, a Statement of the 

-: Management Area #6. I am -. You state in Appenaur ’ C-115 

that there is currently 1x3 cattle grazing in the area as wild horses have 

priority for forage, yet on C-114 you say “current uses include.. .grazing“! 

(1634) 

REspoRLsE: (xlrrent use of the Nevada portion of the Excelsior Further 

Planning Area includes gr-. Management Area #6 - Pi-, includes two 

snall gJXzing allotments, one of which has not been used in recent years. 

a”: The secticsl on Management Area Direction &uld be rewritten to 

reflect a greater inprbxa of the wild horse in the overall Pi- area 

because (1) by law, they are to be treated as an integral part of the natural 

system of the public lands and (2) they provide a source of recreation. (124) 

m: We ham added information about the significance of the wild horse 

population in the description of Management Area #6 - Pi-. 

-: Management Area #7 - Upper Owens fiver. Uncaer range, add: 

“Vegetation manipulation to benefit livestock should only be dme when it 

does rot degrade sage grouse habitat.“ Directions for protection of riparian 

areas and wildlife habitat are missing. (2170) 

89 
REspoNsE: Please refa to the Fkx€3t-wi& stamiank and midelinas for sage 

gImS0 which have bean Imdified. Ihe standards and midelinss for riparian 

and wildlife have also been significantly Imdified. 

m: Management Area #E - e Escarpnent. vnder range, add an 

element to take care of the 3357 acres designated as range -s. (2170) 

RESPCEGE: 

this Management Area. 

There are rn acres designated h-escripticrm #11- Raqe B@laSis in 

m: 

directicm of the bkxn Chmty Generdl Plan and the Ma"I/June Lake Airpart 

Land Use Plan. (1638) 

RESPCEGE: 

designated prescription #11 sharld eqhasize range "gment. 

Managenent Area #9 - r.l"th. Please revise the range designation 

cm Doe Ridge in the far eastern" of the Management Area to reflect the 

we have mads m change in the range designatim; we feel the area 

c!c"r: Management Area #11- clxlvict-m. Last slnmar when I went to 

the Md;ee knmtain area, I found a large herd of sheep in the wilderness area 

(very disappinting). I wnuld like to see the sheep kept on the 1- part 

of thenrnmtainorremwed. Iwouldalsoliketoseetheminingrcadtothe 

top of mtain closed. It is a narrow and dang- rcad which I 

believe scmeone is going to be injured cm. (1886) 

m: amgmss provided direction stating that grazing is an acceptable 

practice within wilderness areas. Management dire32 'on mizes that 

grazing in wilderness areas must be cmpatible with wilderness directim. 

Your c"-nw- the road CmMCGee mtain is b0yX-d the scope of the 

Plan; hmwer, it will be fcavarded to the Forest mgineer for his 

jnfOIIIBtion. 

c!c"r: Management Area #13 - white Mxmtadns. under range, change the 

grazing statanent to read: "Allow IYJ livestock grazing." The Ancient 

Bristlecogle Pine Forest is a very unique and fragile area: grazing is totally 

out of place there. (2170) 

RESKNSE: We agree that the Bristlecane Pine Forest is a unique resource. 

 lowe ever, there is m cmflict between grazing and the bristle" pine: there 

is very little forage near the bristleccates. Grazing is a permitted use in 

this Managemsnt Area. 

CCMlDW.: Management Area #13 - white knmtains. Under range, add specific 

directicms for mitigakhq excessive grazing exclusicm areas. Add: 

"Eliminate grazing in riparian areas where degradation of wildlife habitat 

takes place." (2170) 

90 
RESPCNSE: The FOr%Sbwi& S- and Guidelines fa riparian resoutces, 

fish, and rarge have been significantly mdified. We feel these charges 

~yourconcems. 

cct": The exc1Usim of cows fm about 20,000 acres of four existing 

danestic graziq allotments will seriously effect the eccBlJmic viability of 

them allchmmts. There has been continucus use of thse allotments for 130 

years which predated the formation of the White l4xnta.h District by over 50 

years. The alleged reasc~l for the exclusim of those areas (i.e. to ptect 

mdlTltain sheep habitat) does not hold nu& water. -tab sheep are ming 

ba& into the area northeast of White Mountain Peak despite the fact that 

cows are currently grazing tbase adjacent allotmnts. Why eliminate cattle 

grazing while paying no attention to the amcentrated hman use precipitated 

in those areas by the crooked Creek Research Statim, White Mnmtain Research 

Statim and the Patriarch and McAfee RWLS? (1588) 

RESXiSE: After further research into this issue, the range element to which 

you refer for Managemnt Area #13 - White l4xntains has been mdified to 

read: "Exclude prticns of the Perry men Flat allotment frun cattle 

grazing to mxlntain sheep habitat." 

cct": Managemnt Area #14 - Rock -/Pine Creek. Add this element 

mder range: "Allow no increase in grazing where this might adversely affect 

deer habitat. " ( 2170) 

-. We have added similar "J. 

cct": Management Area #15 - Bishop (Seek-BUttennilk. under range, no 

hxeases in grazing where it cauld degrade wildlife habitat. Better yet, no 

grazing. (1988) (2170) 

RES=: wording similar to this has been added to Management Area #15 

direction. 

CCM4ENT: Please add a range 

sedicm statirig: "Reduce, modify or eliminate grazing where dqradation to 

fish or wildlife habitat can be demonstrated." (2190) (2170) 

RESFCNSE: wording similar to this has been added to Managwmt Area #17 

direction. 

Managemnt Area #17 - Owens Valley Escarpnent. 

CCM4ENT: Management Area #18 - Inyo l4xntains. under range, add this 

element: "Reduce or eliminate grazing whm it is wildlife 

habitat." Add details of how grazing damage to Santa Rita Springs is going 

to be mitigated. (2170) 

RESFiNSE: We have added language similar to your suggestion. Specific 

management of Santa Rita Springs is beyond the scope of the Forest Plan. 

91 
IZUMRKC: Management Area #18 - Inyo muntains. Please add a range section 

which reads: "m, modify, or eliminate grazing where @radation to fish 

or wildlife habitat can be demazstrated." Also, the following sbould be 

included under wildlife: "Develop water sources where passible for deer and 

other wildlife." (2190) 

REspcBysE: wording similar to this has been added to Managmt Area #18 

direction. 

IZUMRKC: Management Area #19 - Cblden Trout. Allotment plans shDuld be 

revised to reflect the need to maintain quality fawning habitat for the 

Mmache deer herd. Flexible on and off dates should be included in these 

actual grazing dates each year. (2190) 

REspcBusE: AMPs will reflect the needs of all resources. Present range 

readiness and utilizaticm. 

plans so that yearly variaticms in range readiness canbeusedtodet€mxine 

manag-t practices already allow us to adjust on and off dates amordug 'to 

CJX4EW: Manag-t Area #19 -Golden Trout. The following stakmnt sbould 

be added tn the range portion: "Reduce, modify, or if necessary, eliminate 

grazing in thDse areas (particularly riparian urmes) where grazing is shown 

to be detrbsntal to fish or wildlife habitat. (2190) (1433) 

REspcBusE: wading Similar to this has been added to Management Area #19 

dir%=tion. 

IZUMRKC: Management Area #20 - south Sierra. The following sta-t 

should be included und~~ range: "wca or if ~cessazy, eliminate grazing in 

thDse areas (particularly riparian zaes) where grazing is shown to be 

detrbsntal to fish or wildlife habitat." (2190) (1433, 2170) 

REspoNsE: wording similar to this has been added to Managmmt Area #20 

diredicH1. 

IZUMRKC: Lccal eccxnlies are @YXIdent cm the nuge and the area 

has high use for sheep as well as cattle grazing. Increases in range 

opportunities will help improve and maintain the biolcgical base and provide 

spin-off benefits in brush amtrol and fire hazard reducix 'on. (49) 

REspoELsE: Use of livestock for fuels reduction will be cmsidwd in the 

revision of allotment management plans. 

CJX4EW: NEPA requFres a full range of altamitives, yet there is mly a 

1.5% difference between the highest (RPA) and lawest (AMN) grazing All% in 

the first decade, and 1.6% difference between the tw~ in the fifth decade. 

(11-165) (1634) 

92 
REspaBIsE: The differences between the RPA and AMN Alternatives in the 1st 

and 5th decades are: 32.5% and 36.9% respectively. The difference between 

the 1st and 5th decades for RPA is 5.2% and for AMN is 1.4%. 

CmMFXr: mrn Basin National Scenic Area. Range, aesthetics and grazing: 

The degradation of the landscape fxm grazing misnanagmt is highly 

visible. (2170) (1843) 

REsFmsE: This will be addressed in the Mano Basin scenic Area Plan. 

CmMFXr: "he cattle ranching hduslzy provides a large portion of the 

ecolloRic base in Fsneralda mty. "he &ictive designations in most of 

the whites will have a deleterious effect upcm a significant number of the 

cattle ranchers wtx~ deprd upm sumner range in the Wte Wnmtains as an 

essential element in their cattle management prcgrams. (486) 

"SE: Grazing will cslly be excluded fmn areas designated as impoaant 

muntain sheep habitat or fmn areas where other resource values need 

proMon. Wildezness designation does mt preclude grazing. 

CmMFXr: We cc" with the diredim to 

not upgrade 4WD roads to 2W!J and to obliterate minirg roads after they are 1x3 

lager needed. The Forest skmld Systematically analyze the potential to 

obliterate or close off ather roads in these Presscription areas; there are 

many that are red"t, porly routed or constructed, unnecessary or 

detrimental to wildlife and scenic values. Also, "develop m additional..2WD 

or 4WD access." Add to the range element: "Reduce grazing if fish or 

wildlife habitat degradation is occurring." (1617) 

REsFmsE: The analysis which you suggest will cccur as part of the qx3ati.q 

of the 1977 Interagency Pbbr Vehicle Use map. Roads open for use within 

this Prescrl 'ption will be specifically designate3 as part of the qx3atj.rKJ 

process. Routes will be prom for relocation or elimination where routes 

are poorly located or duplicated. No additianal roads will be available for 

public use. We have not added your suggest& range element. We feel that 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines provia adequate protection of fish and 

wildlife habitat. 

Limited Access F"iption #17. 

m: 

expxked to increase. 

decreaseinredmeat- 'on by Americans. (78) 

m: This statement has been remwed fmn the Final Plan. €kmever, all 

jndications are that the deinard for red meat has stabilized and may even be 

The report indicates that the demand for red meat c"ption is 

However, all recent surveys sl-od a marked per capita 

heading w. 

CmMFXr: To put the ccsltributian of meat ploauctiosl on Forest Servica lands 

inproper- 've, Please include information on the amxlllt of meat 

93 
pOduC& on Forest Senrice lands canpared to that pOduC& in CalifOInia and 

the U.S. as a -le. (2170) (65) 

REspoNsE: 

red meat p"tion in the nation. 

ApFeoximate figures are that the Fcz-est sarvice supports 3% of the 

n~ Califomia, it is atmt 17%. 

m: Wildlife may have a higher ecoplcmic benefit and return than cattle 

grazing which benefits VeIy few individuals. (looo) 

value than grazing. Hawever, it is qifficult to ampare tkS0 values. 

REspoNsE: Wildlife, particularly harvest species, my have a higher eccnrmic 

Grazjng is anpatible with maintaining or enhancing wildlife habitats, and is 

a valid use of Naticmal Forest. System lands. 

m: Wmld like to see a carp.nehensive analysis of costs and expnses. 

According to the House of Represmtatives Repmt 99-593 (May 8, 1986), pblic 

States. Overall, EXM and the Forest Service charge only 1/5 as much to gram 

public 

mt 

lands as do owners of private raqelands. In 1985, grazing fees 

approxhately $9.2 Millim into the U.S. Reasury while grazirg 

programs cost taxpyea about $69 Million. In light of these statistics, I 

mild like to krm wln3the.r the grazing ~orogram m the Irryo Forest is 

cost-effeotive, or are we sut?sidizing the destrudion of ou1: land? 

"he Forest Service is subsid.lZing cattle ranchars by offering reduced prices 

for grazing and swig Close to $lOo,ooo per year far czews to =pair 

erosion that is often linked to cattle grazing. The Benchnark analysis 

(DEIS 11-14) shows that grazing is an minprtmt part of PM7; clearly 

recxeaticm is the value of this Farest. Grazing is in direct ccslflict with 

recreatiopl in that it greatly detracts fmn the enjoyment of otherwise wild 

areas. (1548, 147, 1097) (93, 225, 333, 382, 2170) 

IIEspcBvsE: 

do. Fees are set by Oxq-ess or Executive Order; the Farest Swxice 

ahinisters those fees acmniiqly and has m authority to change them. 

Recently, the president set an interjm mxatmium on fees until a new fee 

schedule is determined. whether grazirg detracts frun the reueatim 

enjopmt is a persmal value judgment. Sane people feel it adds to the 

pastoral scene. 

lands grazing is ale of the nnst heavily subsidized txlsinesses in the united 

we provide grazing to the public as CmgresS has instructed us to 

CxM": The concept of grazing livestock within a National Forest seem to 

&lick with stated goals of wildlife habitat imprmrement, maintenance and 

the goals of maintenance of viable poLxllaticms of existing species of native 

vertebrates and inverte hates. The a"t of forage for wildlife needs to be 

determined. (481, 1634) 

IIEspcBvsE: Livestixk graziq m the National Forests is a legitimate use. 

Tk Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines mde for pmm Of Other 

-. In,xztaUl ' areas, grazing managmat is an available tool to 

realC€jep1ants. Insaneinstances it helps reale fire hazard by 

94 
r&uciq the vegetative cover. Thsre have been many mdifications to the 

and range in the final Plan to insura that wildlife arid fish habitats are 

P-. 

F&-wide Standards and Guidelines fCn fish, wildlife, riparian resourceS 

m: When range "g-t is in ccnflid with habitat diversity, 

riparian areas, wateushed, wildlife, and wilderness diversity use, I would 

like to sea that amflid resolved in favor of the "-grazing use. (2036) 

(319, 333, 2067) 

-: standardsandGuide1inesareusedtoinsure pmte&im of riparian 

areas and other habitats that can potentially be altered by gYaz* 

practices. The Standards and Guidelines for p" of fish and wildlife 

habitat and riparian resmnss ham been suhstantially niudified. Decisions 

m grazing versus nm-grazing are made in project specific ernrircwnental 

analyses. 

CUMWE Identificatim and avoidance of unacceptable ~BSOUTCB damage and 

jncmpatibilities between grazing and wildlife should be a high priority in 

all Manag-t Areas that parmit grazing. (128) (89) 

-: See rqe and wildlife elements llM3er specific Managmt Areas. 

Identification and resolutim of grazing paroblam will be addressed in 

allatrnent "gement Plans. 

m: I find allming graziq of livestock in OUT wilderness areas to be 

particularly dishJsbing. MisMnagement and arargrazing has resulted in 

significant alterations of many alph ecosystems. Grazing is rnt qtible 

with wildemess. I recarmend that grazing be phasfxt aut in order to restore 

these sensitive mbll9 to their MWal Ccpaditim. Grazing should be 

eliminated totally m the Kem Plateau. Mismanagement and grazing have 

turned axe high water table lush "S into dxy sagebrush flats dissected 

by deep gullies cc&inwlly carqmq ' away the soil which supports such an 

ecosystem. In the Golden 'prout Wildemess, if the grazing practices are 

expcted to cxnpete with the lumin fawning areas, they sbould be eliminated 

frun cimsi&ration. Watershed and riparian habitat damage should also be 

very closely "itored to check impact and should be reduced to "ize the 

effects. (1011, 1222, 1608) 

REspoNsE: &"?ss has provided direction that states grazing is an 

appropriate use of the wildernesses Created after 1978. Therefore, the 

Forest canmt delete this use frun National Forest lands solely because it is 

wilderness. where unacceptable resource impacts cannot be resolved through 

management, the Forest can adjust use or eliminate graziq to fit that 

particular circlrmstance. Guidelines for grazing are set so that resoucce 

impacts are not allowed to exceed acceptable levels. Refer to the Standards 

and Guidelines, Prescriptions, and Management Area direct^ 'On in the Final EIS 

and Plan. Grazing managmt problems and resolutions will be addressed in 

specific allobient management plans. Refer also to the wilderness section of 

this Appndix. 

95 
m: Areas currently in “unsatisfactary“ condition sbould be eliminated 

fran the accessible range until tby are inprwed to acceptable standards. 

(1585) 

REspoNsE: Prjmary lands for forage prcdmticn that are in unsatisfactory 

condition will be managed to increase thair pmductivity by using apprcpriate 

management practices. Sites will be eliminated fran livestock grazing as a 

last resort if other management pradices fail. 

m: In marry areas an the Inyo, active micnal processes in wet 

meadows have been accelerated and qgravated by grazing. In areas such as 

Sage Hen, Ra-, alden Trout, Pk3Wrry Meadow, Cciyote Plateau, the region 

east of CLmiley Lake, “ache and Tunnel, the white Mountains and mrbn 

(seek, grazing clearly omflicts with water quality, fish, wildlife and soil 

pMm. There is a need to sigrdficantly imprmre rangelands through 

rehabilitation and by decxeasbg the ALP& on the Forest. The Plan does rot 

address specifically how the already overgrazed and damaged areas on the 

Farest are to be restad. (484, 1800) (78, 232, 1223, 1730) 

REspoNsE: Soil and fisheries restoraticm have been mgoing since the 

1930’s. Hundrds of thousands of dDllars have been spent cn these projects, 

livestock were reduced to appmxhately the present day levels. Cn the 

ble, these levels have pruven to he adeqyate to prevent adverse 

Management Area directian will be used to establish management dir€&l ‘on for 

these areas. These will be implemented through allolnent “g-t plans. 

csazirg, overall, will not be increased on the Inyo Forest and ecologically 

sensitive areas will be protectea. 

and mm are Planned in the future. Ab3ut forty years ago, llumbrs of 

-tal impacts. standards and Guidelines, Fzescrl ‘ptims and 

m: 

riparian areas suffer fran current grazing levels. 

Forest justify bzmasing ALlrls 

m: 

oppose any inneaSe in Forest-wide stmking rates. The rarge is 

Hau can the Inyo Naticnal 

gerExally in poor to fair dtion, msst meadows are badly damaged and 

these conditicms exist? (1108) 

Proposeddimzctl ‘an in the FEIS and Plan will recQrmend maintaining 

the current m allocaticns. Management for livestock grazing will be 

addressed for individual allOinr3-l~ Using all0lnent management Plans. 

m: There should be rn range mqhasis management areas at the expense 

ofotherresources. ckrklnl ’ y rn increase in AljNs can be allowed when raqe 

conditicpls are so poor. Reduction or eliminaticsl of grazing must be an 

alternative that is considered where appropriate. llae Plan must also include 

d-sdules of AMe revim and revision, alq with conditicn of range in the 

allabnent, wbther range hp”ts are being maintained, etc. Utilizaticn 

Specifically, the following grazed areas aesparately need 

Mcfubyry Meadows, Kem Plateau, Trail Canycn (White Mountains), BoNer Caqm, 

Parker Bench, and Glass Mxmtain. (1565) 

standards need to be included in the range sedion of the Plan. 

96 
m: The ~orest-wide Standards and Guidelines for fish, wildlife, 

range, and riparian resources have been substantially modified to provide 

specific allotments to jnsure that management directl. 'on is followed. 

Utilization standards have been derived thnu@-~ research and testing over the 

years. Where appropriate, we will use directz 'on applicable to other Great 

Basin Forests, developed by the Inte"tain Region. A schedule for AMP 

upaate will not be included in the FEIS or Plan, but will be develOpea 

following illplementation of the Plan. Thsse schedules will be handled on the 

mer Districts. At present, the Ftegion is prioritizing a list of 

allotments based on their management needs. This will give the Inyo Forest a 

basis for prioritizhg Forest allotments for AMP updating. 

mre specific directi on. AllOtrrWt management Plans will be prepared for 

m: Another reason AUMS should be decreased on the Inyo concerns the 

problem of aging bitterbrush. The Plan and DEIS plainly state that the 

acreage of bitbxbnsh forage will ccrkime to decrease over time as stands 

age faster than acres are treated. This inipliffi that the Forest-wide AUM 

CaZTying capacity will decrease over time. Why are there rat m"ate 

reductions in AW@? (1108) (225, 382, 1099, 1565, 2213) 

m: The reaso~l for the anticipated decline in bi.tterbrush stands is 

due to these starads hecaning decadent and the resulting decline in associated 

plant pnductivkty. This dDes not -ily correlata with livestock 

grazing of this species. Iq"t projects am pld to help rejuvenate 

bitterbrush on the Forest. Guidelines are also set that limit use by 

livestock. One successful method for maintainirg stands of bitterbrush is 

pxlmhg. This has been successful in other states (Utah) and m test plots 

on the Inyo. If dcsle ~noperly, grazing can be used as a tal to prevent 

bitkdmxh frun becaning decadent. 

m: "Livestock emling and chiseling should not exceed 10% - 20% 

(depndirg on fishsry status) of any given stream reach" (Plan Iv-22) and yet 

the a"t of earth disturbance permitted within any 100 meter reach is only 

3-10%. What is the relatidp between these terrrrs? I would CertaUiL . ycall 

"trampling and chiselir# an "earth distu+-bance "! (1634) 

REsc": Refer to the revised standards and Guidelines in the FEIS and 

Plan. Land diskrbing events need to be limited to 3% of the land area. 

Land disturbing is defined here as that which essentially denudes the 

vegetation and other erosion prevennting substances. Typically, activities 

like road builc3h-g and logging operaticas fit the land disturbing category. 

"piing and chiseling generally leave the vqetatim but loosen the soil. 

Therefore, them is rime resistance to don than the other pmssse~. 

CCMQXC Forest-wide Standards ad Guidelines. under range, add: BMps for 

range management. Add to (6): '"0 grazing pennits will be reissued to new 

applicants (with exeption of family transfers) for thse areas or allotments 

which have (a) resmrce damage as a result of adverse impacts by catt'e to 

soil, water, fish or vegetatim and (b) significant recreaticmal, visual, 

aesthetic, wildlife, or fish values which are substantially inpcted by 

97 
gr=inJ." alange (9) to: "Resktct all grazilq to 'mtqe-ready' lands." 

OtlElr additions: 

A. 

B. 

C. 

D. 

E. 

F. 

G. 

H. 

I. 

J. 

K. 

L. 

M. 

Develop AMPS for all active rangs allotments and wild harse and burm 

te?zltories. 

~nsure that water &.velopmnts and other raqe -ts meet wildlife 

needs. 

whare feasible, locate all iqn"mt away from travel cca-ricbrs, 

especially trails, paprlar fisheries, and wa-. 

Describe ecological sites, aevelop scarecards (see mi* NF Plan) to 

rate ecological status and TBsourcB values and define managanent 

strategies for rargeld "agemnt 

Strim to achieve or maintain a of 608 grmnd cover an 

upland....ratgeland~, with the ex&ticm of low sage- types, big 

granitic slapas of sierra. 

Minimize recreation-range aalflicts. 

Achieve or maintain rargelands in satisfadcay candition, defined as: (1) 

having a IBSOUTCB value raw (RVR) of 50 or above for vegetaticm or 

other features or beirg in a mid-successian or higher class ecological 

status, and (2) havhq a stable or upward trend. 

QLnae that pennittees maintain - illpmwxts in accordance 

with pe?mits. 

uJ?3ate AMPS that are Xlt ccnsistent with the Farest Plan, following 

schedules fcxlnd in each applicable Management Area. 

Develop AMPS in ca-isultaticm with all parues involved, including 

pennittea, state or otber federal agencies and any other organizaticms or 

idiKims. 

Make sure each AMP presents adninistxative and "gawnt requirerwts of 

the specific range allotment or wild free-roaming harse or burro 

territcny, and that each Plan Ccntains sections cm objectim, actions, 

"imjng & evaluaticm. 

1. The acticm secticm sbould include seascms of use, "ber of 

livestock permitted, the graving systen, schedule of raqe 

rehabilitation, and schedules for initiating and maintaining range 

hpmvewnts. Schedules should include priorities, mspmsibilities 

and pl- canpleticn dates. The acticm secticpl should...also 

incluck a statement of acticms required to allow for other uses and 

resources and for resolving -lids. 

The nnnitmiq and evaluaticm dcm should address actual USB by 

livestock, prcducticm and utilizaticm, ecolcgical status and trends 

Ncsl-coritin~~~~ u~e management systems should be implemented OPI all 

types, PW-jdF types and ath-facing sage- types 

2. 

and permittee canpliance with management requirements. 

livestock g-raziq allatments. When feasible, a rest rutation system 

should be used when significant rm is in unsatisfactory arditicm. 

An armual cperation plan should be prepared for each g-raziq allotmult. 

The annual plan should be the acticm plan that implements 

manag-t...decisicms miq the current year. Zmnual operating plans 

should be mtually develOpea by the District Ranger and the 

pennittee(s). The annual operating plan should -ist of a narrative 

and graphics, with the narrative includiq, where applicable: 

1. Clear and definite cc"ug ' managemMt of livestock 

while 081 the allotment. This should include the schedule for each 

98 
unittobegrazed, ~a”tOftjm3eaChdtwillbegrazed, 

unit to unit, and standards for livestock renuVal fm the 

allowable forage, utilizaticm, how the livestock will be moved frun 

alloiJmnt. 

2. Range imprrnremerrt mainteMnce raspansibility for the a”t 

year.. .when the maintenance will be accomplished and the maintenance 

standards to be alztahed. 

3. A list of range inq?rareneat pj& be started Canpleted 

aW5l-g the current year. 

4. m====?J- ‘cB1s c“hg trailing and/or t==um 

5. special instructicaLs al camp SanItaticm and fire p?axention 

livestock to and fran the al10trnent: 

respmsibilities of permittea. 

6. Multiple-use cOOrdCnaticBl requirements with which the petmittee is 

expeded to canply, including animal c@ntrol practices and 

ccmpliawe with.. .endangered and -threatened species 

The graphics should include: 

1. A map shewing allotmnt and managanent unit toundaries, raqe 

-t, Closed areas and special managenent situaticils. 

2. Acceptable forms for rxordiq actual use, lasses, imprrxremen t 

maintenance and om management data. 

N. Priority shaild be given to raqe hp”mt on allobrents with a high 

pxcentage of land in unsatisfacixuy cmditicm. 

0. proper use criteria should be established, in mi-, for each unit of 

each grazing allotment. proper use criteria should be a mandatory part 

of each AMP... 1w-m M studis should also be mandatoIy to 

detarmLne if proper use criteria are correct and t;O detm“ * what is 

ocauring in regard to range dtim. Praper use criteria sbould be 

aeVeiopea thmugfi ID team Wt. It is necessary that criteria be based 

cm the factor that beam?s critical first: the limitiq factor. In szme 

raqe units or pastures, it may be necessary to establish imre than cme 

set of lnopar use criteria. This is especially teue where riparian areas 

are involved. Establishing use criteria rquires ID team 

irrvolvemen. Praper use criteria define the p=rmLssible grazing level 

in the range unit or pasture. 

when identifying limiting factors and proper use criteria: 

1. 

ts. 

The following standards sbould be 

Soil and vegetation are the basic resources. The conditicm of these 

.hrlolesourcesmustbe~~or~. Iftheyarein 

satisfactory dtim, then they nust be maintained in this 

cwnditicm. If they are in less than satisfactory ccolditicsl, then 

allowance must be mde for iiq”mt in condition. Any use 

caw a dmnward trend in conditim of these two resources should 

be mdified or eliminated whether caused by livestock, wildlife, or 

any other use. 

Afterrequiremen ts for the soil and vegetative resources have been 

pxovided, the other resources, such as livestock grazing, wildlife 

and aesthetics can be omsidered. This is the point where the ID 

team is involved. Trampling soil ty grazing anjnlals may result in 

either soil displacement or soil canpaction. This effect of grazing 

may becane a limiting fador before the maxi” allawed utilization 

of the key plant species is reached in this situatim, the a”t of 

soil displacement or “paction will deter” the limit of 

allowable grazing use rather than utilization of key species. 

2. 

99 
Proper use guides based m soil displacement &xld gemrally state 

that on steeper slopes, and on 1- sandy soils, evidence of 

trampling strnLld mt exceed 10% (light), as detemhd within sample 

plats. Usually tranpling can be tolerated on slopes of less than 5% 

and on slopes up to 11-30% with heavier textured soils. certain 

stream bank zones may be wcepticms. Meadows are mxt susceptible 

to "paction. Proper use is defined as moderate 'm or 

less. 

P. M livestock grazing &xld be allowed for twD graziq seasons after 

prescribed or natural fires and planiiqs or seedings. 

Q. Livestock adjust"-& needed to obtain an acceptable balance between 

available livestock farage and livestock "bxs and season of use should 

be ccmpleted. 

R. The California Dept. of Fish and Game shovld be notified me year in 

advaxe of -1-tation of revegetation pjects. 

S. Range inp"b should be cost-effective; grazing fees Md be 

raised to cover the cost of administraticm of grazirg and range 

i"ent. 

T. No extensions of seaso~l of use will be granted unless the range is in 

"gccd" (or better) dtim, with an upward trend. (2170) (1030, 1565, 

1589) 

REsPcmE: Marry of +3n3se calnmlts will be kxxxprated in the standards and 

Guidelines in the final Plan. Items B, C, D, E, G, L, 0, P, and T refer to 

Standards and Guidelines. Wst will be included. Item A, H, I, J, K and M 

deal with AMPS and their amtent. The directl 'cm for these are in OUT Manual 

and Handbx& system. Also refer to Management FTeSxl 'pticm #11 in the Final 

Plan. The follcdng range element has been added: "Develop Allotment 

Manag-t Plans (AMPs) in an inMsciplbary manner with public 

irnrolvement, including permittees, state or other federal agencies, and other 

interested organizaticms or individuals.". 

m: In discussim of allocating livestock forage, why is cmly Caeer 

forage considered? Sage grouse, nestirq waterfowl, mice, gmund 

quirmls, eagles and hawks (all wildlife) are affected by overgrazing. 

(1650) 

REspcpLsE: The main for cnnpetition for forage has historically 

centered on large herbimres interact-Lng . with &znle&l 'c livestock because 

their diets overlap extensively. cl"s relative to other wildlife species 

are mre from a cover and forage quality prspech 've. Implementation of the 

Sbndards and Guidelines should insure that these species needs are met. 

m: It is not certaln ' that range managers on the District level have 

the skill or will to identify the specific resource damage and inp3lement 

mdifications on allowable grazing. Fishery, wildlife, soils and hydrolcgy 

pmf&mals &xld be reqLured ' to certify ccmplianca with these Standards 

and Guidelines. (128) 

m: when all0bwnt management Plans are revised in the future, all 

other resource specialists will be irrvolved in developing management 

100 
direction and practices for specific allotments during the interdisciplinary 

-tal analysis precess. 

m: In the section on "range" we request that a brief description of 

the administratiovl of the grazing prcgram under FSM 2332.2 be provided. (3. 

IV-50). (2190) 

REspoNsE: 

m: Close nunitorjq of whatever range program exists is ahsolutely 

necessary. The present ixmx system is a disgrace and directly ccnwibutes 

to the present unacceptable rqe dticns seen on nnst of the Inyo. (2129) 

REspoNsE: The present Mtim of the ranges reflect the past abuses far 

unre than they show what is presently taking place on these lands. The most 

obvious problem of gullied watersheds came about in the last century. 

hesent management has contributed to a better stewardship of the ranges than 

practices on the Forest up until the late 1970's. We have increased our 

mse in the range field. Standards and Guidelines for use will set the 

limits of grazing and AMPs with their annual operating plans will follaw up 

at the field level. In addition, the "itoring requirements for range, 

wildlife, diversity and vegetation will be used to evaluate charges. 

We have included a brief explanation. 

a"fr: "Improvements" which are intended to imp" the forage available 

for cattle usually are &trjmental to wildlife jrrterests. For this reason I 

bpe you will not engage in the two follcwing practices: 1. Nabal spring 

maniplation for the purpose of "developing" water sources; 2. (3mverting 

shrubiands to "grasslands". Both these practices prove at best to have my 

short-term success and are imeciably detrimental to wildlife interests. 

(1532) 

RESPCPISE: when imprmrements are Kopased for the developnent of the grazing 

-. other resource specialists have input into the errvirornnetal 

analysis. Directicsl in the Plan in the form of Standards and Guidelines, 

Prescripticsls and Managenent Area DiredAon will i" that wildlife 

habitats are maintained. Spriq maniplatiom and shrubland amversions are 

required to be canpatible with wildlife objectives. 

a"fr: Range raregetation. What plant species? Who is going to 

revegetate? What do you mean by "vegetative mssaic"? Elimination of type 

amversion Forest-wide. (1634, 2178) 

m: Revegetation will be done with native species when possible. 

Exotic species are often used for erosicm rxmbml on road sides and ski runs 

as these seem to provide the best mtml measures. In ravegetation projects 

&xe to enhance habitat diversity, such as bwning, native species will be 

used. A vegetation mssaic refers to a myriad of vegetatim "ities and 

successimal stages. This is probably the historical pattem for shrub 

annumities on the Inp. Fire supp?xsion and livestock grazing resulted in 

"typic shrub types. The gal of shrubland management is to achieve 

historical vegetation pattern% Cmversicms that me shrub types to 

101 
“oQ@ic exotic gass annumities will not be done. vegetatrcn management 

will be coordinated wi-m - agencies and organiZaticn9. 

aSrm?J!: A stipulaticn should be added that lmp”ents will be made cnly 

when benefits are greater than costs. (1634) 

m: analysis is done on all aevelopnent pjects an the 

Forest. In sone cases, if the cost-benefit ratio is not favorable, then the 

project may not be &me. In other cases the pjects with an unf-able 

ratio may be allowed to poceed because of seccndary lJerBfit.5 that cannot be 

easily valued. For hstanca water hlopnent could help relieve pressme cm 

cme part of an allotment while the &-benefit ratio muld show that it was 

not a positive benefit. Each case is decided on a site specific basis in the 

-ate envifirmental analysis. 

An ecoKmical 

CCMlRW: The Eastsrn Si-, because of its arid climate and consequent low 

levels of forage plant life, is not a suitable area for grazing. It is 

impradical and vary damagiq to try to meet the National goal for red meat 

prcdwticm cm Naticmal Farest range. The daMnd for beef ccmtinues to 

decline, reducing the already marginal need for Forest land grazing. The 

dmagilq impact of cattle on watarshed and wildlife habitat make this an 

unacceptable us8 designation. Please eliminate cattle grazing cm Irryo Forest 

lands and allow the slow ~tural rangeland repair process to occur. (903) (3, 

5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 21, 22, 33, 44, 65, 72, 78, 88, 89, 93, 96, 112, 

124, 126, 128, 131, 139, 140, 147, 151, 158, 161, 164, 166, 167, 171, 214, 

232, 266, 277, 278, 281, 289, 293, 298, 300, 303, 311, 314, 315, 322, 324, 

328, 329, 332, 345, 351, 358, 381, 382. 384, 387, 430, 438, 441, 459, 466, 

467, 473, 481, 484, 487, 498, 914, 933, 934, 946, 968, 970, 978, 980, 998, 

1o00, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1010, 1011, 1015, 1021, 1032, 1097, 1098, 1099, 1107, 

1108, 1159, 1160, 1162, 1163, 1165, 1166, 1169, 1171, 1176, 1180, 1183, 1185, 

1188, 1191, 1195, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1238, 1244, 1248, 1251, 

1269, 1273, 1295, 1317, 1326, 1341, 1348, 1349, 1357, 1388, 1399, 1402, 1405, 

1407, 1415, 1427, 1431, 1433, 1434, 1435, 1436, 1437, 1438, 1439, 1440, 1441, 

1442, 1443, 1444, 1445, 1446, 1447, 1448, 1449, 1450, 1451, 1452, 1453, 1454, 

1455, 1456, 1457, 1458, 1459, 1460, 1461, 1462, 1463, 1464, 1471, 1485, 1487, 

1513. 1519. 1520. 1521. 1529. 1532. 1539. 1540. 1541. 1545. 1546. 1547. .~ -,- 1548. 

1549; 1556; 1579; 1583; 1585) 1586; 1592; 1596; 1598; 1607, 1608; 1611, 1613; 

1617, 1630, 1632, 1633, 1634, 1648, 1650, 1653, 1654, 1659, 1660, 1664, 1668, 

1670, 1675, 1683, 1693, 1712, 1716, 1723, 1732, 1740, 1743, 1757, 1759, 1773, 

1774, 1775, 1780, 1795, 1798, 1801, 1806, 1809, 1836, 1837, 1843, 1845, 1847, 

1851, 1858, 1860, 1862, 1863, 1865, 1866, 1871, 1872, 1876, 1883, 1884, 1886, 

1893, 1898, 1902, 1907, 1911, 1924, 1925, 1930, 1932, 1933, 1938, 1943, 1952, 

1956, 1964, 1965, 1971, 1982, 1983, 1988, 1995, 1996, 2007, 2015, 2022, 2023, 

2028, 2030, 2031, 2038, 2045, 2053, 2054, 2060, 2066, 2075, 2091, 2102, 2113, 

2124, 2129, 2136, 2137, 2149, 2160, 2169, 2170, 2178, 2183, 2190, 2194, 2210, 

2211) 

RESKNSE: 

the ESOWCES as well as provide for their use. 

into tb fwndaticm of the first resj~ves ami still continues. 

considered an ,-a,ate use of the National FcorestS. 

Ctqcess and the President set up the National Forests to protect 

This has been incolporated 

Grazing is 

The challenge is to 

102 
us8 it wisely and witlnut Un& impacts to other resources. It is naither cur 

respcmsibility IYJT cur authxity to eliminate grazing an Naticmal Forest 

I.&. W hl- Of the ForeSt-wi& Standards and Guidelines in the 

Forest Plan u9 that Use will nOt adversaly hpa& other resourCe 

values. ALPIS will not be increased on the Inyo during this p1annir-g period: 

they will remain at th current level. 

CCtm": Grazing fees should be raised to fair market value and the revenues 

prcduced used to protect wildlife, riparian and other forest resources. Fees 

should cmw administrative Costs. Fees should include a factor for yearling 

grazing. Fumiirq for identification and mitigation of grazing damage should 

ccme fran user fees. Unless permittees or range managers can conclusively 

prove that resource damages are not due to grazing, the burden of pf 

sbould shift to range, parucularly in Management -ipti.on Areas where 

range is mt the e@asized resource. (1485, 1108, 1349, 128) (89) 

m: Grazing fees are usually set by tXqress. Reoently, they were set 

by the president in an Executive order until a new fee system is 

established. The Forest Service CannDt deviate fran Ccqressicmal or 

presidential diredi on. 

CaMRW: Livestock grazing should not be all- alq Stream riparian 

implemented. (1269) 

cclrridms and wet meadows unles9 ptection measures such as fences are 

REsRmsE: Riparian "ent as stated in the Forest-wide standards and 

Guidelines insures that these values will have over ather resource 

uses. Grazing in riparian areas has been shown to successfully coexist with 

other resources if managed correctly. severdl different managmt 

techniques exist besides fencing and livestock elimination for grazing 

riparian areas. FW or eliminating livestock will be &me if other 

methods are unsuccessful. 

CaMRW: Ivkmitoring and data gathering should take place to sea recovery 

successes and/or failures on the exclosures. (1738) 

"SE: ~arry exclosures have been established specifically for purposes of 

detxmurmq Others may be needed if the Forest does not 

have representative areas enclosed. AIS, utilization measurements are taken 

to det3z"e ' use on a yearly basis. Mtim and trend transects have been 

installed thmughat the Forest to deter" range influences. 

condition or trend. .. 

CaMRW: Assmpticms, Page IV-110. lhe first assmption is incanplete, in 

OUT view, since it fails to mtion grazing mdification as a potential to 

improve riparian vegetation. A mre realistic asmipiLon would read: 

"Grazing modification or elhination, rewater- of streams, and water&& 

imprmrement have the greatest potential to maintain, enhance, and/or inaease 

riparian vegetation on the Forest." (2190) 

103 
m: Remmal of g-raziq alcme will not result in riparian habitat 

inpnwement if gullies or headcuts are present. These will require watershed 

hpswawnt sixuructures. Modifications of grazing may be required to ensure 

reouve~y of riparian habitats. Standards atxl Guidelines in the Plan allow 

for ?==du&a 'on or eliminatim of livestock grazirg in riparian areas if other 

management techniques are unsuccessful. 

CCM4RW.: In bath the Plan and the DEIS, you say that in nast areas large 

wnditicm is pwr to fair, and in meadows and riparian areas it is poor. We 

agree that all grazed habitats should be bwght up to at least fair 

wndition. 

should be to briq range lands up to pzd cxmditim. (1431) 

REspoELsE: forest service^ 'on stah that wa will manage to achieve 

range ccditions of fair or better. We will attapt to ensure the 

prptuation of healthy rangelands for generatiens to cane. 

But we feel that this statement does not go far enoligh; tha goal 

CCM4RW.: Grazing in riparian areas is in direct ccslflict with 36 (3FR 219.27, 

water teUperature or Mcal mnpositiopl, blockages of or 

depits of sediment shall be permitted within these areas which seriously 

and aaverSely affect water ccditicm or fish habitat." (1634) 

REspcpJsE: This regulation ~oes on to state that "Tapograply, vegetatim 

type, soil, climatic ccmiitions, management objectives, and other factors 

shall be cxmsidered in de- what management practices may be Performea 

within these the ~aint-s to be Placed UpCn their perfcamance. 

within the Plan there are standards and Guidelines that will insure 

protection of riparian areas. Developnent 

of allotment specific AMPs and E% will be used as a tool to implement 

dire&Lon in tbe EIS/Plan. 

which states that "No management Lmctices causing detrimental changes in 

areas or 

These meet the intent of the CFR. 

cl3"r: The Plan's present scheme to allow certacn percentag- of 

&"bank damage before restriding livestoclr seam unenforceable in 

practica, particularly with restricted staff wets. Where riparian za~=~ 

m w valuable in the Sierra rain shaday, the cmly effedive way to protect 

thgn in sane cases my be to -bit livestock use. (117) 

REspoNsE: Elimination of grazirg in riparian "es is an Opuon that we 

reserve as the final management alternative. The Forest will mtinue to 

nunitor the use of riparian areas and change managgnent practices so that the 

riparian standards and Guidelines are achieved. 

cl3"r: Allotment managaient plans and Forest permits should be quickly 

altered to prohibit preventable degcadaticm and require substantive 

mitigation for activities which unavoidably wade riparian habitats. (2102) 

REspcp3sE: The task of qdating all management plans is en"s and will 

take years to canplete. It is an cq0in.g practica mi to update AMPs. T?E=Y 

I 

104 
will continue to be qdated follming inplm2ntation of the Forest Plan. The 

and Guidelines, Managanent Prescripticm, and Manag-t Area Direction are 

-1-M csl-the-ground. Dired3.m in the EIS/Plan will. insure that 

riparian areas will be maintained or enhaw&. 

emphasis of the allotmat managenent plans will be to insure that standards 

m: - tal Consequences (IV 39-41). For fish, charge paragram 

5 to: "~ltkqh overall grazing rnrmbars vary by alternative, livestock 

grazing in general will be directed to lands located away fran riparian 

areas. " (2170) 

m: Grazing cm riparian areas will be camistent with Forest-wide 

standards and Guidelines. There will be IXJ increase in AUMS: in the Preferred 

Altmtive. 

m: I would love to see the Pi- rqe designates as a wild horse 

sanctuary with m further harvests of wild kases being ccmkcted before 

canpleticm and appuval of the Wmtganery Pass Wild Horse Manag-t Plan. 

(124) (105, 184, 1261, 2111) 

HSFCNSE: 

plan will state the objectives for that area. 

The integrity of the wild horse herd in the Pi- area will be 

maintained using the management plan bekg develapea for that area. This 

aX4lWk In develcping the Montgomery Wild Horse Manag-t Plan, I feel 

wild horses shDuld be covered under wildlife. (124) 

m: ~icilal~ '081 gives us the ability to manage the wild 

horse resoufce to the fullest extent possible to insure that designated herds 

remain viable. Forest Service policy places these animals under range 

management since the mse to manage them is wim that area. 

CUMENC If and when it is proven by a qualified, careful, accurate count 

that there is a need to start conhlling the nmhx of wild horses, I 

recarmend that a temporary sterilization technique be used: not remmal of 

the animals. (124) 

IW-: Actual mtml metbods for wild horses are being researched. 

Current means of contmllirg nmbrs are remxal of animals via live 

capture. All methods which are proved to be effective, safe and 

&-efficient will be midared. 

m: A (3RMp Md be used to develcq the WmigcmEry Pass Management 

Plan. "his plan shall decide the level of horses and how they am renwed. 

( 1261 ) 

m: The (SRMP method is being used in the develope& of this Plan. 

105 
a”: I am sqpxtbg the maintenance of a kalm herd of wild horses 

and burms at a viable hard size of at least several tnm3red animals. (311) 

(65) 

REspoKsE: 

lxLnyb3 capacity of the habitat. 

Recarmeaded popllaticn levels will be detmnined on the basis of 

aw4mr: 

livestock in 

I am 

riparian 

greatly 

areas 

CQIlCarned 

which are 

that 

already 

prescriptian 

sariaJsly 

#11 

damaged 

will - 

by the 

present levels of gr-, especially in the biolcgically unique Glass 

Mmntain area. The Plan is vque as to when mitigaa “xes would be 

RSPCNSE: The Standards and GuidelinaS in the Final Plan for riparian 

ccnsidered necessary. Many areas need prote&icn now. (910) 

resources have ken substantially wdified. where necessary, livestock 

management practices will be altered to meet the stardar& and Guidelines. 

a”: What are HWs for range management (Plan Iv-27)? I canTy5t find 

them aq” in the doclrment. what is “ratqe-ready“? (1634) 

RSPCNSE: Ep.Ips refer to Best Managelmnt Practices for watershed management. 

They are guidelines gmxiuud at the Regicmal level by professimals in these 

fields. Marry are being added to the standards and Guidelines to imprWe the 

clarity of the Plan. ‘‘Raqe-nxdy‘‘ refers to the time when a pasture or 

allotment can be grazed. It iru3caporates pllenolcgy of key plants and soil 

dtials. 

a”: while the Forest senrice’s own projection of a 24% increase in ALMs 

Al+xmative would be marginally acceptable, a realistic assesgnent of the 

five decade result wxld be that of an -all ZUM reducticn. Using the 

Forest Service‘s own descripticn of Manag-t Prescriptions for what 

caprises at least half of the grazing allotments in the white ktxmtahs, 

would irvlicate that these allobwnts would be either dramatically reduced or 

canpletely eliminated the end of a five decade pericd, since those 

allobwnts would be managed for other priorities ratter than raqe (DEIS 

Iv-75). The other half of the white I.knJn* all0.bnents will have an 

imnediate mcticn in AlMs due to implementation of proposed aliotmnt 

would dictate that there is ping to be an imnediate and ccsltinuing reducticn 

in AUMS in the white Knmtains under the Forest Service Preferred Alternative 

rather than their suggested net 24% increase. Why eliminate cattle grazing 

while payiry m attention to the concentrated human use precipitated in those 

and the Patriarch and McAfee IWA areas? (1603, 1919) 

RSPCNSE: Mallaging the white MoUntaLns resources other than livestock 

grazing does not preclude graziq in this area. standards and Guidelines, 

fm 725 to 900 for the white Wnm- (DEIS C-78) & the Preferred 

bollndary djuStrnentS as atlined Plan IV-121 and DEIS Appendix 1-1. This 

areas by the Q‘ooked Creek Research Station, White Wxmtain Research Statkn, ” 

Managenent l”ipticms, and Management Area DFredion state ccnstraints 

placed cn grazirg. In the Final Plan, m increase in ALMs is planned. 

106 
praper management techniques will be used in the white t43Jntaim to 

r"te range management with other resource uses withcut adversely 

impadirs these rexwns. Allotmnt boundary changas skuld rot result in 

increasing m, as these areas are only marginal for livestock. 

Ca4W?P: The graziq of domestic livestock cm suitable rarge sites should be 

ccmtinued. The utilizaticm of the renewable resource pxides red meat 

The 

grazing management will prevent the build up and acamuilaticm of fuels which 

can lead to catastrophl 'c fire. (1958) (1157,-1363, 1587, 1881, 1887, 2193) 

m: Livestock grazing will am- at the present level unless there 

are significant resource impacts. 

and other by-pr&ucts with a "I use of other energy. 

Ca4W?P: Would like to suggest a floating AlsM limit, with 39.4 beiq the 

base instead of 45.3. 

and during a severe drought reduced to 37.0. (145) 

m: The Forest Supervisor can, cm a yearly basis, change the anrnmt of 

grazing by psnnit, to allow for either increased or decreased grazing if 

envFnsmnental factors charge the yearly forage prcduction. The Final Plan 

will not increase Forest AT&@ over the current level. 

During wet years the limit may be increased to 45.3 

-: I sea 110% utilizaticm 

at Wattersm Carrycsl, the Cl- Ranch, Casa Diablo, Taylor Canym, croaked 

Meadows, and Big Sand Flat. The Plan does not discuss the time element of 

harvest, to allow for prcduckicm of seed. In Taylor carrycsl, I sea a salt 

block thrown down cm a wet green meadow ten feet fran runniq water. where 

to put a salt block is fudamntal management. (72) (1628) 

m: Utilization standards are set on a meadaw by madm basis 

depending cm the cxdition rating for that area. A strict 50% would not be a 

valuable guide to "itor use. In some areas, this use could be to0 high, 

and in athers it could be too low. Grazing systems are designed to allow 

livestock use at an envirokprwtally acceptable level. Phenological and 

developnent of a grazing system. Tha Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines 

for grazing on riparian areas @de direch 'on for allowable practices in 

these habitats. 

In the Plan you spak of 508 utilizaticm. 

mcaphological rquhmmts of specific Plant species are cansidared in the 

m: Tha SFSeams: and wet meadum in the Co- Basin were formed 

withxt the benefit of cattle grazing, and will endue l-er and be of 

greater benefit to fish and wildlife if the level of grazing is made 

mrpMtble with resource ptection. Tens of thousands of dollars of state 

and federal fur& have already been expended to correct erosion problems in 

the Cottonm Basin, much of it in an effort to improve trout habitat. It 

is unwise to wntinue these expmditures to corred problems when a major 

amtx5.butory cause of the problem continues. (2190) (2211) 

107 
m: razing is part of the mltiple use spctnnn of the Forest 

service. Standards and Guidelines were modified to insure pmtecticn of 

these habitats. 

CXtMm!: It is stated that grazing will iwreasa cn 1000 to 2000 acres of 

scattered wet meadays una?r "SUTe" alternatives, stat0 which alternatives. 

(ps. nr-109) It nust be assLrmed that "sc"' means nure than a-e, which is 

clearly inconsistent with figures and analysis cn Plan IV-144-145 where 

ilnpcts of grazing cm soil - are trivialized by statirg "No new areas 

will be managed for grazirg" for five of the six alternatives. (167) 

REspoELsE: There are rm grazing haeases in tbe Final Plan. Alternatives 

that allow an increase would use vegetaticn treatrnentS in terredzial 

habitats to increase AIM capaci-. No alternatives assume an increase on 

riparian habitats. 

CXtMm!: Altk~@ it is stated (Plan IV-144-145) that IW new area^ will be 

opened to grazing (except for Alternative RPA), elsewhere the DEIS states 

that grazing will bcrease under PRF (9% iwreasa) and m (12% hzrease). 

The reader l-aust assume that nDre animals will be Placed cn currently grazed 

parcels since m new areas are opened. HaGever, ilxxeasing the intensity of 

grazing has amsequm for soil and other resources. 

be analyzed. (167) (2213) 

Such impads should 

RESPCNSE: In the Final Plan, the gxl will be to mintam ' eKimALMSby 

j"hgmanagement. Noincreasesarebaing-. 

CXtMm!: Figure IV-20 (DEIS IV-77) shms that suitable rangelands will be 

added to allotments for all five of the acticn alternatives. Again, this 

directly ccplflicts with statgnents cn pages IV-144-145 that m ne^ area^ will 

be managed for grazing un&r all altematives except RPA. (167) 

RESPCNSE: additicmal rargelands are beirg Fnop3sed for grazing. l3sktiq 

rarge.53 will be imprwed by vegetaticm treatrrwts such as buming and seeding. 

This will result in an increase of forage, and potentially nure Am%. No 

increase in MXs is beirg Vegetatim treatments 

will be done to maintain ALMS and will be CCordlM * ted with other resource 

needs such as wildlife. 

in the Final Plan. 

Ut": we~~h~~~theInyoF0restcanasscrmethatranxring 

the current gr- pressure would not &crease the erosicn rates (DEIS 

111-82). (2183) 

REsp(TzsE: The accelerated erosicn will mtinue until such time that a 

barrier to erc6ia-1 is emuntered. At present there are areas that are 

eraling precipitated by SQne tliston 'cal event. until the erosicnal forces 

enxxlnter either a MM or mn-mde barriff, it will amtFnue at the 

present levels with CU without qa2it-g. For the nvst part, the erC6i.a.l 

108 
ccsltributed by the present day grazing use is SMll ccmpared to the natural 

erasion rate and the acceleration fmn past events. 

-: Forest Service regulations that the Plan & CCZltain 

specific measures to rehabilitate lands in unsatisfactory ccndition (36 CFR 

219.20). R&u&ions and other CoIlStraints OB). grazing in these areas should at 

least be analyzed in the EIS. It is cutrageous that m reductions are 

CCBlsidered even under the "amenity" alteniatives. (1649) 

m: Farest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Management Prescxiptions, 

and Management Area Diredim were develop& in part to provide guiaanCe to 

managmt of habitats for livestock. Diredim does not preclude reduction 

or elimination of allotrnentS. Direction does provide ccB)ljtTaints on 

livestock grazing impacts. Grazing managanent practices may be rrodified 

during allotrnent managawnt plan develapnent or revisicm. If grazing 

practices cannot be accaqlished within acceptable e"atal limits, then 

reduction or e1i"ticm of AWs will result. 

Cm"r: what is meant by the term "unacceptable damage" to soil, water 

quality, and fish and wildlife habitat? This term is used quite extensively 

iknighmt the document. It is subject to debate and sbould be defined. (29) 

REspcpJsE: Unaoceptable limits am determined by interdisciplinary 

er"mtal analyses and intwpxhticm of Forest Service policy and 

federal regulations. The Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines have been 

llpdified and, in .sans cases, mre specific informtion has been added. 

CCM@2W.: Figure IV-30 cm page IV-116 shows that vqetaticm manipulatim for 

range and wildlife will increase under five of the six alternatives. The 

Forest Service sbould g-ate separate figures for range and wildlife. At 

present, it is impossible to tell h inpacts on sensitive plant habitat are 

affected by pKgraInS supporting IzneskL 'c livestock grazing versus programs 

suppOrting wildlife. (167) 

REspcpJsE: Strict Standards and Guidelines for sensitive plants are 

included. Projects that include habitats of sensitive plants will be 

irnrentoried for populations and evaluated in the EA ~pccess. Monitoring 

guidelines state that until species manag-t guides are develOpea for 

specific sensitive plants, no alteration of knmn populations will be 

permitted. 

m: 0-1 Plan V-7, in the "Standard of Canpariscsl" column of raqe forage 

imp"at activily, up to 50% deviation is too large. Use 25% maxi" to 

avoid undue stress upm vegetation before apprqriate acticm is initiated. 

€& thein it may be too late. (1431) 

REspcpJsE: This is specifically related to lxwise release projects, primarily 

bitterbrush. If the results of the project vary mre than 50% fmn the 

pmlicted output, then we will reevaluate reasons for this dwiaticm. In 

109 
brcwse releases, variability of Lesults is eocpected to be high and are 

&pel&nt on several factors, such as fonn class @or to treablent, 

factcns, treatment method l.Lsed, and species treated. kmiw will be an 

inportat facet of i3ese projects. 

climatic 

a”: ~enerd~ references to lnoposed angeland hp”t acceage are 

not detailed emnigh for the plblic to assess thair adequacy. (1107) 

m: At the Fcuesk plw level, the 10CatianS and Of 

treaimenta are & meant to be specific. m FEIs/pLAN *des general 

d3xe&kn on the acx&xM.lity of tp3ablent projects. project level 

-tal analyses will be done prior to vegetation treatment that 

specify locatirms, acreages, and treabent types. 

a”: A ft”mtal defect of this Farest DEIS under NEPA rqu~its is 

an inadequate range of alternatives in the treabnent of rampland. There 

were M al-bmative proposals to significantly reduca grazing below existing 

levels, especrally where overgrazing has damaged rangeland conditicm. 

Failure to &der a reduction in gra7A.q is a violation of,NEPA. (1617) 

(13) 

REspoNsE: Thare is a reductim of 6.6% between the alR and ?!MN in the 1st 

decade and an 18.3% reductzl ‘on between PRF and ” in the 1st decade. There 

is a 7.9% reduction frun the CUR to them in the 5th decade. 

a”: Grazirg of all sheep should be eliminatd imnediately. (1471) 

(1579) 

I(EspoNsE: Grazirg of livastock is detafinined by several factors including 

topography and forage type. If the fomp can be better utilized by sheep, 

then it is allocated as such. Since we are a multiple use agency, we canrrrt 

deny uses that are anpatible with the regulatims and policies under which 

we aperate. 

OX”.: Regarding “ange management pactices that prevent cattle fmm 

affecting specific firwning areas.“ I could not find discussion of what these 

pradices are aq” in the document. Even in Managanent prescription #11 

(Plan IV-72), there is M mention given to m. Pl- be mSre Specific. 

(1634) (1638, 1649, 2083, 2100, 2115, 2170) 

REsp(3ELsE: The &on cited provides g-al Mcmnation relative to 

reduckg g~azirg effects on fm areas. We have added mxe specific 

dinxkim to the St”3s and Guidelines, Presxiptims and Management Area 

Dir%=tion. Theseprwide- ‘m for l5KlK&l ‘c livestock g~azirg in 

relation to important firwning areas. 

110 
axpm.: Cm Plan IV-56, gmzit-q shaUd be eliminated on key dear winter and 

s~mmer raqe, migration routes, holding areas and fawnirg areas. (1634) 

(1649) 

RESHIEGE: Strc8.g management diredicll exists in the FEIS/Plan that 

6rgdYadZes re- the quality of impartant dear habitats. If livestock 

gr- mduces the quality of these habitats, then rrpdification of grazing 

systerrsand- 'on or eliminaticpl of livestock "hers will be evaluated. 

-: The range enphasis presxipticm -Md clearly state that (1) 

wildlife values are to take precedence over livestock needs and (2) if mild 

mitigation (e.g., delaying grazing) does not stop...degradation and impmve 

range dtim significantly, then livestock "hers will be or 

eliminated. (2170) 

RESHIEGE: Managenent Area Direction and Pmxxiptim give the enqhasis to 

thDse ~SSXPXS identified as impcatant in those areas. StandKds and 

Guidelines provide di" that is applied on a Forsst-wide basis. 

~irectim provided by tbese sources give priority to hqorhnt wildlife 

values. 

Ca.M"f: Range mpbasis is not the best designation for any part of the Wro 

Meadows, which are prime wildlife and recreaticm areas. Livestock range 11 Improvements" . (irrigation) have caused severe gullyirg of the meadows and 

high -tab slopes: sheep have devastated riparian growth: sage lands, 

meadows and stream5ide vegetaticpl along walker, Parker and Rush creeks are 

heavily overgrazed: streams are seriously polluted: fine, ashy soils are 

sevem3ly Wanpled and have last misture-holdirq capacity: large areas are 

canpletely barren of vegetation: irrigation ditches and parts of 

streamcourses am mly parioclically or seasmally watered, allowing 

insufficient time for riparian vegetation to becana established before 

"centrated grazing. The areas just mtid are important migration 

corridors and transition areas (and prcbably used as fawning areas) for mule 

deer. It is obviaus that impacts such as these, at the very least, do not 

add anythiq to the scenic aspeds of the Basin, not to mtion 

degradation of wildlife and recreation values. A far - reasamble 

designation for these lands would be as Limited Access, with aphasis on 

wildlife, riparian and dispersed recreation values. (2170) (54) 

REspoNsE: 

Win Basin Scenic Area Plan. 

Basin Scenic Area. Grazing has severely degraded upper and Lower Horse 

The uses of the Scenic Area will be addressed specifically in the 

Nearly all of the lands mentioned are private. 

m: Prescription #11 - Range Ehphasis. Inasrmch as the documents 

themselves reccglu 'ze the inpact of livestock grazing on other resources, it 

is mative that the Range prescriptian include wildlife, fisheries, water 

quality and riparian elements. Include the option to reduce or eliminate 

grazing to protect these resources. Additimally, any range inp"mts 

need to be analyzed for their impad on fish and wildlife habitat. Those 

follnd to be impairing should not be authorized. The CDFG has identified 

111 
areas in- to be managed ur&r the raqe m@msis that are critical deer 

habitat. B"3aries of range aphasis areas need to be djustea accordingly. 

(2169) (104. 138, 1565) 

-: Areas grazing is are also subject to the 

applicatim of Forest-wide Standards and GUIde1ine.s. Thase provide stmq 

directicm for insuring the protecticsl of riparian, fish, wildlife, sensitive 

plants, and water resources. Dirxtion has also been specifically added to 

this prescription that addresses wildlife values. 

CCMlRTf: Fresxiption #11 - FWge -is. Irmeased FC&& should be 

allowed mly when it is clear that such an increase will not be at the 

expense of other T~SOUTCB values. 

A. "Allow livestock to utilize up to 50% of available palatable forage 

within 1/2 mile of water developnents, so 1- as wildlife habitat is not 

"Fmjuvenate and typs-coanrert suitable rqe to increase forage prcducticm 

or to majntah forage pmduction at high levels, but cniiy after a 

deterrmna ' ticm is made that wildlife habitat will not be degraded." 

C. We suggest that a wildlife element be added stating "consider the 

ptential effect of any range hp"mt project cm fish and wildlife 

habitat. Autbrize only those that are not detrimntal." Sam of that 

area designated as "Rarge -is" has been shown by recent research to 

be critical for dear. Our map shows changes we believe should be 

included as the preferred Alternative. (2190) 

REspoELsE: In the Final Plan, no increases in livestock grazing are planned. 

In a&Xtim, the Atims provided abwe are &aced in the Standards 

and Guidelines, Management Prescriptia-s, and Management Area Diredim of 

the Plan. 

The following wording sbould be added: 

aaVerse1y impacted." 

B. 

CCMlRTf: LimitedAccessprescIl 'ptim: The range element would better ptect 

wildlife habitat if it were changed as follows: "Allow rqe enhancement 

activities to the extent they are cmpatible with =-'-.a and wildlife 

objectives; and modify or eliminate grazing if it can be denmsbated that 

fish or wildlife habitat degradation is Occurring." (2190) (2170) 

FEWCNSE: Refer to the Standards and Guidelines for range, riparian and 

fisheries which have been substantially modified. If changes in livestock 

grazing practices cannot alleviate habitat degradation, then reducticm or 

elimjnation of livestock will be midered. 

CCMlRTf: We would like the aaoptea Plan to reccgnize that the per capita 

a"&icmof beef is intherargeof 70to78~perprsonperyear. 

When you CcBlsider the dramatic hmases cur population will experience in 

the future, this figure strcwgly &"strates the need for substantial 

irmeases in beef pcducticm. (265) 

This level of a"ph '081 has remaFned consistent over the last eight years. 

112 
RESPONSE: All indications are that the demand for red meat has stabilized 

and may even be headmg upard. 

cX”T.: The wild horse and burro population should be reduced to the 

“I required by the 1971 Act concerning wild horses and burros. (1030) 

( 158 ) 

RESPONSE: Herd plans will specify population levels cmmensurate with the 

carrying capacity of the habitat. 

CC”$r: This area (Pizona) is well lamwn for wild horses and provisions 

should be made for those who want to view these anmals. It is also an 

important hilung and equestrian area and recreation is not extremely 

limited. There are many more than 150 wild horses in this area, but the 

nunkers should not be limited just to the nwhr that is stated. (1260) 

RESPONSE: Specific direction for managemmt of this herd will be developed 

m the wild horse manag-t plan. 

CC”$r: In Pizona, consider restricting access by ORVs during the foaling 

se-. (1261) 

RESPONSE: This torment will be forwarded to the team working on the wild 

horse Plan. 

m: The Forest Service should ask the Fish and Game to prevent mountam 

lion hunting in the area until the effects of the lion on wild horse 

population dynamics are established. (1261) 

RESPONSE: The Forest Service is responsible for the viability of the horse 

herds which are designated wild. To the extent possible we manage herds to 

maintam a viable population of wild horses. Fish and Game is responsible 

for deteminirg hunting. We will continue to work with Fish and Game to 

insure that viable populations of wild horses are maintained, including 

considering the effects that mountain lion removal will have on horse 

populations. 

CC”$r: The herd plans are not necessarily adequate (111-23). Any plan 

that allm for r-al and destruction of wild horses is inhumane. Only 

adoptable animals should be remved. (1261) 

RESFCNSE: The need to mtrol the wild horse populations is inherat in the 

fact that these horses have few, if any, natural enemies. Without reimving 

animals, they can mer-populate their range and destroy the natural resources 

they require to wive (i.e. forage, water sources). The Wild Horse and 

Burro Act allows us to ranme animals to keep the level of the herd at its 

113 
qJunnml. we do rmt plan to destroy any animals unless it is for hI"3 

reasxls. All averoles providing aaopucn of hYrses will be plrsued. 

OOEMnur: 

it can suppclrt in the lcng-tarm is wrctlg. YCN should delete this Sentence, 

or change it to "the Mmtgam~~ Pass wild lnrse territory's wild hxse 

allotment shall be determined in CRMP Plan." (1261) 

m: 

rescsnces available in an area to SupPCat a herd and to what extent it can be 

supported. ~nfo" at H indicatss,that to achieve cur objective far 

The statement that the Mcntganery Pass herd has mace animals than 

Raqe capacities are used to de- whether ibre are adEfpate 

proper "t of all resxuces, the herd must be rduced. 

OOEMnur: Managgnent Area #6 - Pi-. The grazCng allotment in -tition 

with the wild hxsa management plan sbould be witMrawn and eliminated. 

(1608) (2111) 

m: The g-raziq allahnent has been a part of the management of the 

Farest for nearly one hundred years. The wild hrase herd is canparatively 

reoent. Since WB still manage the Farest for multiple uses, WB plan to keep 

the allotmnt for grazing. The wild hxsa plan will altar the practices so 

that the horses are able to maintain a viable populaticm. If the two uses 

can coexist, then there is no need to eliminate the &nestic livestock. 

-: Raqe imprwements should be haeased in the White Mxmtains. 

Primary m@asis si-nuld be in control burning which would hprove forage 

proauction. (2171) 

m: 

will imprwe forage. Site specific plans or analyses will 

ccsltrol lxlrnirg is just ane of the tools of rarge "t that 

the effects of varicus forage hp"t methods. 

CCtaEIW: How can grazing OBI Harkless Flat or 

cowkhn Valley possibly be a payirg operaticsl when it requires the hauling of 

Wat& It appears that these permits may be used to represent J$Xmy values. 

I question whether grazing in the Side Hill Spring area is justified. (134) 

(986, 1279, 1617, 1629, 2170) 

RESfXEX: The question is not whew the Forest Service feels it is 

eccannical, but whew a grazing operator does. If there is forage that 

can be utilized witbut deut to other resources, then we have the 

option to graze in that area. The porUosl of a permittee's operation which 

is c~1 Natimal Farest system land may be cmly a part of that ranchers total 

cqeration. 

Management Area #18 - Inyos. 

It may mt be a "paykg operation" when stm alone. 

CCtaEIW: I urge that Jashua Flats (of the Irryos) never be desecrated by 

cattle. (358) 

114 
RESPONSE: Joshua Flats is not on the Forest. 

m: Issues and corlcems are 

not well emugh defined; €or example, there is 110 mention of: (1) how much 

range area is in unsatisfactory ccmdition: (2) the need to imprwe range in 

unsatisfactory condition; (3) overgrazing except of riparian areas and key 

wildlife wintering and fawning areas: (4) reducing number of livestock to 

improve range. In addition, it is totally unacceptable to have a Forest 

objective such as "The grazing program would not be reduced or prevented fm 

increasing as a result of the issues abve" (i.e., overgrazing, 

unsatisfactory range wndition, etc.). (2170) (1617) 

RESPONSE: All of the issues raised in this cannent are found in the content 

of the EIS and Plan. Issues and "s in this section are addressed frcm 

a general perspective. Specific infomtion is located in the Affected 

hvironment, hvironmental Consequences and other sections of the EIS and 

Plan. 

Range Issues and Cnnaxns (Plan 11-11-12). 

C"k Forest Goals, range. Add: "If any range is in unsatisfactnry 

condition, the adjustiq of livestock numbers must be considered as an option 

to improving the unsatisfactory oondition." Also, if there are m reliable 

figures indicating that forage yields are actually being sustained within 

carrying capacity, the phrase "A sustained yield of forage is provided" 

should be reamed. (2170) 

RESFCNSE: The Forest Service already has a @icy that considers all options 

for management. These will be pursued in the specific allotment managenent 

plans or environmental analyses. 

m: The President, with his revised statement of policy which 

acccmpanied the 1980 FPA Program, dirwted the National Forests to meet their 

proportionate share in the increasing demand for range grazing by increasing 

AUM usage on the National Forests by 46% in the next 5 decade period. The 

PRF Alternative's predicted 9% increase dDes not wen ccme close to meeting 

this mandate. The decadence of existing range due in large part to fire 

suppression policies, the lack of prescribed range treatment programs and the 

overall direction or lack of range management under the PRF's preponderance 

of special usage Manag-t Prescriptions will eventually result in a total 

AUM reduction, rot the predicted increase. (2170) 

RESPONSE: The 46% increase was mandated by Congress after RPA review, and 

each agency was expected to provide its fair share of the mcrease. In 

Region 5 of the Forest Service, the 46% was apportioned out amongst all the 

Forests with some receiving mre, some less, and scme right at 46%. A Forest 

did not have to select the RPA figure as their Preferred Alternative. The 

level of AUMs shown in the Inyo's Final Plan is based on the level the Forest 

can support while managing for all other resources. 

115 
019) 

REspoRLsE: Directimwillbede~ ' by grazing "g-t practices and 

the needs of the other resources in the area. Site specific AMPs and 

envircsnwtdl analyses will datermine the actual nu" arad I&&&. 

CXrmEwr: Trail driving of sheep at any time shuld be eliminated 

imnediately. (747) 

REspcpIsE: 

rarge allotments. 

driveways and if them are no mcceptable effects m other resclurces. 

Trail driving of sheep is one option for mviq animls to their 

-ling is &re if there is enough forage to Faze on the 

m: The Preferred Alte.mative should include the pxhibition and 

elimination of grazing livestock in sensitive areas and in areas popular with 

recxeaticnists. Allotmmt managanent plans have not acccmplished this, and 

should not be relied m to do so in the future. (167) 

REspoELsE: The Ixrrpose of the all0trnent management Plans are to inplement 

alternatives. If livestock management can be coordinated with other 

directim in the Final Plan an3 EIS us- a -e of management methods. If 

these are unsuccessful, then lxductl 'OBI or elimhatim of ALPS are acceptable 

resources in sensitive areas, then e1i"tim of AUMS is not warranted. 

m: It is felt that the Nevada parUan of the white mxmtahs horse 

herd should be reduced to less than 40 horses and maintained at that level. 

(282) 

REspcpIsE: The wild horse plan will address population goals based on the 

carzyirg capacity of the habitat coupled with other resource uses. 

cc"r: Grazing impacts are not affected by MXJ3 Basin scenic Area borders, 

s neither wildlife or livestock are &ired by atetract bmdaries. 

Seaamal usa pattems typically "e livestock in and out of the Scenic Area 

fmn adjoining federal and private lamls. Uplands which sanetimes serve as 

riparian areas devastated. This, of course, ccsltributes to widespread water 

pllutim problems in Scenic Area watercourses. It is no secret that 

riparian areas thmugbout the Basin have received ccwcentrated grazing abuse; 

upto~,thereha9beenvirtual ly no protectim far wildlife or human uses 

for these areas. Hopefully, the Plan will cucrect this silx&ion. (2170) 

early stagirg areas for deer are generally severely overgrazed and have their 

REspoNsE: Grazing within C4aY.J Basin scenic Area will be addressed in the 

scenic Area Plan. outside of the scenic Area, directl 'on in the form of 

Standards and Q~M~1ire.s. f4amg-t Frescxiptiaq and Management ?uea 

Diredicn identify ccrskraints OBI livestock grazing to maintain the integritY 

of other resource values. 

116 
cam": Pernut fuelwood gathering for recreation use only in Managmt 

Area #lo. (1099) 

RESPONSE: General fuelwood cuttirg is not allowed in the Red's Mead3.v 

portion of Management Area #lo. Down wood is available for recreational 

users to utilize. Because of the large size of the red fir in the area and 

the volume available as a result of hazard tree mal or wind-, special 

permits have been allawed in the past for carmercial woodcut32ng which 

rwes the trees that muld not be utilized by recreationists. The rest of 

Managemnt Area #10 is wilderness and wxdcutting would not be allmed. 

cam": 

fnrn the National Park Service to the Inp National Forest. (1099) 

RESPONSE: The Forest Land Manag-t Plan is a tool to pmide direction for 

managemnt and adminisixation of public lands under the jurisdiction of the 

Forest Service or the Deparbuent of Agriculture and does not apply to the 

National Park Service and the Depertment of Interior. Any rchanges in land jurisdiction between agencies wuld be accunplished through 

different political processes that muld result in Cnpss passing 

legislation authorizing such a change. It is not in the scope of the Forest 

p1anni.1~ process to recomnend such a change. 

pursue legislation to change administration of the Llevil's Postpile 

m: We feel that expansion of the recreational areas is vital, not only 

to the local emmnies, but vital for the outdoorsman as the use of the 

current recreational areas is increasing rapidly. Please consider expansion 

for all of us. Developnent should provide access to, not through, places of 

public interest. (1395) (83, 129, 158, 334, 947, 933, 977, 985, 998, 1099, 

1258, 1323, 1421, 1432, 1586, 1595, 1604, 1775, 2016, 2095, 2169, 2190) 

RESFGWE: The Preferred Alternative concurs with this viewpint as it 

proposes mrsmcting mxt of the potential sites in the Forest inventory. 

Many of these sites muld wnsist of day-use facilities and lnterpretive 

sites along with approximately 1200 overnight camp units. 

m: Recreation needs to be kept in line with othex resources. Add the 

phrase ". . . while other resource values are maintained or improved" to the 

recreation goal. (1532) (65) 

RESFGWE: As the intensity of recreation use and developat increase, it 

becanes difficult to maintain and/or impme other resources across the 

board. masizhg one resource usually means de-emphasizing another resource 

in a particular area. If the abwe statemnt were to be added to the 

direction it would preclude any form of intensive recreation developat. 

None of the concentrated recreation zones could exist. There are many other 

ways to protect or maintain other resource values in relation to recreation 

activities. An example is the user quota systems placed on mst wilderness 

117 
RECREATION 

areas m the Forest. Another is controlling use through identified 

capacities in develops3 sites. 

C€M53W The Primary benefit of this Forest is for recreation rather than 

COrmDdity pnx3uctim. Therefore, the emphasis in the propased plan should be 

for wilderness, dispersed recreation arad alpine skiing. While the preferred 

Alternative (PRF) appears to be a geed pint of departure, attenpting to 

balance the various demands on the limited resources of the Forest. I feel 

the Final Plan sbuld place greater miphasis on We areas I just 

mtioned. These uses do not ccnflict greatly with each other. Wilderness 

and dispersed recreaticol are generally cqpatible while wilderness, develOpea 

recreation and alpine skiing each cccupy different areas. (76) 

RESFCNSE: The Final Plan will emphasize both wilderness and dispersed 

recreatim to a greater extent than the Draft Plan. Areas pmped for 

wilderness have been increased, particularly in the White "ntains. 

Dispersed recreation has becane the management emphasis for both Managemnt 

prescriptions #16 and #17. Alpine skiing potential will be expanded by the 

addition of the Hartley Springs area to the list of those areas for future 

study. In relatim to the atam emphases, timber pcduction will be 

maintained at reasonable levels although the emphasis west of U.S. 395 has 

been mdified frun high level timber management to wen-aged timber 

management to reMgnize the recreational, wildlife, and watershed values of 

the area. 

C€SMEW: Same of Inyo's wilderness should exist for its own sake and not for 

the recreational convenience of the public: I would advocate that in sone 

areas rm trail maintenance or signiq be done in order to let the area revert 

to a truly und~.sturbed state. I'd even like to see no new trails on the 

Forest. We should be selective about which damaged trails are restored. 

(1795, 2207) 

RESPONSE: The existing managemat plans for wilderness will beccme part of 

the Forest Plan. Direction in these appmved plans call for managing 

existing trailless areas as such. Signing is apprwed only for important 

intersections and for prcgressive travel. Any plans for reconstructing 

trails are analyzed as to the need for inpmement versus leaving than as 

they are. Such things as resource damage and public safety are important 

factors in that determination. No new trails are planned in existing 

wildemesses and any new trails in future wilderness wuld be carefully 

examined in accord with the NEPA process. 

COMMENT: The county concurs with the dispersed recreation management 

emphasis, but would discourage the expansion of day-use amenities at the 

expense of pennittee hous- near cunnunity areas. (1638) 

RESPONSE: No connection is made between day-use activities and permittee 

housing (recreation residences). The Forest Plan does not identify where 

there is a conflict nor what the resolution would be. The policy on the Inyo 

would consider termination of recreation residence permits when the site 

118 
RECREATION 

would be needed for a developd facility (wemight or day-use) that would 

provide for a higher public recreatim use. Exceptirms would be isolated 

cabin sites that m longer serve thdr original purpsse or are mt capatible 

with current manag-t that has changed because of legislation or a change 

in land classificatim such as wildemess. Generally, open space needs along 

critical use zones such as and lakeshores can be resolved 

through mxlificatim of @ts or the adjustment of facilities to better 

accarmodate the public. 

cx”r: h-age dwelopnent of the 

 ora Mills Interpretive Site. Strongly disagree with developing an 

autnmbile tour of volcanic features; people should not be encouraged to 

spend more time in their cars. Maintain Hartley Sprirgs without water: there 

are far too few of these semi-primitive canping facilities left. (1616) (129) 

WFQNSE: The chain of geologic/volcanic features stretching fran Mammth 

Mountain to the islands in Mono Lake and Black Point are very significant and 

Mghly visible with almost unlimited interpretive potential. With the recent 

seismic activity and its link to volcanic activity, this chain of features 

beccmes highly desirable to interpret. The chain stretches over thirty miles 

and muld be difficult to interpret Without involving the auto. A slow 

interpretive driving tour on back roads as an alternative to traveling U.S. 

395 is an attractive recreational activity with many possibilities and 

options. It will tie in nicely with the visitor center and major 

interpretive orientation of the i” Basin Scenic Area. We recamend that 

the direction for the interpretive auto tour remain: hmever, developnent of 

the tour and interpretive program would go through the enviromtal analysis 

process. 

We have changed and added s~ne wording in the recreation direction for 

Managmt Area #5 in respmse to your “nt. 

Managmt Area #5 - Glass Mountain. 

COMMEWT: Managemst Area #12 - Concentrated Recreation Area. Under 

protection, I recomnend that no future developnents be permitted within 100 

feet of a watercourse. (1433) (2169, 2190) 

WmE: The protection category covers wildfire and pest management. It 

is not intended to list protective measures for all other resources. The 

Standards and Guidelines for dwelopd public recreation directs us to 

ccolstruct and maintain facilities and sites to Regional standards. One of 

these standards directs us not to constmct any new facilities within 100 

feet of watermurses. This daes not apply to such facilities as docks, 

paths, trals, signs, brimes, and other facilities that serve as a 

protective means to a“date use and protect the water-oriented resource. 

CXMdEET: The Forest Service Preferred Alternative allows mxe destruction by 

increasirg sumner and winter recreation opportunities for Southern 

Californians. Recreation should be de-emphasized and the intrinsic value of 

the land enrphasized! (334) (65, 104, 121, 170, 988, 995, 1629, 1632, 1634, 

2016, 2038) 

119 
RES-: One of the major resource values of the National Forest system is 

the broad range of recreation activities and opprhmities available to the 

general public wbse land the Forest Service administers. The Inyo Forest 

has both valuable recreation resources and many outstanding resource values. 

Being only a five hour drive frun 15 million people, the Inyo is an 

attractive destination for millions of recreationists a year. There is a 

limit or capacity beyond which the resource cannot be maintained without 

serious envi"ental consequences; however, there are still many 

opprhmit~.es on the Inyo to provide for the needs of the recreation user. 

The Inyo National Forest has reduced and controlled recreational inipacts a 

great deal in the last twenty years. Major deskctive impacts to the 

riparian zones caused by uncontrolled use patterns have almost been 

eliminated. The Plan allows for increased use while maintaining and 

protecting those other valuable inherent resources. 

CCWEN!: We note that the Plan eqhsizes the continued reliance on the 

shuttle bus system for the Red's Meackxu/Devil's Postpile area. We support 

the continued operation of this system at its present level to "ize 

parking congestion and traffic problems on the road. Cooperate with the 

National Park S&ce to maintain joint management of the shuttle bus system. 

(487, 1099) 

RESFCHSE: We have added the following statement to the Recreation direction 

for Management Area #lo: "Continue to cOOrdinate with the National Park 

Sexvice to share adhninistrative and fiscal responsibility for the existing 

shuttle system. " 

a%W": Management Area #7 - Upper Cwens River. The first item under 

recreation calls for developing a recreation canposite plan. This should be 

included in the list in Appenduc ' A. Also, in Appendix A, ccasider adding 

wkitney Portal/Lane Pine creek, Big Pine Canyon and perhaps other areas to 

the list of needed canposite management plans for concentrated recreation 

areas. (1359) 

RESKNSE: Ccmposite managmemt plans to be prepared in the first p1armi-g 

perid are proposed only wilere there is to be significantly increased 

developnent. The areas listed are anplex recreational areas that are 

expected to pmduce mt of the increased RVDs or require major 

rehabilitation in the next ten years. 

Lone Pine Creek, Big Pine Canyon, Pine (3reek, Rock (3reek, McGee creek, 

Cbnvict Lake, and Independence Creek as well as many other areas of 

recreation developnent do not require cmpxite management plans at this time 

because little or m developnent is proposed that would change facilities and 

use patterns in the area: the cancen-trated recreation zone is considered 

fully developd and adjustments to the -all use patterns and facilities 

would be considered minor; or the area affected is related to a sinple or 

singular recreation facility that would not require a canp3site managwent 

plan to develop. 

120 
RECRE?.TION 

m: The local ecco7any of our two counties is hghly depenaent upon the 

recreational visitor and, to scme degree, the extraction of ~turdL resources 

fm the forests, such as timbering, grazing and mining. In 1985, wer 

$350,000 was retumed to Inyo County for SChDol and road purposes fm the 

recreation and timber receipts collected on the Inyo Forest. The preferred 

alternative provides for additional recreational use of the Forest beyond 

that which is presently existing or provided for in the cuzrent alternative, 

and this the pl- deparbnent does supprt. Inyo County would benefit in a 

proper proportion if perimeter developnent were allawed to continue at a rate 

which is consistent with the gmwth of the recreational needs of the public. 

Sane of these multiple uses, especially skiing, generate substantial revenues 

that are badly needed to mamtain and manage our National Forest. (135, 402, 

981) (304) 

RESFONSE: Specific developnent proposals will be evaluated in a project 

level environmental analysis. A major ski area -sal would trigger an 

envircmental impact statement wl-ach would consider envinnvnental 

constraints, econanics, demand, supply, infrastxucimre and other factors. 

CObMiNT: If you wish to develop the area for "er use, please consider 

water sports such as sailing, swimning, boating, and fishing. (2154) 

RFS-E: Mxt potential for water sprt developnent has taken place; rmst 

lakes accessible by roads on the. Inyo Forest are considered fully 

developed. The two exceptions are Walker Lake and Grant Lake. Recreation 

direction for Management Area #3 calls for developsd day-use facilities and 

parking for Walker Lake. This developnent could be facilities that would be 

oriented towards fishing, boating, and s~ne sail-. At Grant Lake, there is 

potential for increased wdght caq~irg facilities as well as facilities 

oriented towards swjmning, sail-, boating, fishing, and possibly lmted 

water skiing. Recreation direction for Managwent Area #4 calls for the 

developnent of a recreation ccmposite plan that would fully inventory, 

coordinate, and prcgram the recreational developnent for the June Lake Loop 

which would include the Grant Lake area. 

CObMiNT: Please consider extending the concentxated recreation area 

designations along Walker, Parker and Rush Creeks to the Scenic Area in order 

to increase recreaticmal use of these areas, and to help recover degraded 

riparian and wildlife habitat. (1638) 

RESFONSE: The area mentioned abve is outside of the Forest bundary; it is 

Los kgeles Departrnent of Water and mer land. The land is wide open, 

consists of many wet meadows and has very little capability to a"mdate 

recreation use or developnent. 

m: Please add the follawing recreation directive: "coordinate major 

recreational expansions or imprwements with the Long Valley cumnmity." 

(1638) 

121 
ALPINE SKIING 

-E: The Rock Cl-esk drainage, McGee CFeek drainage, and Convict 

drainage are the major recreatim areas in the vicinity of the Lcolg Valley 

camnmity. 

major recreatimal expansions or inpm"ts are proposed for any of them, 

The only impacts will be minor changes in existing use patterns or 

rehabilitatim of exis- sites. If expansion were prap3sed beyond the 

first planning period, the denrelopnent of a mnposite plan would include 

local public and "unity involvement. 

These drainages are basically amsidered fully developd and IID 

CCWEW: 32,000 SAOT is a reasanable figure with adequate buildout of both 

June and Mannmth mmtains. I supprt the appraved developwnt of Mammth 

muntain to 24,000 SAOT and of June Mnmtain to 7,000 SAOT. I also support 

the possible developwnt of Sherwin Bawl to 8,000 SAOT, oonditional on the 

out- of an envi"enta1 impact study. The potential growth of alpine 

skiing on the Inyo National Forest realistically could reach 60,000 SAOT in 

the future. Please consider e1jminath-g the proposed maxi" SAOT limit in 

favor of a mre flexible system which would allow for the ccoltinuous growth 

of the sport of skiing. (400, 158, 2048, 1311) (56, 91, 122, 183, 205, 267, 

271, 273, 367, 369, 372, 377, 384, 402, 403, 404, 420, 432, 469, 481, 907, 

919, 923, 939, 958, 972, 1006, 1180, 1184, 1188, 1201, 1225, 1227, 1235, 

1241, 1244, 1258, 1260, 1261, 1268, 1285, 1313, 1319, 1325, 1329, 1334, 1340, 

1341, 1353, 1371, 1389, 1399, 1466, 1470, 1481, 1486, 1495, 1506, 1512, 1523, 

1524, 1529, 1534, 1542, 1549, 1554, 1562, 1573, 1582, 1583, 1585, 1586, 1593, 

1596, 1608, 1613, 1620, 1630, 1633, 1641, 1695, 1702, 1712, 1724, 1726, 1728, 

1745, 1746, 1764, 1831, 1840, 1850, 1855, 1859, 1885, 1868, 1904, 1905, 1909, 

1934, 1957, 1961, 1972, 1978, 1986, 1991, 1994, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2021, 2025, 

2035, 2037, 2039, 2040, 2043, 2045, 2059, 2064, 2066, 2115, 2121, 2185, 2187, 

3511) 

RFSPONSE: Instead of listing an SAOT figure in the Final Plan, SAOTs will be 

tied to demand projections and the ability of the infraslx..-cure to support 

the propsed SOTS. "Infrastructure" refers to the ability of the area to 

provide the land base and the essential services of water, sewer, food, 

lOaging, transprtation, and power. A major ski area proposal muld trigger 

an enviroMlenta1 impact statement which would consider, mrg other things, 

environmental constraints, demand, supply, and infrastructure. 

CX?WENT: Eliminate the current priority phasing plan in the DEIS which 

dictates an inflexible order of developnent for future ski areas. The 

sequence for evaluation of potential ski areas makes little sense. It is not 

clear why Hartley Springs is not included in the list. It would make more 

sense to do a thorough study of skier demand, all potential areas and the 

imacts of various levels of develoonent. men. areas ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ considered 

&pprupriate for alpine skiing could be managed for other resource values. 

(3511, 225) (50, 1099, 1501, 1634, 1641, 1806, 1891) 

122 
ALPINE SKIING 

FZFS-E: The Final Plan changes the prescription for the Hartley Springs 

area fran Prescription #10 - High Level Timher to Prescription #14 - 

Potential Alpine Ski Area. We have remcnred the priority phasing plan for 

sequence of developnent for potential ski areas. Rather than locking into a 

sequencs of alpine ski area developnent in the Plan, the next major skiing 

proposal (other than Sherwin Bowl which is ongoing at this time outside the 

Forest planning process) would trigger an EIS which, mng other NEPA 

requirements, would consider the cumulative effects of the proposal. 

CXE”T: me Forest Plan should specify that any process used to evaluate 

alpine ski developnent will address the cumulative impacts of the eronmus 

expansions being wntmqlated, and require a ccmplete long-range plan before 

any expansion is permitted. Any analysis that you do must include the impact 

of downhill ski expansion on the of Mammth Lakes in addition to impacts 

to visual quality, wildlife habitat, water quality and water consumption. 

This sbould take place before app-1 of any new ski area. In listing the 

factors limiting ski area developat, the DEIS fails to mention natural 

resource values. Factors such as visual quality, wildlife habitat, and water 

quality should be listed and given primary consideration. (1598, 2169, 1617, 

2190) (3,4, 38, 67, 97, 140, 147, 151, 163, 214, 225, 270, 293, 328, 351, 

400, 443, 449, 954, 1000, 1099, 1107, 1176, 1161, 1193, 1218, 1261, 1263, 

1348, 1388, 1433, 1464, 1485, 1489, 1509, 1515, 1532, 1545, 1547, 1556, 1565, 

1566, 1591, 1602, 1625, 1630, 1631, 1634, 1638, 1641, 1648, 1662, 1732, 1740, 

1843, 1845, 1862, 1884, 1893, 1907, 1922, 1923, 1931, 1933, 1956, 1964, 1977, 

2048, 2067, 2076, 2087, 2103, 2122, 2136, 2138, 2142, 2154, 2156, 2170, 

2178, 2191, 2207) 

RESFONSE: The next major skiing proposal will trigger an enviroMlenta1 

impact statement. This EIS, anwrg other NEPA rquirements, would consider 

the cumulative impacts of developing all the potential alpine skiirx~ areas 

identified in the Preferred Alternative (Hartley, White Wing, San Joaquin, 

Minaret, and the Knolls). It would address the appropriate future SAWS 

based on the anticipatd envimnmntal effects on resnurces such as soils, 

visual quality, wildlife habitat, water and air quality and the ability to 

mitigate those effects. It would also consider the ability of the existing 

and potential land base and infrastructure to support the proposal(s). 

CXE”T: Downhill ski developat should mt be mccreased. I oppose the 

mansion of the ski area on MamnothI%untain. (1230. 96) 1.1 (5. 18. 35. 40. 55. 

57; 77, 89, 112, 119, 140, 145, 157, 164, 167, 214, 266, 284, 288, i98,’302: 

311, 419, 437, 438, 467, 491, 492, 906, 920, 934, 970, 1036, 1048, 1176, 

1177, 1185, 1193, 1205, 1229, 1295, 1317, 1412, 1477, 1496, 1513, 1517, 1545, 

1546, 1570, 1579, 1586, 1589, 1592, 1602, 1606, 1628, 1632, 1633, 1783, 1798, 

1880, 1902, 1906, 1938, 1947, 1980, 1989, 2068, 2071, 2101, 2106, 2191, 2203) 

FZFSWNSE: Marronoth &buntah Ski Area has an approved master developnent plan 

that projects the SAOTs for the existing area under permit to 24,000. No 

increase has been approved above that point. The approved Mmth-Mmo Unit 

Plan reccgnizes 7,000 potential SAoTs for June Mountain Slu Area. An 

environmental analysis has been amplet& on the expansion of SAOTs for June 

I%untain to 7,000. Any request to expand these two ski areas outside the 

123 
ALPINE SKIING 

existing permit boundaries would trigger an EIS that would include a 

Wative impact assessment of developing all the potential alpine ski areas 

idenkfied in the Preferred Alternative. 

CfXmO.: Alpine ski developnent should be limited to expansion of existing 

areas rather than developnent of new areas. Fxitarging the Mammth Ski Area 

will "ize skiing with less disruptive lmpact than placing new clownhill 

areas in other parts of the Forest. (78, 56) (37, 71, 89, 94, 95, 104, 126, 

140, 146, 159, 160, 214, 263, 264, 272, 275, 320, 331, 370, 389, 409, 419, 

450, 466, 925, 942, 968, 1025, 1027, 1194, 1349, 1472, 1498, 1532, 1533, 

1539, 1629, 1652, 1798, 1806, 1854, 1952, 2112, 2135) 

RESPONSE: As previously stated, any plans to expand the two existing ski 

areas beyond the present boundaries would trigger an EIS. With the possible 

exception of Sherwin Bowl, any expansion of alpine skiing facilities would 

cccur within existing ski area t"daries before any new acreages were added 

onto the existing pennitted areas or new ski areas developd. Additional 

SAOT beycola 24,000 for Mamoth muntain and 7,000 for June Plnmtain would 

require an approved EIS. 

CfXmO.: I urge the Forest Service to say "m" to the downhill ski 

developers abut San Joaquin Ridge. This part of the Sierra crest is an 

important deer migration mute. Its natural values of old grayth red fir, 

spectacular views, and wildlife Md take precedence over carnwcial 

developwnt. I would like to see this area preserved for cross country 

skiing. Urbanizing the San Joaquin Ridge for the benefit of ski area owners 

at the cost of losing wildexness seems to be a very poor sense of judgmt. 

The sacrifice of lives and beauty for the financial profit of a few 

businessmen is intolerable. (946, 913, 2150) (3, 42, 168, 215, 225, 267, 278, 

292, 295, 303, 315, 322, 328, 329, 332, 338, 345, 358, 377, 381, 383, 398, 

412, 420, 441, 466, 906, 925, 933, 944, 950, 952, 970, 978, 994, 998, 1006, 

1007, 1008, 1021, 1066, 1099, 1107, 1159, 1171, 1172, 1176, 1183, 1185, 1188, 

1191, 1224, 1232, 1295, 1333, 1348, 1405, 1415, 1430, 1478, 1479, 1480, 1485, 

1488, 1521, 1523, 1524, 1529, 1532, 1536, 1543, 1544, 1545, 1547, 1549, 1559, 

1563, 1565, 1571, 1581, 1583, 1586, 1607, 1608, 1622, 1631, 1632, 1633, 1634, 

1653, 1678, 1712, 1723, 1725, 1729, 1731, 1743, 1757, 1759, 1760, 1767, 1774, 

1777, 1779, 1789, 1795, 1797, 1798, 1803, 1810, 1813, 1816, 1819, 1832, 1839, 

1842. 1843. ~,- -, ~~- 1851. 1858. 1863. , ~~ , 1865. 1871. ~~~ , ~~~ I~.~~ 1872. 1875. 1886. 1893. -, ----, ~~~ 1895. , 1907. 

1920, 1922, 1923, 1926; 1928, 1930, 1931, 1943, 1952, 1975, 1977; 1985, 1988; 

1990, 2007, 2015, 2022, 2027, 2049, 2054, 2058, 2059, 2077, 2081, 2087, 2103, 

2112, 2114, 2115, 2119, 2120, 2129, 2130, 2136, 2142, 2151, 2152, 2166, 2167, 

2169, 2170, 2177, 2179, 2185, 2199, 2209) 

"E: San Joaquin Ridge, which includes the area along San Joacph Rise 

between the Mamroth and June muntain Ski areas, will be managed under 

Prescription #14 - Potential Alpine Ski Area. The statement in the EIS 

referring to evaluation of potential ski areas in a particular sequence has 

been deleted. The Plan does not say that San Joaquin Ridge will be 

developed; it identifies it as having potential as an alpine ski area. The 

next pmpsal for developxent for additional skiing would trigger an EIS 

which would consider the cumulative impads of developing all the identified 

124 
ALPINE SKIING 

potential alpine skiing areas. Much of the area between Mamnoth and June 

muntain Ski Areas is designated Prescription #16 - Dispersed Recreation. 

This prescription emphasizes winter nordic recreation. Only the steep 

portions of San Joaquin Ridge are identified as potential alpine ski areas. 

Red fir will not be cut during this plw pericd and deer migration 

corridors are protected. Before any alpine skiing developnent auld occuc, 

it wuld be analyzed in an EIS with full public mlvement. 

COMMENT: I support the idea of lea- the San Joaquin Ridge area open for 

future alpine ski developnent. I lmp that developnent will be allowed in 

the future between Mamnsth htur~tain and June Mountam in a sensible, 

ccoltrolled way. I strongly request the Forest Service give favorable 

consideration to placing not only the San J0aqu.i.n Ridge area, but also 

Hartley Springs, Yost Creek and Deadhnan creek into the “Fxisting Alpine Ski” 

category. Expadug ’ fully step-by-step into San Joaquin, White Wing and 

Hartley Springs would prcduce much less *act than attempting to accommodate 

the increasbg demands of skiers by developing a new ski resort llke Mineral 

King or Trail Peak fnm scratch in an area without the support of a 

developd ca”ity. (396, 475, 1641) (20, 45, 195, 193, 202, 210, 231, 242, 

326, 327, 335, 342, 350, 353, 368, 378, 414, 415, 417, 421, 423, 452, 472, 

474, 476, 478, 485, 908, 916, 917, 932, 937, 938, 949, 981, 1016, 1039, 1054, 

1091, 1094, 1179, 1197, 1237, 1204, 1246, 1257, 1266, 1296, 1364, 1366, 1387, 

1400, 1403, 1409, 1416, 1418, 1428, 1429, 1493, 1495, 1497, 1499, 1505, 1587, 

1604, 1614, 1646, 1661, 1737, 1739, 1750, 1756, 1769, 1811, 1847, 1870, 2118, 

2154) 

RESFUNSE: The Fml Forest Plan includes the followbg idenkfied potential 

alpine ski areas: Hartley, White Wing, San Joaquin, Minaret, and the 

Knolls. These areas will be managed under Prescription #14 - Potential 

Alpine Ski Area, not Prescription #13 - Alpine Ski Areas which can only be 

applied to areas already constructed (Mamnoth muntain and June Mountain). 

We assume you mean White Wing when you say Deadman creek. Yost Ox?& will be 

managed under Presmiption #17 - SemL-Primitive Recreation and 1s not 

included in potential alpine skiing. 

COWlW€: Mamroth/June Ski Resort requests an addition of approximately 7.3 

thousand acres to the 21.8 thousand acres designated as existing or potential 

ski areas. This relatively snall addition will allow the resort to 

substantially mitigate the potential conflict between alpine ski areas and 

exclusive use of lands suitable for dispersed ”er and winter recreation. 

Nordic skiing can be staged out of the same areas designated in the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Yost Crdc The cliffs next to the Yost Basin make a natural boundary 

between wilderness and possible future alpine skiing developnent, and we 

request that it be designated as potential alpine ski area. 

Hartley Springs: To provide reliable access to the existing area of June 

~untain and to mitigate the ’ of the Loop that will be caused by 

the utilization of the current approved capacity of 7,000 skiers a day, 

Ma”th/June Ski Resort requests that Hartley Springs and the mined area of 

Obsidian Dane, along with the roam areas mr”dirg same be redesignated 

as potential alpine ski area. This would pruvide direct access to U.S. 395. 

125 
Wte wing: We request that the mtial alpine sM area b3undary at the 

base of White wing be nwed to include a snall poruOn of the intensive 

Sari J~aq~h fiw: We mest that the pote&ial alp- Ski area bOUtUky 

along the base of San Joaquin Wage be mwed to include a mall portion of 

the nordic ski area west of the Inyo eaters. This change in designation 

would not preclude nordic skiing and would mre effectively allcw for the 

pssibility of multiple use of an” facilities. 

Dea&an Creek: We request that a snall portion of the corner in the 

Cancentrated Recreaticm Area Prescription be reclassified as part of the 

Potential Alpine Ski Area designatim, again to provide inipmvd base 

facilities. These changes in total muld also provide for a tranqmrtation 

systan that will be necessary to join all of the areas together. (1641) 

timber management area lmrmwat of Deadman creek. 

RESPONSE: YoSt creek Will be managed e Prescription#17 - Sd-primitiVe 

Recreation and not Prescription #14 - Potential Alpine Ski Area. The Hartley 

Springs area is changed from Prescription #10 - High Level Timber to 

Prescription #14 - F’otential Alpine Ski Area. The remainder of the Hartley 

Springs area that is not included in Prescription #14 is changed to 

Prescription #9 - Uneven-Aged Timber Management. The fact that potential 

base area and transprtation corridors are in Prescription #9 does not 

vlude base facilities in those areas. 

The area northwest of Dead” (seek at the base of White Wing has been 

changed to Prescription #9 - Uneven-Aged Timber Management. This 

prescription can include developnent plans for any major ski proposal 

includirg major invesiments in base facilities. Prescription #12 - 

concentrated Recreation Area can also include base ski facilities 

on the needs and suitability which wuld be analyzed in an EIS. 

The area at the base of San Jcaq~ir~ =@e is prescription #16 - Dispersed 

Recreation. This prescription can include areas for base ski facilities. 

The EIS for a specific p-al would identify needs and suitability for base 

facilities which wuld be “xted within this prescription. 

Ths upper portion of Deadman Creek that was formerly in Prescription #12 has 

been changed to prescription #16. Managmt direction for Prescription #16 

requires master developwnt plans be mnpleted to include major investments 

in base facilities. Again, specific site proposals would be analyzed in an 

EIS, takirg into consideration needs and suitability of the land base. 

Transprtation planning for the p-al would also be ccordinated in the 

EIS . 

An EIS would address those needs. 

03MfiNT: The Glass Creek and Hartley Springs areas are, in our estimation, 

inappropriate areas for alpine ski developnent. These are excellent areas 

for nordic ski- because they are extremely beautiful and unspoiled. 

Mxeover, the ecosystm of the Glass Creek area deserves to be protected. 

This area has historically had very few visitors, but developrent of alpine 

skiing on all sides would most definitely have very serious and adverse 

effects. Please add a Standard and Guideline for fish to read: “To assure 

ptection of essential habitat for the Lahontan (xltthroat .trout to be 

126 
ALPINE SKIING 

introduced, Glass Meadav will mt be develaped”. The p?npsed aeSignatim of 

the H&ley Sprw area fOr .the aeVelOpnent Of alpine Skiing haS the 

possibility of eliminating the cmly other location which affords easy access 

to quality dispersed backmuntry mrdic skiing. (1244, 2170, 175) (419, 461, 

1546, 2190) 

m: The Glass [seek meadow area has been changed fm Wescription #14 

- potential Alpine Ski Area to F’rescription #17 - Semi-Primitive Recreation. 

This will protect the meadow ecasystem frcm developnent and preserve its 

natural character. The Hartley Springs area has been changed fran 

Prescription #10 - High Level Timber to prescriptions #9 and #14. 

Essentially, the area m designated under h-escription #14 is the steep 

portion abare Hartley Springs to the border of the June Mountain Ski Area. 

The flatter portions are designated Prescription #9 - Uneven-Aged Timber. 

This timber prescription does contain rnanagemnt direction that emphasizes 

dispersed recreation. 

aX”: I am very familiar with June Pbuntain and wholeheartedly support 

the developnent of the Hartley Springs area to make June muntain a mre 

rounded ski resort. If June Mountain Ski Area is mt allowed to expand for 

future developnent, I don’t see how the cnnnunity can stay viable. The 

present facilities on the muntain cannot accarm3date -gh skiers per day 

to the snall business mty that is here right m. (414, 1003) 

(901, 2094) 

RJiSRINSE: The Final Plan and EIS have changed; m the Hartley Springs area 

is designated Prescription #14 - potential Alpine Ski Area. This does not 

mean the area will be developed; any proposal to develop this area for 

c3mnhill skiing would have to go through the NEPA pmcess. This would 

involve a curmtlative impact analysis that considers all the identified 

potential ski areas. However, this does mean that the area will be managed 

to maintain the potential for alpine sluing. 

aX”: I 

believe this is a ridge to preserve the natural beauty of, not the San 

Joaquh Ridge. The Snowcreek Ski Resort muld be a mre advanced skier 

muntain and mld be mre susceptible to becaning a ghost town than a ski 

resort geared to all skiers. NEPA appears to require examination of the 

clrmulative inipacts of all similar past and reasonable foreseeable future ski 

developnents before mts wuld be granted for a Shezwin Bowl project. 

(923, 2190) (59, 129, 134, 146, 214, 307, 337, 358, 461, 952, 1041, 1095, 

1107, 1181, 1260, 1406, 1428, 1430, 1529, 1556, 1576, 1587, 1589, 1616, 1620, 

1621, 1645, 1648, 1748, 1759, 1767, 1777, 1789, 1866, 1886, 1975, 2074, 2077, 

2081, 2087, 2088, 2089, 2108, 2122, 2160, 2191) 

RESPONSE: The proposal to develop She” Bowl as an alpine ski area is 

presently unde?qoing an envimnwatal analysis outside the Forest planning 

grxcess. This process was initiated under the Mammth-Mmc EIS approved in 

1979. 

I opp3se developnent of c3mnhill ski areas in the Sherwin Bowl. 

The results of the analysis will be published in an EIS. 

127 
ccp1MENT: The Sherwin Creek Ski Area and its developnent of Solitude Canyon 

are in the migration mute of Vnusands of deer. The developnent of this 

area would have advase results on the deer. I want my grandchildren to see 

them forever. Sherwin Ski Area: No! The very people wb dug up the meadow 

in Mamroth Lakes cannot be tmsted! I &”t want to see the deer disturbed. 

No developcent at all! Duck Pass Trail is just over the ridge. Don’t do 

it. Close this area forever to developnent! (1530, 1620) (225) 

RFSFQNSE: The proposal to develop the Shemh Eail Ski Area is presently 

undergoing an environmsntal analysis outside of the Forest plardrg process. 

The draft EIS has not been carrpleted as of this writing. At Ifn.s the no 

decision has been made on whethex or not to ccolsider developing this area as 

an alpine ski area. The draft EIS will be available for a public ment 

pi&, after which a decision will be made. The EIS will analyze all the 

effects on the environment including the deer migration route. 

CCWmNT: After reading the sections of the Plan and DEIS on the alpine 

skiing element, I could find m data to supprt an increase in alpine skiing 

facilities. The only justification I could find was that more skiers muld 

come to Mamnoth if mre facilities were developd. I would like to see a 

presentation of data on the demgraphy of alpine skiers in Southern 

California in the final EIS. My understanding is that the skier bulge has 

passed, the age structure has gotten older and young replacement skiers are 

down. Before more develop3 alpine skiing facilities are proposed and 

irreversible projects cunnitted by the Forest Sexvice, we need a quantitative 

assessment of future need based not on extrapolation of skiing use in the 

seventies but based on solid, up-to-date demographic data. We do not agree 

that demand will expand to fill any capacity (DEIS 111-62) even if that were 

the prop way to plan. Rising costs for eqm.pnent, lift tickets and local 

lodging; traffic bottlenecks; and the lure of many new out-of-state ski 

resorts dine to narrow the future expansion possibilities. The U.S. 

population is aging, and this is primarily a young person’s sport. On Plan 

111-26, supply and demand projections do not discuss e”ic depndency on 

dri- six hours to get here and whether there are any impacts due to the 

fluctuation in world oil supply and prices? (2157, 1631, 1099) (94, 225, 466, 

2170) 

RFSF€RiSE: Management Area direction for Management Areas #4, #8 and #9 have 

an additional water element that reads: “Allow developnent in the 

i%”th/June area where adequate water is available after natural reSOucce 

needs are mt. Allow for the exploration and developnent of new water 

sources on National Forest System lands for rxmmmity purposes only when such 

opportunities have been exhausted on private lands.” 

Additional direction for Management Area #4 has been added under facilities: 

“Conduct a cumulative effects study of the ”mth/June area when a 

developnent propal in this area requires an Ehvironmental Impact 

Statement. The Ma”th/June area is bounded by U.S. 395 on the east: State 

Route 203 cm the south; the John Muir and Ansel Adams Wildemesses on the 

west; and the ridgeline of the June Lake ccmplex on the north.“ The study 

would lo& at all proposed activities and their effects. The study might 

128 
ALPINE SKIING 

result in msdifications to current prescription boundaries. One of the goals 

of the study would be to identify the best location and sequence for 

developrent of potential alpine ski developnent in an environmentally, 

eoonanically and socially acceptable manner. The outm could include the 

possibility of no developnent. SAcYps for spcific sites will be determined 

through this annulative study. 

Your point about factors such as an aging papulation, lack of younger 

replacement skiers, ecoMsnics of .transportation, lift tickets, and lcdging as 

related to the ability of the public to pay may or may not be true. It is 

probably not pssible to say whether or not the increase in population in 

southern California would be emugh to more than offset the factors mentioned 

which could tend to lower demand for alpine skiing. Future expansion of 

alpine skiing on the Forest will be analyzed in an EIS. 

m: The only way to generate a 12% annual growth rate is to use the 

drought years of 1976-77 as a base year. The graphs and charts attached as 

Exhibit 1 clearly show that the growth rates for mth "cain are much 

lower than 12% per year and are declining. This is true regardless of 

whether you look at total skier use or the average of the five lughest days 

of each season (reflective of peak demand). Neither of the graphs follows a 

trend which mld be mcative of a constant or increasing demand rate. The 

most generous growth projection I can derive fm the attached data is a 

constant demand for 778 SAcrr per year of capacity and even this appears to be 

smaller each year. Demand is a fickle thixg and the EIS should do a mre 

detailed analysis of historical demand to be used as a justification for 

future gruwth. (225) (1634) 

WE: The EIS states that the recent 12% per year grawth of alpine 

ski- is not likely to continue and that ski area and Cararmnity developnent 

will slow dawn and ultimately dem on factors which emerge as the limting 

ones for developnent. Water supply, sanitation, trarqmrtation and other 

factors may well be the ones that limit the growth of ski area developnent. 

Each proposal for developnent of additional skiing will be analyzed in an 

EIS, and the first such proposal for major additional skiing would trigger a 

amdative impact study as part of the NEPA p-ss. The last thing the 

Forest would want to do is to develop additional alpine skiq opportunities 

without the demand to utilize those facilities at a rate that is econmically 

justified. 

m: Disagree that lmpacts on the Forest created by ccm"ty growth are 

outside Forest Senrice contzol (DEIS 111-70). As skiing graJs in popularity, 

it is imperative that the facilities to acccIIc113date the population be allowed 

to gmw in a natural proprtion. The description for Managanent Area #4 - 

June Lake Loop should include an expanded discussion of the potential for ski 

area growth and its impacts on the June Lake "unity. The avalanche 

hazards to winter recreationists should also be discsussed. The June Lake 

Citizens Advisory Mttee (CAC) cormus with the Ma"th/June Ski Resort 

position that while it is possible to expand June Wnmtain Ski Area to 7,ooO 

SAOT within its present boundaries, it would not be the most desirable 

experience for the skier with all parkirig and lift access required to be at 

129 
ALPINE SKIING 

the current location. The CAC also believes that such ccwwtrated ski area 

developnent would mt be the rroSt desirable experience for the Comrmnity 

because the town's circulation System is inadquate for such a high level of 

use. The CAC supports disprsirg the additional skiers to Hartley Springs 

and Yost creek, thereby providing additional access pints that are not 

subject to avalanche closures. (1631, 261, 1638) (461, 1641) 

"E: As mtioned earlier, the Hartley Springs area has been added to 

Prescription #14 - Fotential Alpine Ski ma. Yost Creek will be managed 

under prescription #17 - Semi-Primitive Recreation. The order of developnent 

of additional alpine ski- will be analyzed in an EIS triggered by the next 

major ~oposal for additicmal skiing. Fslture increases in SAOTs will be tied 

to the existing and planned infrastmcture and demand. If the necessary 

ccmpnents such as sanitation, water, transportation, and land base are not 

sufficient to support planned bcmases in SAOTs, then it mld not be 

possible to allow expansion bepnd the ability of the area and infrastruch 

of cummities to support that use. Since any expansion of alpine skiing 

would be on National Forest land and require a special use permit frcm the 

Forest Service, then expansion of SAOTs for skiing is within the authority of 

the Forest Service, depenaent on satisfying all NEPA -ts. 

CCWIWl': The DEIS states that the level of developwnt described in the 

Mamnoth Lakes General Plan represents full developwnt under the preferred 

Alternative. The Town Plan discussed a "rm of 32,000 alpine SAOT without 

any -ideration of growth of June bmtain. The Forest Plan and EIS should 

eliminate all statements indicating this consistency with the W3.m General 

Plan. Also, it should consider the inpacts on Mamoth Lakes of skier 

capacity at June muntain which exceeds the sleeping capaci% of June Lake: 

those skiers will probably stay in mth Lakes. The Forest Plan and EIS 

should either describe a level of developnent that is considered in the Town 

Plan or eliminate the references to the Town Plan and considex impacts of 

increased developnent on the Town. (225, 1891) 

"E: Since Sherwin Pam1 is witkin the Tawn boundaries, the Mammth 

Lakes General Plan includes Sherwin's potential SAOT in its projections. 

Addig a maxi" potential of 8,Mx) to the 24,000 projected for Mammth 

Mountain's buildout totals to the 32,000 SAOT figure. only the area inside 

the Town boundaries is included in the projection; June Mountain's SAOTs were 

rot -id&. Hawever, the current June Lake Loop General Plan speaks to 

the increased capacity at June Mountain. This direction will be consulted in 

detemrhing the timing of expansion for June Mountain. The statement 

referring to the developent level in the preferred Alternative as equating 

to the Mammth Lakes General Plan has been rmxed. As stated in previous 

respnses, the level of developnent (SAOT) will be analyzed in an EIS which 

would be triggered by the next major proposal for additional skiing. Any 

analysis would take into account the sleeping capacity of June Lake along 

with Mamnoth Lakes. However, such things as available water, sewer capacity, 

-&ansprtation, and land base would probably be mre limiting than sleeping 

capacity. 

130 
ALPm SKIING 

m: Because the DEIS has not evaluated in any de@ the hpacts of 

increased ski area developnent, xn clear case has been made for a need for a 

significant increase in SAOT capacity, and the Opprhnity costs of holding 

large tracts aside for possible ski area developnent have not been assessed, 

I am proping changes to the map for the preferred Alternative. These 

changes also reflect other considerations. The Jeffrey Pine forest south of 

June Lake provides an important back- of the Mannwth/June Lake and should 

be managed under Management prescription #9. The mile deer migration 

corridor southeast of Mammth Lakes hits a dead end at Sherwin Bowl. This 

midor should be maintained thmugh Solitude Canyon. (225) 

RISIWSE: See the response to the p?=evious torment regarding SAOT capacity 

which will be analyzed in an EIS triggd by the next p-al to develop 

additional skiing. 

The Jeffrey pine forest south of June Lake has been changed fm Prescription 

#10 - High Level Timber to Prescription #9 - Uneven-Aged Timber Management. 

The area west of Prescription #9 has been charged to Prescription #14 - 

Potential Alpine Ski Area to encanpass the Hartley Springs area. 

The mule deer migration corridor in Solitude Canyon is being analyzed in the 

Sherwin Bowl EIS, which is mgoing outside the Forest p1annir-g process. That 

document will analyze the migration corridor and any proposed inpacts 

develmtmighthave on it. The Forest Plan will mt deal with the Sherwin 

Bowl developnent issue except to provide for the potential SA(yps within the 

32,000 listed in the Marmu>th Lakes General Plan. 

(X@E": Amend Prescription #14 to pide a suitable buffer along the ski 

facilities so uley will not threaten the wilderness or impact its envircarment 

in any way. (113) 

RFSIWSE: When the California Wilderness Act was passed, the Minare ts 

Wilderness was expanded and renamed the Ansel Adams. The expanded boundary 

was established 300 feet below the top of San Joaquh Ridge on the west 

side. If, after going through the NEPA process, the expansion of skiing was 

authxized on the east side of the ridge, any wnstmction of skiing 

facilities, such as lift towers or buildings would be analyzed in a project 

specific enviroMlental analysis. All potential impacts inciudiq visual 

quality and mise would be analyzed to determine what type of facilities were 

appropriate, the best location to serve skiing and to "ize impacts on 

wilderness characteristics. The Forest Service does not recognize the 

concept of buffers between wilderness and adjacent forest lands. In many 

instances, timber harvest takes place adjacent to wilderness boundaries. In 

the Golden Rout Wildemess, the lower boundary of the wilderness is adjacent 

to the Los Angeles Departmnt of Water and Power aqueduct and only one half 

mile fran U.S. 395. 

(X@E": Managenent Prescription #13 - Existirg Alpine Ski Area. Add 

wildlife elements as follaws: "Allow m new roads, road improvements or 

other habitat alterations that muld impact deer holding areas or migration 

routes," and "Locate all facilities or other developents outside deer 

131 
ALPINE SKIING 

migration corridors and staging areas." See recarmended boundary charges on 

enclosed map. These b3undaries lnclude parts of range emphasis areas shown 

by recent USE, BLN, CDFG and other research to be critical for deer. (2170) 

(1638, 2190) 

RESFONSE: At the present time, Prescription #13 applies to the two existing 

ski areas, Mammth Mountain and June Mountain, and to She" -1 which is 

currently under study. It would also apply to managwent of any new ski area 

after approval and developcent. Any pruposed improvements within the 

existing ski areas are analyzed in a specific project environmental analysis 

which considers the concerns you have listed. Any new ski area with 

facilities which are prupsed to be built within Prescription #14 would be 

guided by the managwent direction in Prescription #14. We have added 

additional management direction for wildlife for Prescription #14 which we 

feel respondls to your concerns. The wildlife direction in Rx #14 has also 

been included in Rx #13 for any ski area expansion. There is an overlap in 

timing between potential and existing ski area developcent. The manag-t 

direction in Rx #14 would gude developnent and placement of facilities until 

they were in place, and thm Rx #13 would provide direction for the existfacilities . 

m: Management Prescription #14 - Potential Alpine Ski Area. Add to 

the purpose: "...and to maintain the quality of the area for other 

designation, including wilderness, should downhill ski areas not be approved 

for developwnt. " (2170) 

RFSPQNSE: The California Wilderness Act of 1984 does not require areas 

studied under RARE I1 and not identified as further p1annu-g areas by the Act 

to be reviewed for the wilderness option prior to the revision of Forest 

plans. Those "released" areas need rot be managed for the purpose of 

protecting their suitability for wilderness designation and shall be managed 

for multiple use in acoordance with land managment plans. 

COMMEEPP: In Managwent Area #5 - Glass Mountain under recreation, please 

replace the mgh Level Timber Managwent prescription west of U.S. 395 with 

an =sting Alpine Ski Area prescription as illustrated in the Mammth-June 

Ski Area caments. Also, designate the remainder of the High Level Timber 

area south of Hartley for a nordic ski area. Develop a recreation canpsite 

plan to inventoq, coordinate and program the full sumner and winter 

recreation potential for this area. (1638) 

=POISE: The area west of U.S. 395 wntains several charges in manag-t 

from the draft Plan. Prescription #10 - High Level Timber has been replaced 

by Prescription #9 - Uneven-Aged Timber which is mre amamdating to 

dispersed nordic skiing. Prescription #13 - Alpine Ski Areas is used for the 

ski areas currently in place (Mamt~~th and June Mountains) and Sherwin Bowl 

which is currently under study. The area around Hartley Springs has been 

changed to h-escription #14 - Potential Ski Area. The title of Prescription 

#16 has been charged fmn Nordic Ski Area to Dispersed Recreation. Elriphasis 

will be on winter and sumner d~spersed recreation rather than on comnercially 

132 
DEVELOPED RECREATION 

developed nordic skiing. The area west of U.S. 395 between Mammth Lakes and 

June Lake has been identified as the Deafman Recreation Composite Planning 

Area. That plan will cardmate the full range of recreation oppzrtunities 

for the area with an emphasis on winter sports. 

COMMENT: Please change the "Nordic Ski Area" designation to "Potential 

Alpine Ski Area". (1638) 

RESPONSE: Prescription #16 has been retitled Dispersed Recreation; it was 

called Nordic Slu Area in the draft Plan. Emphasis is on the full range of 

sumner and winter dispersed recreation rather than on mercially developed 

nordic facilities. The land base in this prescription is more flat and 

gentle and not suitable for alpine skiing. Base facilities to support future 

alpine ski areas could be located in the dispersed recreation or modified 

timber managanent prescription areas if the need were identified and the 

proposed addLtional ski area were appmed. 

COIWXl': Heliwpters are used to fly the rich 

skier and hiker/fisherman to the top. Helicopters negatively mpact all 

other recreationists. (381) 

RES-E: The 

permit specifies the conditions under which this activity can take place. 

Landmg of a helicopter is not authorized in wilderness, either in the mer 

or winter. I%st of the areas where helicopter sluing is authorized are 

devuid of people in the winter and bpacts are negligible. The Forest does 

not currently have any special use permits authorizing helicopter 

transportation of hikers or fishermen to backcountry areas. 

Helicopter sluing and iukirg. 

Helicopter sluing can be authorized by a special use pmut. 

Developed Recxeation 

COWlDiT: Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for interpretive services. 

Please add: "coordinate with local jurisdictions in the developnent of 

interpretive plans for areas adjacent to ccn"ities." (1638) 

"E: We do not feel it is necessary to add this language; we will 

continue to cardmate with local jurisdictions. 

COWlDiT: A 

ccolcen.trated recreation site in upper Deadman would create urunitigable 

damages to the sensitive pdce streambanks and meadows found in this area. 

(2185) 

RES-E: All new non-water related -eation sites will be developd a 

"I of 100 feet fran surface waters. This direction is located in the 

Recreation Developnent Handbook and the Forest Service Manual. The 

ccolcentrated Recreation Zone Prescription #12 prwides many constraints on 

developnent and impacts related to other ws~urces. 

Place new sites to be developed to least impact riparian values. 

Recreation developnent 
in upper Eeadman would be located well away fmn streamcourses and riparian 

zcnes. The area identified as concentrated recreation on the map in Upper 

Deadman identifies the area of high -tion attraction slag the stream 

corridor. The predz” ’ t use in this corridor wmld wnsist of dispersed 

recreational activities cxmptible with the streamside wrribr. No 

overnight camp3rounds and a limited an”t of day use facilities would be 

built in this corridor. 

CUwEm: 

future health of aspens in the campground. (1099) 

“E: Aspen management in Canvid Creek is cwered by the riparian 

Standards and Guidelines. A separate management plan for Convict Creek is 

mt necessary. 

Develop an aspen vegetatian management plan for Convict to ensure 

aM4E”: 

preference to opening any new areas. 

have already taken the shock and sw.vivjq life forms adjusted. (61) 

“E: A Forest-wide Standard and Wdeline for develop3 recreation 

states that new campsites will be developed in concentrated recreation zcoles 

before other areas of the Forest. Any new concentrated recreation areas would 

be develop3 only after a recreation mnposite plan had been developea and 

full impact and mitigation had been identified in relation to other resource 

values. Only the Deachan - Dry Creek area has been identified as a new area 

for recreation developnent and aanposite planning in the first planning 

period. All other increased developnent muld take place in existing 

concentrated recreation areas. 

Tolerate heavier USB of existing develop3 areas of the Forest in 

Fauna and flora in such devslopea areas 

m: 

creek geologic site. (1616) 

RESFCNSE: All developd recreation and interpretive sites are scheduled for 

heavy maintenance and rehabilitation. The Hot creek interpretive site is on 

that list and will eventually be rehabilitated to its full interpretive 

potential. 

Strongly encarage developiq the interpretive potential of the Hot 

CUWlXC: Managwent Area #2 - Lee Vining. I reccmnend adding: “The mad 

fmn State Route 120 to Saddlebag Lake should be imprwed, paved and 

additional par!&ng facilities provided near the end of the road.” (1359) 

RFSFCNSE: Lee Vidq Canyon is one of the concenkated recreation areas that 

will have a ccmposite plan developd for it to plan and mrdinate the 

recreation developnent opportunities and potential. This plan will determine 

whether the Saddlebag Road should be paved and additional facilities placed 

at the end of the road. 

134 
DEVELQPED RECREATION 

m: Manag-t Prescription #12 - CXmcentxated Recreation Area. Under 

recreation, please add: "Develop envimnmntal threshold canying capacities 

to define the capability of an area to accarmodate additional developent." 

Also, please add the follming to the fourth rereation directive: "Include 

nordic, bike, and mt&n bike trail systems where feasible." under 

protection, please add: "Mitigate avalanche hazards for occupied areas.'' 

( 1638 ) 

RESFCNSE: If needed, carrying capacity studies will be acmrrplished at the 

time that the recreation ccmp3site plan is ccmpleted. They may not need to 

be done for all concentrated recreation areas and therefore would not be 

bike, and mtain bike trails where they are applicable and are identified 

in the ampsite plans. The particular types of -trail uses are also 

identified in the Manag-t Area Direction as appropriate. Current 

mitigation on National Forest lands when avalanche hazard exists in developd 

sites is xmn-mmpancy. The pmpsed statement would imply that avalanche 

hazards that are located in concentrated recreation areas are all mitigated. 

That is not feasible mr desirable. The current procectUre of xmn-occupancy 

and avalanche warning bulletins is considered sufficient. 

included in the prescription 'on. "Full trail systems" includes mrdic, 

m: 

all c"fk for people wl-~ are not canping where trout are stccked. (03) 

Sl=€lNSE: We recognize that day-use par- is not adequate in many areas 

where it is most needed. This is in areas of high attraction, often 

associated with existing caqgamds and to serve also as guest par- for 

those stay- in the cm-. 

Propose that there be at least 5 to 10 par- places set aside in 

CO"l': 

when alternative canygmund sites have been constructed. (1099) 

RESPONSE: This action will be analyzed as part of a recreation oomposite 

plan for the Lakes Basin. Preparation of the oomposite plan is identified in 

the managmt direction for Management Area #8. Your suggestion has been 

proposed in past planning for the Lakes Basin. 

Phase out Pine City and lake front sites at Tkin Lakes wund 

CO"l': Continue managing closure hours for Hot Creek to maintain safe 

conditions. Strongly enmage dfweloping intqretive potential of the Hot 

Creek geologic site. (1099, 0129) 

RESPONSE: Refer to recreation direction for Managanent Area #9. 

COMMENT: Maintain existing capacity. Pennit no further developnent in Lee 

Vining Canyon. wood fires should be outlawed mt only in wildemess but in 

all caqgmunds along the Saddlebag Lake Road. Of special wncem is the 

Sawmill walk-in campground. I have seen people wa- into the Hall Natural 

Area to gather &. (1099, 1634) (140) 

135 
DEXEWPED RECREATION 

RESFQNSE: There will no new developnent on National Forest lands in Lee 

Vining Canyon except for the possible expansion of the area behind Ticga Lake 

for a small campground site. All other remaining potential for developnent 

in Lee Vining Canyon is located on private lands in the lower part of the 

canyon. If these lands were placed into public minership in the future, a 

recreation ccmposite plan would be canpleted that would analyze the potential 

of these lands for developnent. Many of these lands are already being used 

for overmght canping and the facilities are currently managed by Mom 

"ty. 

The new Sawmill Campground has been relocated 1/4 mile east of the Hall 

Natural Area. Due to recent avalanches and mad reconstxuction along the 

Saddlebag Road, there 1s an abundance of firewood in the area for campers to 

use at this time. All of the recreational facilities in the Ticga 

Pass-Saddlebag area are scheduled to be reconstructed m the near future. 

Included in this rehabilitation is the placement of new fire circles to 

limit the size of fire and discourage "ption of large quantities of 

wood. Because of the abwe situation, we do not see a wood problem at this 

time in the area. The need for restrictions on fires and the gathering of 

firewood would take place during the canpletion of the capsite management 

Plan. 

COMMEWT: 

(1099) 

Permit fuelwood gathering for recreational use in campgrounds only. 

RESPONSE: Most campgrounds and recreation sites are mt located within the 

general open fuelwood cutting area. Specially issued permits would be 

required for fuelwood cutters to obtain this wood. Usually the wood is 

available to the users of the campground only to be used for recreational use 

within the site. The exception would be tkse few campgrounds that are 

located within the general fuelwood cutting area. Downed trees within 

recreation site limits and within the open fuelwood cutting area are 

available to woodcutters as long as they do not damage the recreation site or 

travel off of the campground mads by ming barriers to get the wood. 

This practice has not presented a problem for the campers as there is 

generally plenty of wood available near these sites. The campgnxlnds in this 

category include Big Springs, Glass Ckeek, Hartley Springs, and Deadman. 

CC"'r: Write one vegetation management plan for developed recreation sites 

per District for this planning period. (1099) 

RESPONSE: We have many sites that need saw sort of vegetative management 

plan to maintain or improve the Vegetative cover for maxi" recreation 

potential. We have added the following wording to the visual resource 

direction for Management prescriptian #15: "utilize vegetative management 

plans for developed sites where on site vegetation is in a deteriorating 

amdition" . 

136 
DEvEIxlpED RECREATION 

m: Management Prescription #15 - belopea Recreation Site. The 

recreation element phrase "prohibit ORV use in and adjacent to sites" must be 

deleted since OW staging areas skuld be classed as a develop& recreation 

site. (68) 

RESPONSE: We have added the follmhg wording to the fourth recreation 

&rective for Prescription #15: "except OW staging areas". 

r"iT: The people who travel a lot tell me the canpg"& here are as 

poorly maintained as any they have found. Many of them are only partially 

open. Oh! kdge is a gd example of this. There are m conva-uent dump 

stations especially since the Crestview Reststop has been changed. There are 

no pull out areas for the traveler who just wants to stop for the night 

without the usual campground conveniences. The Grant Lake and Silver Lake 

private caqq1-0- have been raising their rates to the point where many of 

the mstaners who have been caning there for years have told me they will not 

cane back anymre. A tourist oriented county llke Inyo for all prac'ucal 

purposes does not have any decent c"u& at all. Bishop Creek used to 

have many beautiful spots to camp. (1199) 

"E: Because of low funding levels and having to maintain facilities at 

below standard levels, the condition of many sites have deteriorated. Many 

facilities are closed during the lower use seasons to reduce administrative 

costs. Wer the Final Plan, maintenance levels would be adequate to keep 

facilities in a satisfactory condition. The raismg of rates for any 

facility or attraction will change the patterns of use and the users. These 

facilities still are fully booked during the heavy use season. 

Bislmp CY& did offer many people the opportunity to camp in hghly 

desirable locations fm the user's viewpint. However, a high degree of 

damage was incurred on the soil, vegetative, and water resources at the my 

little areas where uncontrolled use took place. To protect and mitigate this 

resource damage, use has been contrt~lled to specific sites where the impacts 

mainly fm recreation vehicles could be maintained at acceptable levels. 

COWIWF: I suggest changing the first item regarding Big Springs Campground 

to add: "...and replace the present caqq1-0und with a day-use 

facility."( 1359) 

RESFONSE: An alternative location for the c- has been located and 

preliminary analysis ccmpleted. The best use of the existing Big Sprkgs 

site has not been determined at this time. The site ne& to be revegetated 

to reverse the almst total impacts to soil and vegetation resources. There 

are sane possibilities for day use that consist of fishermen parking, some 

pimic sites, and sane interesting interpretive potential oriented towards 

the Springs and the archeological significance of the Lookout Mountain quarry 

sites. Prior to ccmpletion of the analysis, it mld be premature to provide 

direction for developmt of this particularly sensitive site. 

137 
c"m: Management ma #11 - ocanrict-Md;ee. under recreaticn, consider 

adding: "If (sowley Lake is increased in size, consider expar&q NXee 

creek to the area acIoss the creek fm the existing camppmd." 

( 1359 ) 

-: Since expansion of -ley Lake is only in the formative stages 

and may never take place, it would be pren!ature to provide the suggested 

direction at this t-ime. There is patential for expansion a-s the stream 

fm the existing caqxpmund; however, the site has limited attraction since 

there is M tree cover and it will requira an expensive bridge to access the 

site. If (sowley Lake were to be raised, then expansion could be considered 

in the next planning pericd. 

cum": ~n Management Area #2 - Lee Vining, why do you need to pursue the 

acquisition of developable recreation land base in both Lee Vining and Lundy 

Canpn? How do you propose to pursue these acquisitions? Will they speed by 

candemnaticol procedures? (2201 ) 

RFSPCESE: Both Lee Vinirg and Lundy Canyons are highly attractive areas for 

recreation use. Both are adjacent to and associated with the Fbm Basin 

Scenic Area which has very little suitable land base for overnight 

developnent. Lee Vining Canyon is also located at the east entrance of 

Yosdte National Park. At the present time, the Forest Service provides 

only 60 camping units in the Ticga Pass area and Lee Vinirg Carryon. There 

are no mre suitable campgnxlnd sites except for the private lands in both 

carryons. These lands are currently owned by southern California Edison 

Canpany: camping is currently allawed on portions of these lands. 

Acquisition of these lands will be handled independently of the Forest 

planning process. would consist of if they 

W place are not currently knmn. 

What the acquisition p"=s 

C€MlEWE What is the extent of resoufce damage in "degraded sites" at 

develapea campsites? In an alternative 

based on reduction of developea site capacity, what percentage of reduction 

of existing capacity could be anticipated by ming "degraded sites?" 

Structural considerations such as reduction of developed campsites at heavily 

used areas. No developed campsite wncentrations in sensitive areas like 

Blccdy Canyon. (2178) 

RESPOUSE: -add sites generally refer to sites that are in need of 

rehabilitation of both the facilities and the site itself. General site 

degradation is caused by uncontrolled use of vehicles or nmhrs of people. 

Smtimes lack of facilities such as tent pads cause site degragation. These 

site impacts can be corrected by establishing controls and providing adquate 

facilities. Sanetimes facilities 

within a site will be relocated to an area better capable of handling the use 

such as the relocation of a road fran a meadow area to timber or brush 

cwered site. Part of the rehabilitation plan may irnrolve reducing capacity 

in 10% established use areas to protect the site and also provide a less 

CIDWded camping experience for the user. No develop4 campsite 

concentrations are planned for BloOay Canyon. 

Need an inventory of degraded sites. 

Very selh would a site be closed to use. 

138 
DFXFLOPED RECREATION 

m: Stabilize developd recreation at present levels with scme 

r&uction if necessary to protect resource diversity. (2178) 

"E: The Inyo National Forest has a major role in providing for the 

recreational enjoyment, activities and opportunCties for millions of Southem 

Californians. In general, the demand for most recreational activities 

exceeds the supply. The supply of potential campsites is limited and would 

allow approximately a 50% increase in camping opportunities which ultimately 

will not fully meet demand. Hawever, those recreational oppcrtunities that 

do exist are planned to cunplement other resource values such as visual, 

wildlife, fish, cultural, and vegetative resources. The goals and 

objectives set for the recreation ~ogram are still valid and should not be 

changed. 

m: Do not supprt exp- Tuff Cmpqod. (129) 

mF€RiSE: Tuff is a very popular canppnmd because of its 

location on Rock Creek which is a major stream in the Eastern Sierra. Any 

additional usable land along Rock cseek adjacent to the existing caqgnund 

beccmes very valuable as a public use zone that both campers and 

recreationists fm the outside will use. Rock Creek is one of the few 

streams that crosses U.S. 395 that is accessible for the public to use. The 

&rection in Management Area #14 remains as written. 

CXXMEWT: Area #2 - Lee Vining. The Forest Service should first 

cone to a conclusion regardirg the cartying capacity of Lee Vining and Lundy 

Canyons before land acquisitions. Riparian ecology is already 

severely impacted by campers in both canyons. I think it's a gd idea to 

"analyze recreation facility needs" in Rock Creek Canyon. I &"t think this 

area can handle many more people than it already has. If it hasn't been done 

previously, the cartying capacity of this canyon should be determined. (278) 

(1638, 2170) 

RFSPONSE: The Forest Service will determine the carrying capacity as part of 

developnent of a recreation ccmposite plan. No additional developrent would 

take place without first determiniq how much and where such developnent is 

appropriate. Detemrhirg carsYing capacity is important in developnent 

planning, not land acquisition. We k" that the private land in both 

drainages has valuable recreation attraction and potential. We also 

reoognize the detrimental impacts on the riparian vegetation due to the 

uncon.trolled nature of the use and the lack of appropriate facilities. Rock 

Creek Canyon is considered fully develaped. It currently has the largest 

overnight public cangg?md capacity of any drainage on the Forest. Any 

proposed additions in the Rock creek drainage would be to provide for day use 

and dispersed activities such as mall fisherman parking areas, trails and 

minor interpretation facilities. 

COrWlWT: 

create mre day-use facilities in popular areas. (906) 

I'd like to see the Forest Se-rvice improve exist- caqgnunds and 

139 
DEVELOPED RECREATION 

RESPONSE: Much of the direction in the Final Plan calls for hCreaSing the 

day-use, interpretive, and dispersed use facilities througbut the Forest. 

Also, the direction is to maintain and rehabilitate all of our existiq 

recreation developrents at full standard condition and make them avalable to 

the public for a full use season. Much of the additional trail system 

proposed under the Preferred Altemative is located in heavily used drainages 

to connect areas of use and interest, provide additional activities and 

attractions, and to acmmodate the same or larger numbers of people with a 

lot less impact on sensitive soil and vegetative resources. 

03"T: Managanent Area #4 - June Lake Loop. Please discuss the 

relationship between this area and the i%m Basin National Forest Scenic 

Area: please consider the "human carrying capacity" when planning for 

recreational developnent along the June Lake Loop. A cumulative assessment 

of potential ski developnent should include impacts to local cnnnunities and 

potential impacts fran increased water conslmrption. change "High Level 

Timber Managerent" and "Rarge Dnphasis" to "Limited Access". A survey 

conducted in 1985 by the June Lake Citizens Advisory carmittee indicated that 

there is a need for public mers, bike trails and ice skating facilities in 

the June Lake Imp. The same survey also supprts the lndicators that 

identify a need for mre hiking and nordic ski trails. (1617, 1638) (2170) 

RFSPONSE: We have added the follming wording to the description of 

Managerent Area #4: "The June Lake Loop will also provide much of the 

overnight base, in both public and private facilities, for users visiting the 

newly established Mono Basin Scenic Area." 

Other plannir~~ efforts will be taking place in the June Lake Loop that will 

be tiered to the Forest Land Managanent Plan or closely related to it. These 

include a recreation wnposite plan that will inventory, plan, and program 

the recreational developnent to take place on public land to fully meet the 

goals and objectives of the Forest Plan. The wnposite plan will determine 

carrying capacities and m-1 the types and locations of all facilities. 

For the June Lake Loop there would be both a sumner and winter element. Also 

there would be a developnent plan for the existing June Mountain Ski Area 

that would detail hm the Mountain ad bedevelopd to acccrrmOdate the 

proposed 7000 SAOT capacity that has been allotted. The cunnunity of June 

Lake and Mono County would also undertake planning efforts that the Forest 

Service would provide input to that would mesh developnent on private lands 

with that on public lands. A corridor viewshed plan ad identify all of 

the visual modifications that have taken place in the Loop and identify 

mitigation possibilities for those on public lands. These many planning 

efforts plus others would pruvide for wntz-olled and orderly change to take 

place with full lawyledge of the impads irrvolved. 

We have added the follming wordkg to the recreation direction for 

Managanent Area #4: "cosrdinate with the Ocmrmnity of June Lake to determine 

the needs of the "nmity when ccmpleting the recreation oanposite plan. " 

In the Final Plan, timber managemnt west of U.S. 395 will be managed under 

the Prescription #9 which allows for uneven aged managanent only. 

140 
DEVELOPED RECREATION 

m: Manag-t Area #5 - Glass Mountain. Please add to the seocold 

directive: "Reevaluate the use of and consider the need to upgrade the 

caqqmund if slu area expansion in this area is approved." (1638) 

RESPONSE: The direction has been dfied. If this area is developed for a 

ski area the base area may or may not occupy the site currently coxpied by 

the campground (Hartley Springs). In any case the total values currently 

found XI the area would change and overnight camping in this area would be 

reevaluated as to its relationship to the ski area and base facility. 

CCBMEZW: Mamtain developed sites the Reds Meadav Valley toward the 

primit.lve end of developnent scale to provide experience contrast with mre 

developed sites in Mamnoth. (1099) 

"E: "Taiard the primitive end of the developnent scale" denotes the 

type of recreational facility and use that is very low key with a "I of 

facilities and controls, and very lmited use and densities of populations. 

The Red's Meadows drainage is highly visible, popular, heavily used, and 

intensively developed with up-to-date facilities. All types of 

recreationists are encouraged to use the area. No distinction is made as to 

the types or sizes of recreational vetucles that can use the area. However, 

many design features can be incorporated to make it appear that the use is 

not as intense as it is in the Lakes Basm. The increased depenaence on the 

shuttle system and reduced use of private autos, greater spacing between camp 

units, less carmercial developnent, an adequate trail system to encourage 

other ways of getting murid instead of the auto, and less obtrusive controls 

would all contribute to a mre relaxed, slow paced atmsphere and existence. 

HcuJever "primitive" generally means a few people doing what they want, where 

they want to do it with very little control, and that situation does not 

exist, nor would it be very popular if management dmection called for such a 

situation. Red's Meadow has its own values and opportunities that are 

different fm anytlur~~ on the Forest. These values should be ezphasized and 

become the focus of the recreation developnent for the drainage. The 

recreation direction for Management Area #10 will remain as written. 

C0"T: Management Area #lo. Under the recreation direction, emphasize 

developrwlt of the upper end of the? Red's Meah Valley to better distribute 

concentrated use in the area. (1099) 

RESPONSE: The Red's Meadow mgenent area direction calls for the 

developnent of a recreation oanposite plan. "Ius plan will propose the 

develowt options and define the final developnent solution for the area. 

Direction in the Forest Plan to develop the Agnew Meaday area would be 

premature without all information pertaining to where the best developnent to 

protect the resource and seme the public should take place. 

CCBMEZW: Management Area #2 - Lee Vining. Lundy Canyon, one of wildest 

and most spectacular eastside canyons, should not be further developed for 

141 
reu-eaticn -is. Lee vinirg canycll, wbile less pristine than Lmdy, also 

hosts an incredible diversity of flara and fauna. Greater hman encroachment 

on these riparian habitats will further diminish the quality of riparian 

lands on the Inyo. (1634) 

m: The only developrent proKsed for Lmdy Canyon would be cm private 

lands if acquired by the Forest Service. Canping is already allawed on the 

private land and ackinistered by kbm County. If acquired and aclninistered 

by the Forest SenriCe, the current use would be mre tightly controlled to 

reduce the impact on the riparian lesource. The overnight accamodations in 

Lmdy Canyan would not be increased over the exi- capacity of about 30 

units. The direction for Lundy Caqm,would come fmn preliminary stu&Les 

and an envi"ental analysis when and if the land is acquired. 

Appmximtely 250-350 units of ovwmight use currently takes place cm private 

land in Lee Vinkg Canycm. This use is currently administered by bkxm County 

and much of it takes place in the riparian zone and imnediately adjacent to 

the stream. If the Forest Service were respmsible for administering this 

area, any use taking place in the riparian zones mld be relocated to dry 

brush and timber covered sites away fmn the stream corridor. The streamside 

corridor mld be retained for trail systems and mt for campsites and 

vehicles. Direction for the Lea Vinhq Carryon developnent would caw fmn a 

recreaticBl mnpsite plan if the private land were acquired. 

m: A park and ice skating circle and Warming hut would balance out the 

general recreational value of Ma"th Lakes area and enhance its family 

appeal. (370) 

RESPONSE: The need for an ice skating rink has been proposed in the past and 

there are many options for construction of such. This is a facility that 

could be mtructed m public land. Hawever, it could also be related to a 

cmniudty park or recreational facility as part of a County or city facility 

or as part of a private ccmplex. It probably has not happr-14 to date as it 

would be an expensive facility with marginal e" 'c return. As the 

cmniudty grows, this facility will becane mre likely. A key factor will be 

location and association with the proper developrent. 

m: Nmc"ptive recreation should be given a higher priority. 

Public lands have not increased the availability of caqgrounds 

proportiOnately. People that use these facilities should be made to pay a 

fee for their use with increased fees for increased amenities such as piped 

water, garbage pickup and flush toilets. Priority should be placed on 

primihve camping because the private sedor seems to be continually 

increasing the nmhr of campgrounds of the KOA type. I do mt agree with 

allming a concessionaire to manage advance reservations for wildemess 

permits. (1616) (36, 37, 40, 42, 62, 122, 129, 214, 936, 1099, 1532, 1586, 

1691, 1775, 1814, 1843, 1860, 1938, 2059, 2113, 2120, 2160) 

RFSPONSE: Basically everythiq outside of concentrated recreation zones, ski 

areas, and wilderness is available for dispersed and primitive camping. 

Hawever, mast available land is mt suitable for vehicle caq~ing of a 

142 
dispersed nature. Most of the available land on the Inyo is roadless, 

unusually steep, and has little -tiom1 appeal because it has little 

suitable vegetative cover or available water. 

What appear to be highly dewlopea mntL-Olled "& have reduced use 

1950's and early 1960's had about 500 campsites scattered wherever anyone 

wanted to camp. This has been reduced to appraximately 250 units by 

ccoltrolling and pulling units back from the sensitive water zones and 

riparian areas. Many areas have still not recovered as evidenced by 

canpacted soils around Lake Mary, Lake George, and Horseshce Lake. Bishop 

creek has been reduced by approximately 150 units, the Rush creek corridor in 

the June Lake hxp by over 300 units, and the small sites in the Tiqa Pass 

area by over 100 units. Primitive camping opportunities have historically 

ended up being camper cities that virtually destruyed the very environment 

the users came to enjoy. The volume of use no larger all- the individual 

to pick his awn cmpsite in highly sensitive soil, water, and vegetative 

in highly aeVelOpea areas by up to 50%. The Mamnoth Lakes basin in the 

zones. 

As facilities are added, the cost to the user goes up. It is the objective 

of the Forest Service to provide what be provided by the public while 

proteting all ~~SOU~C~S to provide basic facilities. This usually means 

facilities between the primitive undeveloped campsite and the KOA 

caqqmund. The densities found in privately run -mds and RV parks is 

dictated mainly by eccormics. 15 units per acre is necessaq if they hope to 

make a profit. The Forest Service's goal is to provide a camping facility 

more closely resembling wildland camping. 

It is unclear what you mean regarclhg wilderness pennit reservations. We do 

have a camggruund concessiunaire that manages the trailhead resemation quota 

for the Big Pme Cr& drainage. This system is meant to provide a service 

to the public, most of which come fm Southern California. Without this 

service, the public would have to drive to Bi-p and turn around and drive 

back to the trailhead. If you are referring to the reservation service for 

the Mt. Whitney trail, that is being handled under an agrement with the 

Eastern Sierra Interpretive Association. federal legislation encourages 

federal agencies to "contract" out this service where appropriate. 

m: Gppe the developnent of a golf wurSe on Doe Ridge on the Shemin 

allotment because there are other areas in Mam~th for golf coupses on 

private land. (1192) (1522) 

FUSFQNSE: Doe Ridge is being handled through a separate envixonmental 

analysis process; a decision will be made before the Forest Plan is 

oanpleted. 

aB": In the section about recreation residences on Page IV-28, please 

add after the first sentence: "In cumnunity areas such as June Lake, utilize 

the local general plan to determine future use." (1638) 
DmPED TION ON 

RFSPONSE: Local general plans may very well identify options and make 

recarmendations for future use of recreation residences in and adjacent to 

Comrmnity areas. However, a separate future use detenninatmn will still be 

done for recreation residence permits. Local general plans are usually 

guiding documents that provide direction for other gavernmental agencies to 

make decisions. The ?xa"btior!s in a general plan that pertain to public 

land would be considered m all Forest Service planning and study documents 

relating to the specific area covered. 

CX3"W.: Request that the text on Page IV-28 be expanded to acMunt for the 

stewardship role that recreation residence pennittees perform. The follming 

draft text is suhnitted for consideratmn for inclusion. HxAxrically, the 

Forest Service has been adequately staffed to meet all the visitor needs and 

to manage all the visual and natural resources in our National Forests. 

Forest staffing constraints are mitigated by the recreation residence pennit 

system, wherein permittees act as de facto stewards of our National Forests 

in the absence of Forest Service persaMel. Sane of the stewardship tasks 

performed by recreational residence permittees (at the Whitney Portal Tract) 

in the Inyo Forest include: 

1. Radioing to the nearest tawn to alert law enforcement personnel of 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

emergency. 

Assisting lost and disoriented hikers, both in season and during the 

deep 41ow of winter. 

Infonning visitors, when necessary, of the mles protecting lakes 

and streams and against dar~~e.ruusly large campfires. 

Reporting damage to campground and day-use area water systems. 

?&mitoring the pattern and extent of rmte landslides, pest 

infestations and wildlife activity, and sharing these observations 

with the Forest Service Resource Officer and CDFG warden. 

Giving directions and safety tips to visitors and sha5-g local 

historical, biological and geological information with thm. 

Dousing and reporting abandoned campfires, turning off unattended 

campgmund faucets and picking up trash strewn throughout the 

Forest. 

Removing fallen rocks, boulders, trees and 0th~- obstacles fran 

roads. 

Maintaining and refurbishing road signs and trail markers. 

Performing incidental repair to trails. 

Deterring vandalism to resources by their presence in the 

off-season. 

These tasks highlight scme of the benefits that the Forest Service derives 

fram recreational residence perrmttees. They are part of the public/private 

partnership of which the President so frequently speaks. We ask that the 

Plan recOgnize the valid, cost-effective role that such permittees play as 

stewards of the Forest. (1278) 

RESFCNSE: The Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for recreation residences 

identify those guidelines that apply to the adbninistration of the recreation 

residence program on the Inyo National Forest. The abe list of benefits 

listed may be just s~me of the benefits and services provided by recreation 

residence permittees, but they are not guidelines for Forest Service 

144 
DISPERSED RECREATION 

achninistration of sumner hane sites, nor would they be considered as part of 

the conditions for holm a recreation residence permit. They are not 

appropriate for inclusion in the Plan. 

CCMdDT.: 

residences in the Mamnoth Lakes Basin to the cabin owners. (231) (120) 

RESPONSE: The highest value of public land in the mth Lakes Basin or any 

othex heavily used concentrated recreation area on the Inyo National Forest 

is for recreation use and developnent. We have programs that identify and 

pruvide financing for the purchase of private lands in these areas. Over two 

mllion dollars has been spent m the Lakes Basin alone to acquire valuable 

recreational lands. Recreational residences are considered a recreational 

resource. Lands occupied by recreational residences in prime recreational 

areas will not be sold into private ownership. Recreation residences lands 

will only be considered for private merslup when they are a lcgical part or 

extension of an established cc"ity and do not occupy critical habitat or 

natural resource lands. This has taken place in both the Mamwth and June 

Lake Ccmmnulities. 

Consider selling the land that is presently leased for recreational 

Dispersed RecTBaticm 

CCMdDT.: Management Prescription #7 - Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest. 

Under the recreation direction, &fy the statement abut overnight parkirg 

to read: "Permit no parking at any time." Hunters should not be allowed the 

special privilege of camping in parking lots. (2170) 

RESPONSE: The intent of this direction is to allow hunters to park ovexnight 

only in areas designated for this purpose. The parking areas are not 

necessarily parking lots. It is not practical to allow hunting and overnight 

camping and not allow parties to park overnight. However, because of the 

sensitive of the area, the Forest Service has the responsibility to 

designate areas where parking can be accoIlpTDdated in a safe and responsible 

manner. 

CCNMFRT: Management Area #4 - June Lake Loop. Please add to the third 

directive for recreation: "inbrface trail systems with Ccmmnulity 

developnent: include opportunities for muntain bike and nordic trails." 

Please delete "and Rx #17" frun the first sentence of the fourth directive. 

Also replace "Rx #17" with "the Yost Lake area" in the second sentence. 

(1638) 

RESFGNSE: We have reworded the third directive under recreation to read: 

"Identify and prcgram dispersed trail facilities in areas in Rx #4, #12, and 

#17. Include hiking, equestrian, and bicycle opportunities." 

The recreational values and opportunities for the area identified as 

Prescription #17 or Yost Cceek are in the semi-primitive non-motorized ROS 

145 
DISPERSED -TION 

class. 'Ilae area is mt remrte ~31: large exugh to be classified as primitive 

and the vegetation, soils, and steepess of terrain are mt cay?atible with 

motorized activities. The fourth directi ve will remain as written. 

cuwwr: The developEd c"d ha9 sent me runnirg with my tail between 

my legs and the few areas left to us are Buttemilk, ooyote, the Inyos and 

Whites. I see 

mre and mm existiq dirt mads shut down so that a person is always being 

funneled into a crowd. Why can't we keep sane of thDse roads open just so a 

person can pull off the main stream and have sane privacy? (183) (5, 67, 77, 

79, 88, 97, 116, 119, 298, 345, 377, 400,. 438, 466, 481, 933, 950, 952, 1025, 

1099, 1183, 1188, 1191, 1230, 1277, 1332, 1333, 1348, 1372, 1388, 1411, 1424, 

1430, 1451, 1485, 1517, 1521, 1532, 1543, 1565, 1566, 1576, 1630, 1648, 1649, 

1650, 1652, 1663, 1682, 1683, 1714, 1744, 1860, 1868, 1889, 1907, 1931, 1938, 

1980, 1982, 2007, 2035, 2177, 2185, 2190, 2195, 2209) 

RESPONSE: Buttermilk, Cbyote, Upper Deadman, the Inyos and Whites will 

essentially remain available to those who do not like develope3 sites and 

areas. In the Fjnal Plan M roads are to be closed and me are to be 

upgraded fm 4wD to 2wD. will increase in 

the next planning pricd, they will be located in areas #at are already 

developed and fully accessible. 

These are places where you feel like you &"t need a permit. 

Even though developed 

IXiWDTF: Recreation is the largest inCane generator in the region, and 

non-destructive dispersed recreation should preckmna ' te as a resource 

dedication. (59) 

RESPONSE: On the Inyo National Forest, dispersed recreation is of very high 

priority. Ekcept for wilderness, the amxlnt of dispersed recreation is 

directly related to the number of overnight campsites, mtel -, and local 

residents within one to two burs of the destination. Most dispersed users 

cam from the available campsite base. There are no large mtxopolitan bases 

fm which dispersed users are generated. Therefore, the -?Amities and 

potential for dispersed day-use activities exceeds the demand on the Inyo as 

long as proper setbacks of developed facilities are maintained from highly 

attractive features. 0-1 the Iqa, as elsewhere, the main attraction is 

usually water. There is a current lack of facilities oriented taw& 

dispersed recreation outside of wilderness. Facilities oriented tward day 

use such as fisherman parking, trails and paths, sanitation, and information 

or inte.rpretive boards are a major -is item in the Forest Plan. This 

direction will be further detailed in recreation canposite plans that will be 

tiered to the Forest Plan. 

COW4EWF: There is not enough mphasis on the increasing demand for dispersed 

recreation opportunities by the local carmunity in Mamroth. (1099) (1891) 

RESFQNSE: Managwent Areas #8, #9, #lo, and #11 all are located close by or 

adjacent to the cnnnunity of Ma"# Lakes. All of these areas have 

managwent direction anphasizing the develapnent of dispersed opp3rtunities 

and the associated facility base reqnred ' for increased use generated by the 

146 
DISPERSED RECREATION 

"nmity. Of particular iqmrtanca are the eqmmlhg trail systems for 

hikh& nordic skiing, src"biliq, bicycling, and equestrian use proposed 

by the Plan. Interface with the cammities of ~ammth Lakes and JW Lake 

will be acccmplished through coaperative plw and developnent efforts. 

m: Prohibit dispersed camping alq ccolvict Creek. Prohibit dispersed 

camping and opsn fires along the shores of ccolvict Lake and inlet area. 

( 1099 ) 

RESWNSE: Dispersed camping should not generally be taking place in a 

concentrated recreation zone. The remeation direction in Management 

Prescription #12 inplies this when it says to control camping and confine 

overflajl cccupancy to amptable sites. We have mJdified the text as 

follows: "Ctmtrol canping; allow no dispersed camping unless designated in 

management area recreation direction; omfine overflow.. .'I. 

Cc"T: Need to add a recreation element and 

state that viewing of wild horses is a significant activity in this area. 

(1261) (105) 

RESFQNSE: We have added sone language in the description of the PiZOM area 

that describes the imprtance of the wild horse herd is this management 

area. Recreation use is identified as extremely limited, consistkg of 

occasional hunters, 4WD, and carmercial paclurg outfitter-guide operations. 

The crmnercial guide operations may be for hunting reasons or for the 

of viewing the wild horses. 

Management Area #6 - Pi". 

aMMIWl': Cansideration should be given to trying to remve the potential 

bicycle and equestrian traffic fran the more crowded and popular local mads 

such as U.S. 395 between Mammth and June Lakes resort areas with separate 

designated and maintained trails/pathways. (1608) 

RESFQNSE: The desirable location for bike paths in heavily used recreation 

areas and along major highway corridors would be alignments separated fran 

motor vehicles; these paths: could take better advantage of the more 

attractive recreation zones. Areas that have great potential for such bike 

paths are the Mamnoth Lakes Basin, June Lake Loop, the Mamuoth catmum 'ty, the 

Mammth creek corridor, the Scenic Loop Road and U.S. 395 between Mammth and 

June Lake. 

Bicycle paths are exhrernely expensive to build and maintain. Their 

construction generally starts where the greatest potential for use and 

conflict with autos is readily apparent. The three primary areas that would 

benefit from bike paths at this time separate fran the major highways are the 

Lakes Basin, the Town of Mammth Lakes and the June Lake Loop. U.S. 395 is 

currently being uggraded to a four lane divided highway fran Mamnoth to the 

June Lake Loop. The shoulders on this new highway will be widened to safely 

accarmodate bicycles. This is not the most desirable solution but is a safe 

and acceptable one at this time. Direction is located in Management Areas 

147 
DISPERSED RECREATION 

#4, #8, and #9 encouraging the developnent of bike trail systems in 

mowation with lccal ccmnunities. 

C€WlENE "Dispersed recreation would be managed with an emphasis on the 

quality of experience, rather than the guantity of use." Many of the mst 

suitable dispersed recreation lands are targeted for developnent (Management 

Prescriptions #10 and #14). There is conflict between a grawing numter of 

visitors seeking a mre primitive type of recreation experience and the 

mal of the type of land base which best supports this type of use. This 

is especially evident in Management Area #8. (2185) 

SFQNSE: Within Managenent Area #8, all of the areas whu3-1 have 

Prescription #14 applied to then currently offer primitive, semi-primitive 

non-mtorized, and semi-primitive mtorized activities and opportunities. At 

this time, these 15,523 acres are not dedicated to downhill skiing but are 

only identified as havirg the potential for downhill skiing. These areas 

will be studied for that potential in a separate environmental analysis 

process. Part of the study will be to reccgnize and mitigate conflicts with 

other resources if any of these potential ski areas are approved for 

developnent . 

CCmEPW: In the DEIS, you state: "The majority of dispersed recreation on 

the Inyo National Forest represents day use in wncentrated recreation areas 

by people wb are staying overnight on Forest Senrice campgmunds." The only 

way to increase dispersed use would be to increase overnight developea 

capacity, both on and off Forest. (2178) 

RESFQNSE: We agree. This 1s recognized throughout the documents. 

CCmEPW: In the DEIS, you state: "...increasing numbers of recreationists 

will recreate outside of peak use seasons due to developnent of mtorkmes 

and campers designed for year-round use." What is your basis for this 

assunqtion (studies, reports)? (2178) 

RESFQNSE: This assumption is based primarily on observation of use pattems 

over the last 20 years. Wre and mre mtorhane and camper use is evident 

during the winter months, particularly in the Mammth area. We expect this 

increase in use to wntinue related to the increased cost of housing during 

the ski se-, the greater use of year-round school systems, and the 

increasing use of mtorkms by the retiremen t c!a"ity. 

m: What is the basis for the assuption that wilderness recreation and 

hunting visitation are rat dependent to a degrea on develo@ recreation? 

(2178) 

RESFiNSE: Developd recreatian is referring to the developed campgmund in 

both the private and public sedor. On the Inyo National Forest, mst 

dispersed day use is generated fm this developed caqgmud base or is 

housed in lcdging in the local cc"ities. Wilderness users do not 

148 
DISPERSED RECREATION 

generally use develapea cmppnnd facilities except for the first or last 

night of their trips. Hunters do mt dem on developea campgrounds; they 

use them if they are rxmvenient to the area they want to hunt. In many 

cases, caqgr0LIIX3S are full during hunting season, but, for the mst part, 

hunters mld camp as a dispersed activity if caqgn3und.s were not 

available. In other words, hunting wDuld take place at current levels 

whether caqgn3unds were or were not available. 

m: Do mt abolish the camping area where it is m, across fm the 

old Cottonwood Pack Station on LADWP land until you finish all the caqirg 

area up at”. (2196) 

“E: Part of the expansion of developd recreation opportunities in the 

Final Plan includes the construdion of new campground facilities in the 

trailhead area. Once the new are develaped, the Forest Sexvice 

would seek cooperation fran the City of Los Angeles to eliminate the use 

along the stream and road corridors below the trailhead. 

(XmIEW: Recreational shaoting Outside of hunting season is a health and 

safety hazard to all other users: there must be m recreational shooting on 

the Forest. (381) 

-E: In wilderness, the discharge of firearms is permitted only for 

emergencies and taking of wildlife as prmCtted by state game laws. 

Recreational shcoting within wilderness is mt allwed. The code of Federal 

Regulations CFR 261.10 (D), states: “Discharging a firearm or any 0thiqlement capable of taking human life, causing injury, or damaging property: 

(1) In or within 150 yards of a residence, building, campsite, developed 

recreation site, m occupied area, or (2) across or on a forest developnent 

road or a body of water adjacent themto, or in any manner or place whereby 

any persm or property is exposed to injury or damage as a result in such 

discharge, is prohibited.“ These regulaticms are generally adequate and 

eliminate any problems or conflicts. There are cases where rmre restrictive 

regulations are necessary such as in relation to camunities and private 

inholdings where the cinmty and the Forest Service cooperatively establish m 

shooting zones. 

UM-IEW.: The weather pattems in the Sierra and White Mountain ranges 

sw”Eq the Owens Valley are ideal for long distance cross-country and 

high altitude flights for hang gliding. The Inyo National Forest/oWens 

Valley is, witbut exaggeration, the nost well kr” fly- site in the 

world. International cxqetition has taken place on the Inyo Forest yearly 

since 1979. The Chens Valley (SOss-Cbun~ Classic has been the nmhr one 

cross-country meet in the world since its inception. The sport of hang 

gliding has very little impact an the environwnt. Hmever, we do need 

access to goOa launch points on the Sierra and White ICnmtain ranges within 

the Inyo National Forest. There are currently a ample of well-used launches 

in the Sierras includirg the very famous Walt’s Point launch near Horseshoe 

Meadows, Wheeler C’rest. Cn the eastern side of the valley, there are about a 

149 
DISPERSED FUXRFATION 

dozen launches in use in the white Kmntains including Cerro Gardo, Mazurka 

and Gxrtar. (1658) 

RESWNSE: All of the launch points mti- will remain available for harig 

gliding. Specific dirw.3~ 'on for managanent of these launch sites is not 

necessary in the Forest Plan as conflict with other uses is not krxxn to 

OCCUT and i3npact.s to resources are genwW1y rxm-existent. 

m: cancerning trails, the Town of Mammth Lakes wld like to see dcg 

sled trails in the Inyo National Forest Plan at the followkg areas: the 

Sawmill Cutoff Road, the Sherwin creelc Road, additional track in the meadow 

area with the approval of the &psstxian Centex, and the area west of U.S. 

395 lomwn as the Marmr>th Scenic Loop area. (1891) 

RESPONSE: The Forest Plan does not identify individual trail oprhmities 

as to location and type. Ecg sled trails have not been pmped as a widely 

accepted form of win- recreation use in the Mammth or June Lake areas. If 

the need is truly present for this rwxeaticmal activiiy, then the commurr 'ty 

of Mammth Lakes, a sledding organization, a potential pennittee, or a 

carrmercial outfitter needs to identify a specific proposal and ask for 

consideration by the Forest S&ce. Cc" 'ty p1ard.w~ efforts should 

identify the need, magnitude and potential locations for such bail 

developat. Recreation direction calling for trail opprhmities with the 

cxnnxmiiy of Manrmth Lakes exists in Management Area #9. This would allm 

for the consideration and location for ckg sled bails. 

m: I urge that a prescription be added to repair the Shepherd Pass 

trail to allow for stock in the managemntplan. (172) (173, 178, 179) 

RESF"SE: The Shepherd Pass trail is inventoried on the Forest as an all 

purpose trail which includes suitability for stcck travel. It is scheduled 

for rexnstzuction in the Forest prqram of work, but accanpliSment is 

depndent on funding. 

CXBMEWT: Need to establish better control over carmercial pack station 

service day allocations to avoid a pack station frun using all sexvice days 

in a short prid of time. In other words, establish service-day limits per 

time mid for carmercial outfits to "ize damage to wilderness resources 

and impacts to other wilderness users. (1099) 

RSFQNSE: Pack station special use permits require the permittee to prepare 

an annual operating plan. The special use pmnit contains the maxi" nunker 

of service days allowed under that permit. The operating plan prepared by 

the permittee and apprwed by the Forest Service is the document that spells 

out where, when, and how those service days will be used. If there are any 

conflicts identified between other users or in areas used by the permittee, 

the operating plan is the document used to resolve tbse conflicts. 

Direction in an operating plan is site specific and changes from year to 

year. It mld not be appropriate to include this type of information in the 

Forest Plan. 

150 
DISPERSED RECREATION 

ClMEXt!: -bit stock within established diqxxsed campsites, all 

interpretive sites, and riparian areas. (1099) 

RESKNSE: ’fhere are- ‘ restrictions which apply to stock use in 

wi~derness dispersed areas. Stock are only allowed in cqites for loading 

and unloadirg of gear. Interpretive sites are developed sites, and as such 

it is prohibited under the code of Federal Regulations CFR 261.14(1) to bring 

pack or saddle stock into the site unless is is otherwise psted to do so. 

As a general rule, the Forest tries to mid putting trails in riparian 

areas. Sanetimes it is mt psible to locate a trail outside these areas, 

and where the riparian resource is fragile, we try to hanlen the trail 

through these areas to reduce inpact. However, it is impractical to prohibit 

stock grazing in riparian areas as a blanket statement. There are 

restrictions on grazing to protect riparian areas. Loose grazing as opposed 

to picketing is preferred; this is less damaging to the meadows. Grazing is 

prohibited early in the season until the ground has dried out and the 

vegetatim has matured to the pint whera grazing can take place without 

damaging the resource. Areas can be closed to grazing during the se- when 

the feed has been properly utilized. 

CCMMENT: Trails for equestrian use should be developed in the Mammth 

comidor allowing access of riders to or frun the John Muir Wildemess to 

U.S. 395 to the open areas beyond Matm~~th Lakes. (1260) (1261, 1645) 

RESFONSE: There is a need to closely Mordinate with the canrmnity of 

Mammth Lakes with a trails plan that would identify the full range of 

hiking, equestrian, bicycle, mrdic and “ambile trails that could 

interface with the ozm”ity. A trails plan needs to be developed for the 

area fm the Marrm3th area to the June Lake Loop. Generally trail 

developcent will be identified and proposed through recreation aauposite 

plans which would include the Lakes Basin, Red’s Meadow, the Deam-Dry 

creek area mrth of Mammth and the June Lake Loop. Where ccmposite plans 

are mt praposed, the specific trail needs are identified in specific 

management area &retion. 

tXm4ElW: Stock should at least be confined only to the John Muir, Pacific 

Crest and other “freeways.“ Stock do not need to go into Cascade and Fish 

Creek Valleys or up into McGee and Rock Creek Canyons. (1634) 

=-E: The trals you refer to are in wildmess. Prescription #1 - 

Designated Wildemess contams direction to manage stock use for these and 

other areas within wildmess. Stock parties are under trailhead quotas the 

same as other users. Party size and nmhr of stock per party can be limited 

to a size that is cmpatible with the social and physical resources. The 

capacity of each area is calculated and trailhead quotas are developed to 

manage these areas within their capacities. Pack stations are authorized 

under special use permit to serve areas adjacent to their base of 

opratim. The areas you identify are in demand by the public to be 

accessed by pack stock. The annual operating plan prepared for each pack 

station and approved by the Forest Service spells out how stock will be used 

151 
DISPERSED RECRFATION 

in these areas. 

and the permittee is bound to the dtions approved in tbose plans. 

Any identified conflicts are resolved in the operating plan 

m: Roadhead parking and facilities should be provided for private 

equestrian users and overnight tie up areas. Public pasture where feasible. 

These do not need to be paved parking areas. Designate for equestrian use 

but do not limit to equestrian. A horse trailer rig takes up no more space 

than a motorkm. Fquestxian use of the Bristlecone Forest should be 

encouraged, and areas where water may be found should be identified for use. 

Pi- is also an important recreation area for private equestrian use and 

should be directed as such. (1645, 1260) (1261, 1645) 

"E: Mst of the stock use trails on the Forest have trailheads that 

can accoRIDdate stock vehicles. Not every trailhead has developed unloading 

facilities, but sone do. Very often there is a carmercial pack station in 

the vicinity of a trailhead that has stock facilities that would be available 

to the public for use. The new Meam Fquestrian Guqgmund has 

facilities for overnight use by stock users. When the Forest reconstructs a 

trailhead, part of the design precess is to evaluate the need for stock 

facilities and to incoqorate them where desirable. Public pastures are 

difficult to maintain and essentially have been phased out. 

Fquestrian use of the Bristlecone Pine Farest is not encouraged because of 

the steep access road, absence of water in the area, and potential conflicts 

with day hikers that are using the interpretive trails. These interpretive 

trails are not designed for stock use, and the trailheads do not have 

facilities for unloading or tying stock. Use of the Bristlecane Pine Forest 

by stock outside of the interpretive sites and trails is legitimate. Water 

for stock use in the Bristlecone Phe Forest is scarce and undependable. 

The Pi- area is presently used by both wmnercial and private stock 

parties. The Forest does not have any plans to enmurage or discourage stock 

use of this area: water is scarce and there are no develop3 facilities for 

stock use. 

CCWlRW.: Coyote area. The en* road should be included in a maintenance 

program. A sign at points of entry is needed specifying the guidelines for 

use such as the requirements of fire permits and haul out what you take in. 

It is a potential area for greater private equestrian usage and shDuld be 

recognized as such. With the Bishop area 1y3w having a larger ppulation of 

trail riders and a very active High Sierra Equestrian mail Riders Club, this 

is an area that can be used without canptjng with camercial wildemess use 

area. 

"E: The Coyote Road is presently being maintained under a Green 

Sticker Grant fmm the state. Amther Green Sticker Grant will fund a 

self-service infomation statim to be located at the foot of the mountains. 

The back road to Coyote leaving fnrn the south Fork Bishop Creek Road is a 

good access route that is not open to OHV travel and which does not need much 

maintenance. This would be a gccd mte for some oryanizatim to adopt for 

maintenance. 

Hopefully we can continue to keep the caniping primitive. (1645) 

152 
DISPERSED RECREATION 

ct"m!: I am con"& about the destruction incurred by packtrains. On 

my trip to Thousand Island Lake, a pack train of ten horses spent one hour 

grazing on fragile alpine meadows "duq ' the base of the lake where even 

camping is forbidden. A week later, I toak a kip to the Deer Lakes area. 

After we set up camp at Lower Deer Lake, a pup of ten horses, nine mles 

and nine or ten people came and c@ in the fragile madm behind the 

lake. I felt like I 

was camping in a dude ranch. It is destructive to the fragile backmuntq 

meadaus. (2034) 

RESPONSE: One of the problems with stock grazing in the wilderness or 

back count^^ is the preferred method of grazing of turning the stock lase 

with or without hobbles. Restricting grazing in a particular area that is 

adjacent to areas whm grazing is allowed is difficult to wnbx~l. The 

stock wander unless the area is fenced off. Substantial fencing in the 

wilderness or other areas is really not feasible. The reasons for a 

prohibition on camping in an area may not be valid for restricting stock 

grazing. Stock grazing by packers is regulated by their special use permit 

and an annual opratiq plan that is approved by the Forest Service. If 

there are specific problem areas within the area serviced by a particular 

pack station, the operating plan is the "vehicle" for spelling out the 

mitigative measures necessary to alleviate that problem. 

This kind of activity ruins the wildemess experience. 

ct"m!: The individual horse user should be included m any planning for 

the future of the Inyo Nakonal Forest, the same as cross-country skiers, 

fishermen, hunters, or hikers. (2206) 

RESPONSE: We have revised one of the Standards and Guidelines for dispersed 

recreation to read: "Imrprate the increasing demand for mountain b&e, 

equestrian, bicycle, and nordic appsrtunities into -site plans, ca"ity 

plans, trail plans, and programs." There is adequate direction for 

Programning equestrian trail opprtunities for Management Areas #4, #8, #9, 

#lo, #14, and #15. These opprtum 'ties will generally be handled through the 

ocmposite plan process. 

ct"m!: We are experiencing ever increasing mnmtain bike usage on and off 

park trails and in wilderness, where such use is prohibited. Consequently, 

if you develop such trails on the Forest, we would like to work with your 

planning staff to ensure that the resultiq trails do not become routes into 

National Park wilderness. (487) 

RESPONSE: When a trail system is identified for mountain bike use, public 

involvement in lccathg and developing the trails and public review of the 

proposal will be built into the process. We muld not like to create a 

situation where muntain bikes were oriented towards National Parks or 

designated wilderness. 

m: In OUT opinion, the Forest Service should develop a Forest-wide 

managment plicy on muntain bicycle access. We feel that each trail should 

153 
DISPERSED RECREATION 

be evaluated fmn the starQmints of level of usage and ernriroamen tal impact. with any potential amflicts examind ahead of %. It could then be 

determired which trails wxld be open to bicycles and these should be 

marked. mtain bicyclists skuld be exaxaged to Participate in trail 

building and maintenance rather than beirg ostcacized. bhmtain bicycling is 

a quiet, human pauered and m-polluting means of experienc- the beauty of 

the Inyo National Forest and other natural areas of OUT country. We feel 

that with proper resxrce allocaticm and an * oftheneedSam3 

limitaticns of mtain bicycles, this activity can be enjoyed by all who 

participate without ewi"mtal damage or conflict with other users. (974) 

(23, 129, 214, 293, 300, 340, 381, 400, 919, 923, 1032, 1099, 1104, 1105, 

1232. 1216. 1253. 1286. 1315. 1316. 1407. 1464. 1466. 1532. 1537. 1541. 1584. 

1585; 1604; 1616; 1634; 1650; 1653; 1664; 1666; 1674; 1842; 1843; 1920; 1923; 

1933, 1982, 1985, 1988, 2034, 2059, 2170) 

RESPCHSE: Mountain bicycle develOpnent and use is a new and growing sport. 

The impacts of this activity are currently located close to the rxmmmities 

of the Eastern Sierra. Pkuntain bikes are rot allowed in wilderness. At 

this time, it may be p-ture to devalop a Forest-wide plan oriented towards 

mnmtain bikes. The directian in the Standards and Guidelines to inwrprate 

mtain bike opprtunities into all recreaticBl and cc"ity plans and 

pqrams may be sufficient mtil such the as the full potential of muntain 

bikes is apparent. The trail prcgram outside of wilderness is deficient on 

the Inyo, particularly in heavily developed recreation areas and in relation 

to local cmnnmities. Much of the manag-t direction throughout the Plan 

calls for increased developnent of trail opprtunities outside of 

wilderness. 

m: The props& 600+ miles of trails inpruved and reconstructed are 

badly needed. During rrry 30 year acquaintance with the Inyo, Wails have 

deteriorated noticeably with little "cy and mnpmer spent on maintenance, 

let alone new mction. Care niust also be taken in constructing and 

maintaining hiking trails. hails should avoid riparian areas, wet meadows, 

and erodible slopes for a host of reasons. I would like to see wre funds 

appropriated to trail work, not necessarily creating vr. trails but to 

maintain existing mes and encourage ecological us9 of the precious 

backmtry. I support mxe aphasis on m-wilderness trails including 

hiking, equestrian, angler access and interpretive non-wtorized trails. 

When the budget crunch for trail maintenance ccmes, which kinds of trails 

have priority? Pedestrian, equestrian or ORVS? ORV trails must be lm 

priority and non-motorized high priority. (1650, 1798, 1922, 381) (1191) 

RESPONSE: We agree with your ccmwnts; the Plan wzes the need for new 

trails, particularly outside of wildemess for many types of use and 

activities. It also recognizes the need for increased trail maintenance 

dollars for existing trails. Appropriated maintenance dollars have always 

been spent on hikirg trails. Any funds spent on mtorized trails have c~ne 

fnrn special funding sou~ces such as Green Sticker Funds or other 

organizations. 

154 
DISPERSED -TION 

CCEIMENI: I object to the low xu” of trail canstruction and reconstruction 

ccmpared to ow miles. (121) 

RESKNSE: The FEIS estimates that 125 miles of hikirg trails mld be 

canstxucted in each of the first and semnd decades for a total of 250 miles 

of new trails. Eighteen miles of OHV trails would be wnslxucted in each of 

the first -two decades for a total of 36 miles. 

In reconstruction, hiking trail miles total 20.3 per year for the first 

decade. The OW miles remmsbxctd show 16.2 miles per year which appears 

to be a very high nmbsr. This high num!xr reflects the total nmbsr of 

uninventoried mads on the Forest which exceeds 320 miles. Many of these 

uninventoried mads include old timber or access mads that are m longer 

maintained but are still used by OHV recreationists Maintenance on these 

mads muld be limited to ptectirg the “dug ’ soil and water resources 

with “al expenditures. The cast per mile for reamstructing a hikirg 

trail would be much higher. The bow line is that there will be 350 - 400 

miles of mads and trails on the Forest that are usable mainly by OHVs 

because of condition. bst of these currently exist with only 36 new miles 

bekg created. There are app”te1y 1250 miles of hiking *ails on the 

Forest with approdmately 250 new miles planned for wnstruction. 

CDWlEW.: Signs should be designed so they can be easily read by hikers and 

equestrians. It is important that these signs can be read from all 

directions and include miles to indicated areas. It makes it easier to plan 

estimated times to arrive at desired destination when distance is !u”. 

wooden signs blend with the envi-t but are easily defaced and made 

difficult to read. 

(1260) 

“E: We agree with your carment. Signing requirements should be 

included in subsequent oarrposite and management plans for recreation and 

wilderness areas. 

COMMENT: Rock Creek - Pine Grove area. Hiking and equestrian trails need to 

be reopened and mtained for day use. The cross wuntq ski trail around 

the pOna could be utilized for horseback riding. The entry to Hilton Lakes 

trail and Tamarack area frun here, if rebuilt with lesser grade, would 

provide excellent and much needed developnent for the many campers that 

require gentle trails for horseback riding and hikirq especially for 

children. when the Eastfork was developd, m provision was made 

to pravide new trails for the beautiful wooded trails that were destroyed. 

Rock creek Lodge should be enmuraged to upgrade their facilities. (1645) 

( 1843 1 

RESPONSE: Recreation management direction for Management Area #14 calls for 

a future use determination for Rock Creek Lodge. If the lcdge were to remain 

under permit, uwading of the facilities would be a priority. Direction 

also calls for expansion and ocenpletion of a trail system in the drainage. 

No further direction is needed in the Plan of a mre detailed nature. 

155 
DISPERSED RECREATION 

a"l!: You state in the DEIS that "A 57% irmease in developed site use 

would increase day use in adjacent wilderness, resulting in mre encounters 

within five miles of trailheads...". Eav can increased trail use be 

encouraged and justified when these existing trailhead areas are already 

experiencing severe recreation impact? Bloody Canyon is a fragile, sensitive 

trail area where new developnent seems: "anted. Various forest areas and 

trail areas have different sets of management variables. The Plan and EIS 

need to reflect these different situaticns and variables. Has any 

mideration been given to quotas on day use in heavily impadea trail areas 

at Marmoth, Red's Meadow for example? (2178) 

"SE: There will be an increase in day use at trailheads in proportion 

to haeases in overnight developnent. Pbst trailheads dD not experience 

severe recreation jmpact as m&z use is cantrolled by the develop2 facility 

at the trailhead. The vegetative, soil, and water resources at all developed 

trailheads are not severely inpacted. The.re is a much higher density of use 

at trailheads than at the interior of the wildemess area. Day users can 

enjoy what snall portion of wi1deme.s that they visit just as much as the 

overnight user and with much less inpact. Very intensive day use in 

wilderness areas is often associated with specific attractions such as lakes 

or other features. Part of the heavy use at trailheads and associated 

wilderness trails is related to the lack of a gad trail system outside of 

wildemess. As trails are develop3 throughout the concentrated recreation 

areas, sane of the use presfllre at trailheads should be reciuced. We have not 

considered day-use quotas an option: however, they could be applied to 

wildemess if rexnmx damage or user conflicts were a problem because of day 

use. Bloody Canyon will have a "um of facilities associated with it. 

only day-use facilities oriented tayards Walker Lake and a trailhead are 

envisioned. All vehicles and par- would be located below the lake. 

a"l!: In yaur discussion of recreational opportunities for the Owens 

Valley EscaTpnent, you have anitted Shepherds Pass, Baxter Pass, Sawmill 

Pass, and Tame Pass trailheads. These are important accesses and exits to 

and fmn Sequoia and Kings Canyon Naticmal Parks, primarily for backpackers 

but also for sane horse traffic. They s~ve as overflow mutes for onion 

Valley and Whitney portal when people have been unable to get permits or for 

those who prefer less populated trails. These trails need to be retained in 

the system with at least occasional maintenance. Currently both Take and 

Baxter mails need repair where floods have damaged the trail-creek 

intersections. (148) (1004) 

RESFONSE: The direction for Management Prescription #1 - Designated 

Wilderness states that all trails will be maintained to assigned maintenanca 

levels. This applies to all system trails and trailheads which include the 

abave mtioned trails. 

a"l!: The present nmbw and dticm of hikh-g and nordic skiing trails 

in the Forest is perfedly adequate (even excessive). The proposed 

ccndmction of 249 hikjq trail miles and 350 nordic ski trail miles 

presented in the preferred AltematFve is ridiculous! Given that so much of 

the Forest is already easily accessible, we enwurage a policy of trail 

156 
DISPERSED REcTiEATION 

reduction. There are few areas which do mt currently have trails, and these 

areas should remain difficult to reach for the purposes of maintaining high 

quality wildlife habitat. We prope a trail review and evaluation to assess 

the mndition and necessity of all trails contained in the Forest. All 

trails found to be infrequently used should be obliterated. In addition, all 

trails in high altitude areas should be renwved irranediately as they are 

u~ecessary for travel and serve only to ccolcentrate human impacts. No new 

trailheads, improves access, or trails should be built. (140) 

SPONSE: Almst all of the new trail miles are in areas of existintensive use in the heavily used drainages of the Forest. These trails are 

badly needed to eliminate or reduce resource damage, provide recreational 

opportunities, experiences, and activities for the wermght user and to take s~ne pressure off the trailheads and back-* trails. Newly designated 

wilderness areas wuuld have a relatively low number of new trail miles as 

mt proposed areas have a much lower recreation attraction level and 

Carying capacity than existlllg wilderness. New trailheads muld generally 

be minor or mt needed. However, facilities to acc”n%te use will be 

necessary to the degree identified in the individual wilderness managanent 

plan prepared for each area. 

03°F: In the DEIS discussion of -tal consequences, the trails 

section mans very little if mt broken down into trails which will be open 

or closed to off-road vehicles and nrnmtain bikes. This information should 

be provided wherever trail mileages are discussed. Also, we would appreciate 

additional information on the trails planned for designated and proposed 

wilderness areas. Altbugh additional trails may be desirable, there is gccd 

reason to question the construction of new trails in sane wilderness areas. 

(2160) 

RESPONSE: Specific trails open or closed to use are not detailed in the 

Forest Plan which is a broad umbrella document providing guidance and 

direction to the trails program in general. Wilderness managemnt plans, 

recreation Canp3sit.e plans, the 1977 Interagency I%tor Vehicle Use Plan, and 

others will detennine what happens to each trail m the system. These 

documents will also identify new trails to be developea. We agree that same 

sections of wilderness could best be managed without trails; however, these 

areas will be determined in the indivxhml wilderness managemnt plans. 

CXMWl’: For to0 long the high Country trails and public pastures have been 

neglected. We want facilities that are safe and available for recreational 

stock users. The extensive trail system that exists today in much of the 

Inyo National Forest was originally built to facilitate the memnt of pack 

animals and livestock through the nrnmtains. Hawever, trail maintenance has 

declined over the years to the pint that many trails may be lost 

mnpletely. If the current policy of trail neglect is to be reversed, there 

must be scme major adjustment to the priorities exercised by the managers of 

public lands. Mxe emphasis must be placed upm increasing the nmhm of 

field perso~el such as trail crews, and less emphasis on a&inistrative 

staff positions. (1666) 

157 
DISPERSED RECREATION 

-E: -tion trails are receiving rmre ~ti~~l attenti&. a he 

Forest Plan sets standards far trail maintenance, but the number and standard 

of maintenance is dependent on funding. Hopefully, with increased ~ti0~1 

attention to trails, an adequate a"t of funding will be appropriated to 

maintain them to their assigned levels. 

U3@CWT.: Existing system trails should be preserved and maintained. Trails 

which have been droppea fran the system should be inventoried, and, where 

practical, reestablished. Wm-motorized use sbould be given preference. 

ReccastruCtian of existing wails should be given priority over constmction 

of new trails; new construction should only be approved after public input is 

taken. hails should be protected fran the effects of other management 

activities such as logging and roadbuilding. Herbicides should not be used 

on trails. (91) (381) 

REspoNsE: Trail maintenanca and cnnstmction are handled through plb 

and prqramnirg efforts that will be tiered to the Forest Land Management 

Plan. The need for new trails to meet marry different recreational needs is 

well documented throughout the pl- documents. The priorities set for 

the types of trails are related to the funding available. Smce the miles of 

hiking/equestrian trails far exceed all other types of trails, the priority 

is generally given to hikicg trails. There is a need for a variety of trals 

to meet needs for bicycles, mountain bicycles, nordic skiing, trail bikes, 

s"biles, and interpretation of na+mral features and resources. 

Recreaticol developnent plans will look at the opportunities to provide 

facilities for all of these activities. Public input will be gathered in 

relation to new developnent propals that would significantly add to or 

charge the current situation. Trail locations establish recreation use 

wrribrs that become zones of high visual, recreational, and natural 

awing values. Herbicides are not used along trails. 

a3t.BTW: Based upn conversation with raqe staff, wilderness rangers, and 

info& botanists, I recclranend that we require that 70 percent of stock feed 

requirements be met by packing in pellets and grain. Since most of the tral 

damage (outside of weather related phenmena) is caused by pack stock, I 

naxmmad that we research ways to have pack station fees retumed to the 

Forest for trail maintenance. It is a oanplex problem, but sauetimes we need 

to develop cmplex solutions to operate under restricted budgets. (1252) (87, 

381) 

RESPONSE: Management direction under Prescription #1 requires feed to be 

packed in under the follming conditions: before the grazing season, where 

feed is unavailable, and where grazing could be damaging to resources. There 

is no authority at the present time that would allm any or a portion of the 

fees paid by outfitter/gUide pennittees to be used for trail maintenance. 

However, many of the present pennittees volunteer their stcck and/or 

persame1 to help maintain the trails each year. 

COWlWT.: Pack animals should not be allowed on popular beautiful h&mg 

trails. They destroy the trails and make it disgustkg to hike scane 

158 
DISPERSED RECREATION 

sections. 

use. (1191) 

RESPONSE: Sane trails are too &fficult for stock to negotiate. Stock is 

prohbited on the Mt. whltney trail for safety considerations. However, we 

do mt have the authority to prohbit stock use on trails that are designed 

for all purpose travel. Ccnnnercial pack stock operations are limrted by the 

number of senrice days m their pennit. We have m authority to regulate 

fees to &scourage stock use. 

Wgh fees sbuld be charged for pack animals to discourage their 

COMMENT: It should be recognized that wilderness, recreation, and facilities 

(mcludmg pack stations) are not totally separate functions. I urge 

explicit mention of pack stock usage m the documents to at least permit 

control if not unp"ent of the situation. (58) (156, 169, 185, 296, 1260, 

1372, 1929, 1261, 2193) 

RESPONSE: Pack stock operations are controlled through the special use 

pernut. Each prnuttee is allotted a certain number of service days for 

operation on the Forest. In a*tion, there are Forest orders in effect that 

prohbit certain practices whch are deemed to be harmful to the resources. 

Grazmg regulations spell out how and when the forage may be utilized. 

Wilderness management plans also contain direction that manages stock use, 

and these plans become part of the Forest Plan. 

a": Managment Area #13. mphasize non-motorized recreation 111 this 

area. Do not allow open roaded use especially witlun 3/4 nule of Methuselah 

Nature Tral m the Bristlecone Pine Forest. (129) 

RESPONSE: The Management Prescriptions for the area adJaCent to the 

Bristlecone Pine Forest have been changed to exclude Prescription #18. 

mtorized activities in the area of the Bristlecone Pine Forest will take 

place only on designated roads and trails. No off-hghway use will be 

allowed. 

COMMENT: It is unnecessary to have the northeast face of McGee Mountam as 

semi-prmtive non-mtorized. The mst restrictive it should be is 

semi-prmtive motorized. If the reason for the restriction is protection of 

the deer, then close the roads just durmg the deer season. The road through 

Tobacco Flat and up the north side of McGee i%untain must be left open 

because it is the access road to a TV relay station. (1870) 

RESPONSE: The road access to the TV relay station can be managed for 

administrative use only. The ROS class whch relates to public recreation 

use and access can still be sa-prinutive non-mtorized. All of the little 

dead-end roads that access the base of We muntan should be closed to 

elminate soil erosion, vegetation removal, and visual ksturbance. Also, 

many of these short roads cannot be safely negotiated and they do not lead 

anywhere except to dead-end on the hllside. 

159 
CDmWI!: In certain aspects, the Limited Access prescription may be 

preferable over the open Road& prescription in much of the White N3untam.s. 

Hmever, the Limited Access (it says “limit your access”) Prescription may 

pOtentxiLly be used to close this area off to those people wb have 

traditionally found their recreaticnal respite in the Whites in a 4WD 

vehicle. If all existing roads will be maintamed and remain open for public 

access under this designation, then I have no quarrel with it, but if the 

designation will be used to close existing mads and access in the Whites, 

then I am vehemently opposed to it. The people who work and play in the 

Whites do not want to see any further road closures. We do want to see 

off-road vehicle use, except in designated areas, prohibited. The open 

roaded classificaticn would be preferable to p-te mineral exploration, 

snall hydroelectric developed, and better range management. It would alw 

satisfy the Native Americans wb use the Whites for wood and pine nut 

gathering. The creeks on the east side of the Whites are the only fishing 

resource available to residents of Fsmxalda County, Nevada and the Open 

Roaded Prescription would allow them access to this recreational resource. 

(2171) 

RESPONSE: All existing roads m the White Mountains will remain open for 

motorized use. However, all of the open maded areas south of White Mountain 

Peak, except for the Poleta Canyon area, shown in the Draft Plan have been 

changed to the Dispersed Recreation FTescription which replaces the Lhted 

Access Prescription. 

Off-Highway Vehicles 

m: The map of the Preferred Alternative in the DEIS designates the 

area just to the east of Badger Flat in the Inyo N3untains as propsed 

wilderness. This area between Badger Flat and Waucoba Wash has scme 

excellent and well travelled 4WD roads. If the map is to be believed, two 

trails leave Badger Flat heading ~II an easterly direction tmard Waucoba 

Wash. The map is quite incorrect and these trails are much used 4WD roads. 

(1893) (201) 

RESPONSE: The boundaries of the proposed wilderness additions have been 

adjusted to exclude the 4WD routes you mention. Thls will preserve the 

option to travel between Badger Flat and Papoose Flat on 4WD routes. The map 

with the Forest Plan is not meant to show all the 4WD routes that exist. 

Even though the mute on the map looks like a trail, it is a 4WD route. The 

update of the 1977 Interagency Motor Vehicle Use Map will consider 

identifying 4WD mutes differently than trails. 

C@”r: I don‘t understand the prescription #17 and #18 designations 

coupled with ROS semi-primitive mtorized in the tip of Pine (seek Canyon. I 

realize there is mining in the area and there needs to be trailhead access to 

Morgan Pass, but why allow mtorized recreation all the way to the top of Mt. 

Morgan? Maw you could specify exactly what kinds of recreational and 

industrial uses the Forest Service has in mind for this area. (278) 

160 
OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES 

RESPONSE: The semi-primitive motorized classification covers the motorized 

use by Umetcc for access to their operations near Mt. Morgan. It is not 

meant to authorize public motorized access. The motorized use is not 

recreational m nature, but specifically authorized m a special use pemut 

to cover the portion on National Forest land as opposed to private land. 

COMMENT: I am opposed to the Management Prescription #18 - Open Roaded 

designation for the springs area on the northwest side of Deep Sprqs 

Valley. (1643) 

RESPONSE: The area to whch you refer is not truly open to travel anywhere 

by motor vehicles. The prescription has been renamed and rewritten to 

clarify its intent. In ~s area, new roads can remam open to public travel 

once they are constructed, regardless of the reason they were bult. Vehxle 

use is still restricted to exlsting routes. 

C"T: Management Area #13 - Benton-Casa Diablo. Under recreation, add: 

"Allow ORV use only on designated roads and trails." (2170) 

RESWNSE: Your statement on OW use on designated routes is consistent with 

the duection for Prescription #17. This dmection is not restated for this 

Managanent Area. For the portion of Benton-Casa Diablo that is designated 

Prescription #17, your statement would apply. 

COMMENT: Management Area #8 - Mammoth Escarpment. Under recreation, modify 

the ORV paragraph to mclude the punuce flats north and south of Deadman 

Caqground as candidates for ORV analysis and protection. The north flat 

becanes an unusual flower-filled purmce meadow in the sprmg and summer. The 

south flat, northeast of South Deadman Dome, has an lnteresting backdrop of 

crumblmg Obsidmn me and contains an mque assembly of dwarf and twisted 

lodgepole and Jeffrey pine grmlng from a fragile punuce soil. Both areas 

are accessible to vehicles and are threatened by ORV use. I suggest that you 

consider a front country tral linking Manumth with June Lake via the base of 

east San Joaquin ridge. Ws trail could meander through sane of the most 

chverse and beautiful lands the Inyo has to offer such as virgin red fir, 

pocket meadows, vltemttent streams and unusual geologic features. I also 

suggest that you have Ma"th Wuntan Ski Area paint the ugly black 

structures on top of Mmth Mountain a color that blends with the landscape. 

(2170) 

RESPONSE: Prescription #17, whch covers the area you mention, does restrict 

OW use to designated routes. These pumice filled meadows are not open to 

unrestricted OW use. Perhaps better sigmng and information is needed to 

make people aware of the sensitive nature of these open pmce flats. 

Stricter enforcement of the regulations would be in order if sigmficant 

trespass occurs. The transportation system for Wr~s area would be included 

in the Deadman Recreation Ccauposite Plan which is mentioned m the recreation 

hrection. 

161 
your suggastiotl to repaint the black st"s ~n top of Marmoth Wnmtain 

will be taken into ansiasraticn. If that is the prudent tMIq to do, it 

wiiibemnepartoftheslrmner~a~planoftheskiarea. 

cc"r: Delete "allow IW ORV 

use". This is blatant discriminatim against ORVs after stating "allow the 

range of recreaticm activities included in the rural IEOS class. Need to 

state glow and 1y3~1-st-o~ use separately. (379) 

m: The ski area is in the rural IEOS Class because of the developnent 

scale and its p"i* to the town. Hcwpver, to say that the developed ski 

area is open to the public to c%N use would be ixmmxt. The @al use 

permit for the ski area govwms what may take place. OHV use is restricted 

PresCriptioPl #13 - Existiq Alpine Ski Area. 

to the permittee's need for "v use. 

m: -iptim #15 - DevelOpea mtim Site. 'Ihe -tion 

element phrase "prahibit OW use in and adjacent to site" nrust be deleted 

since OW stag- areas should be classed as a dewlopea recreation site. 

(379) 

RESPCNSE: You are correct when you state that a staging area for OHVs can be 

a developed site. Hmever, there are "e presently existing cm the Forest. 

There is a trailhead planned off of U.S. 395 that would be used for 

"nubile and possibly s~nmer OHV use. In that case, since the site is 

identified as a trailhead for OEN staging, OW use would be permitted. The 

OHV direction in PresCripticHI #15 is mant to prohibit OW use in and around 

such areas as caqg-,, picnic sites, and in-ti- sites. OHVS may 

enter and exit the develop3 site, but use the site or adjacent area 

tonmaroundin. 

cc"r: In W" Meadows, off-road vehicle use and timber harvesting 

activities should be consistent with maintahing or inpmviq stream 

habitat. The cooltentian that ORV users have a vested int- in using this 

area should not be used to justify a continuation of activities that are 

adversely aff- fish and wildlife habitat. (2190) 

RESFmSE: Diredian for Managemat Area #20 - South Sierra which includes 

the mche area says now about tinker lmwstiq. The Managerent 

Prescriptians involved are Designated Wilderness, Mule Deer Habitat, Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, Developd Recreation, and Limited Semi-primitive Dispersed 

Recreation. The major lesaurces are rarge, recreation, and wild and scenic 

rivers. 

A separate tal analysis dealing with the managerent of Ow use in 

the lvlcolache area will set forth measures to correct existing problems. Many of the existing 4wD mutes in the area contain sections that go through wet 

meaibis or dead end at new wilderness ixnmdaries created by the California 

Wildemess Act of 1984. The EA addresses these problem areas and proposes to 

rehabilitate them or to relocate portions of existing routes around problem 

162 
areas. These measures will stabilize wet areas and improve fish and wildlife 

habitat. In areas 

designated Prescription #4 - Mule Deer Habitat the deer will be emphasized 

over other TeSCSYCeS such as ow use. 

OHV use is restricted to designate5 routes in this area. 

-: Prescription #18 should be redefined to refer only to OW open 

areas. Vehicle access for njneral activity, range management and ORV use on 

designated mads and trails is a"rAated under other Prescripticas. There 

are loadless areas to virhlally unlimited ?madbu 'l-, developnent and high 

impact mechaul 'zed recreation. This ill-ccolceived prescription, if put into 

practice, could lead to the irreversible des-ction of altmst 200,000 acres 

of valuable Forest resaurces inclu&ing wildlife habitat, dispersed low impact 

recreation opprtunities and watershed. (2170) (278, 293, 329, 381, 1185, 

1464, 1509, 1549, 1609, 1650, 1664, 1731, 1857, 1931, 2036, 2060, 2142, 2147, 

2152, 2169, 2185, 2202, 2207) 

"E: Prescription #18 has been "Wtiple Resource Area". The 

description of this prescription is changed to read "The purpose is to allow 

vehicle access on existing routes and in areas designated as open areas. The 

prescription all- roads to be ccolstructed or usaded to facilitate vehicle 

access for mineral activity, range management, and recreation use. There is 

M single resource -is. This prescription supports use of mineral, 

range and recreation resources, and maintaining vehicle access on existing 

mutes, trails, and open areas." The cmly open area on the Forest will be 

the Poleta Canyon area. All other previously identified open areas which 

were crosshatched on Draft Plan OHV map have been eliminated. 

CCXWXP: Prescription #18. The first paragraph should read: "The purpose is 

to allow roads to be collstructed or uwaded to facilitate vehicle access for 

mineral adivity, range manag-t, utility needs, and recreational use." 

Second paragraph, secwnd sentence hld read: "This prescription supprts 

use of mineral, range and recreational ESOLU-WS, and maintaining an "open 

mad" policy for access to mineral areas, range allotments, utility 

facilities, and for rmtorized recreatiun." Under the recreation element, 

second paragraph, the first sentence should read: "Allow ORV use on 

designated roads, trails, and open areas, but prohibit ORV use on designated 

utility roads." A lands element should be added and should read: "Permit new 

utility rights-of-way." (1093) 

RESFONSE: h-escription #18 has been substantially rewritten; it has been 

retitled "Multiple Resource Area." Please refer to the response directly 

abwe . 

CtWMmAT: I am happy to see the intended adoption of the 1977 Interagency 

i%tor Vehicle Use Plan prohibitkg motor vehicle operation off of designated 

mads and trails. A "ker of research remrts which I have read all 

indicate the serious impact of motor vehicles^off of established roads &d 

140, 159, 177, 182, 214, 273, 287, 286, 288, 300, 322, 324, 329, 345, 358, 

trails. (1029) (3, 8, 9, io, 11, 12, 1.3, 16, 21, 22, 44, 63, 85, 91, 129, 

371, 381, 391, 397, 400, 410, 441, 455, 466, 481, 932, 935, 946, 950, 953, 

163 
OFF-HIQWAY VEHICLES 

954, 978, 979, 980, 999, 1006, 1008, 1031, 1032, 1107, 1159, 1168, 1175, 

1176, 1191, 1202, 1218, 1224, 1230, 1253, 1274, 1273, 1283, 1313, 1317, 1326, 

1333, 1388, 1396, 1402, 1407, 1421, 1430, 1434, 1435, 1436, 1438, 1439, 1440, 

1441, 1442, 1443, 1444, 1445, 1446, 1447, 1448, 1449, 1450, 1451, 1452, 1453, 

1454, 1455, 1456, 1457, 1458, 1459, 1460, 1461, 1462, 1463, 1466, 1485, 1487, 

1490, 1498, 1537, 1539, 1541, 1543, 1548, 1552, 1559, 1576, 1584, 1591, 1593, 

1596, 1605, 1606, 1626, 1630, 1632, 1633, 1650, 1654, 1656, 1660, 1662, 1665, 

1666, 1670, 1690, 1616, 1614, 1625, 1700, 1738, 1744, 1757, 1773, 1774, 1798, 

1800, 1801, 1802, 1804, 1806, 1816, 1830, 1837, 1839, 1842, 1843, 1845, 1852, 

1858, 1860, 1862, 1863, 1865, 1868, 1873, 1876, 1900 1907, 1904, 1919, 1923, 

1931, 1952, 1971, 1975, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1995, 2007, 2030, 2032, 2054, 2058, 

2060, 2091, 2102, 2129, 2136, 2143, 2159, 2160, 2161, 2167, 2170, 2178, 2190, 

2199, 2207) 

RESFCNSE: The 1977 Interagenq MAor Vehicle Use Map will be revised 

Subsquent to the Farest Plan. It will designate OW use accord&q to the 

existjng designations of open, closed, and restrided. The only open area on 

National Forest land will be the Poleta Canyon area. 

m: 

longer needed, and develop a plan to close these mads to further use. 

(1430) (140) 

I would like to see a study conducted to identify roads that are m 

RE3FCNSE: The Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines contain criteria for 

updating the 1977 Interagency Motor Vehicle Use Plan. These criteria 

basically identify the adverse impacts which might cccur to things like soil, 

water, and vegetation and which may indicate that sone management action is 

necessary to correct the situation. One manag-t action could be closing a 

route to OHV use. 

In sone cases, mre than one OHV route exists between two points, and where 

one is mt need&, it would be prudent to consider closing the mute that has 

would be cansidered in the update of the 1977 Interagency OW Plan which will 

be done subsequent to the Forest Plan. 

the most potential for resource degradation. Closure of existing OHV mutes 

CCMEM!: A rehabilitation plan should be created to restore areas damaged by 

OW use including an eradication plan for unsuitable and illegal routes. 

(1632) 

RFSFCNSE: Please sea the respmse diredly above. Unsuitable mutes can 

either be closed or rehabilitated. Green Sticker funds frun the state are 

available to repair and/or restore damaged routes. Illegal mutes would be 

si@ cld and the closure enforced. 

aM4R?l!: 

area for ORVs. 

be pennittd for administrative purpases only. (1099) 

The OW map sbould indicate that mth Erbuntain is a restricted 

It currently shows that area open to ORV use. ORV use should 

164 
OFF-HIGHWY VEXICLES 

-E: The Forest Plan OW map shows the Mammth Mountain area as limited 

use. In this case, OW travel would be limited to designated mutes. In 

mst cases, OW travel for the public would be pmlubited on Mannuoth 

P4xntai.n. The only designated route that is shown open on the 1977 

Interagency Wtor Vehicle Use Map is the mute to Reds Lake. The 1977 Map is 

the the official map for OW travel on the Forest. 

m: All ORV use should be canfined to designated and signed roads only 

(not trails). All ORV use should be kept off trails because it is too 

difficult to regulate the use due to insufficient n-rs of enforcement 

personnel; they cause erosion and biological destzuction: and the viability 

of the soil can be and often is damaged irreparably. (1532) (63, 65, 80, 123, 

129, 140, 170, 263, 284, 292, 293, 367, 384, 386, 400, 408, 409, 416, 450, 

466, 483, 491, 914, 923, 938, 954, 958, 998, 1038, 1171, 1326, 1348, 1421, 

1485, 1544, 1548, 1591, 1600, 1673, 1674, 1680, 1730, 1759, 1820, 2008, 2142, 

2180, 2205) 

"E: OW use in further p1anni.q 

areas will be managed under Prescription #17 which restricts OHV use to 

designated routes as opposed to Prescription #18 which &laws OHV use on 

exist* mutes. 

Please refer to previous responses. 

m: Roads and trails should be defined in the Plan. I believe that they 

should include only existing public roads and should mt include trails. 

Hikers and ORV enthusiasts on the same trails viuuld be unworkable. It viuuld 

result in a forfeit of those trails to the ORVs as hikers will wish to avoid 

them. (1843) (329) 

RESPONSE: OW use occuzs on what are called routes. These may be 4WD routes 

or mtorcycle routes. The Forest Plan refers to 4WD routes as part of the 

trail system. Motorcycle use can take place on roads, 4WD routes or trails 

where that use is permitted. There are very few trals on the Forest where 

motorbikes are permitted since roSt of the trail miles are in existing 

wilderness or in wilderness access CategOIy trails. The Plan does not 

suggest forfeit* hiker/hrse trails for mtorized use. The 1977 Motor 

Vehicle Use Map shows portions of trails that are closed to motorized use. 

All trails outside of closed areas that are not shown closed are open to 

motorized use. 

m: 

(1570) (398) 

Keeping all ORVs away fran areas west of U.S. 395 is a great idea! 

EESFQNSE: Management direction for the Upper Owens River west of U.S. 395 is 

to emphasize winter and sumner dispersed recreation. This does not preclude s~ne OHV use in this area, but it would be restricted to designated routes or 

corridors. Wast of the area east of U.S. 395 would be open without 

restrictions to snxmbiles when sufficient SIXW wver exists to protect soil 

and vegetation. 

165 
m: While the defjniticm of the LimLted Access h-escription #17 is 

gccd, sane of the larguage cauld be st-2:. The Draft Plan provides that 

there will be no new 2klo roads except for mineral developnent. Please state 

that In new 4wD routes will be established either. The parmittees feel that 

the term (limited access) is ply mitten and needs to be changed. The 

tam as written appears to mean “future wilderness“; eighty percent of the 

Limited Access assignatim denies dispersed recreation oppzhlm ‘ties for the 

-cam and senior citizens. The definition should be mitten to allow 

more dispersed recreaticn -ties to a mn-e diverse gmup of people, 

and all roads that exist in this prescription should be maintained for 

access. (1598, 2171) (60, 111, 131, 1532, 1617, 1710, 2201) 

RESPONSE: Prescription #17 has been rewritten to clarify its intent. The 

total nmbr of miles of existing road will be maintained. Mowever, Iwds 

may be “nskucted or realigned to corred ~esourc~ damage. Realigment 

may entail some new c“&im to put ths road in a better location to 

protect “x values. The intent of the prescription is to maintain the 

status guo and not to build new rpads into previously unmaded territory. 

CaWElW.: Meadows (?ma #5029) should be closed to vehicle use. It 

is unrealistic to be able to c”l unautbrized trming of adjacent 

closed areas. Mountain meadays are very sensitive to -ion including 

canpacticol by vehicle travel. (1598) (129, 147, 275, 277, 303, 381, 1539) 

“E: The California Wilderness Act of 1984 specifically released areas 

for multiple use during the next planniq period. -&e was one of these 

areas. Wsting OHV use is allcwed to wntinue and is managed to preserve 

and ptect valuable resources such as the mnmtain meadows. The State of 

California has funded an operation and maintenance grant for OW use in 

administratian of that grant. OHV use is restricted to existing routes and 

fencing and signing of adjacent wildermss bnmdaries has been successful in 

eliminatiq OW trespass. 

Wmache. Information patrols and signirg are important parts of 

CaWElW.: The expanse of the Limited Access Prescription #17 for Glass 

Mountain (Area #5054) should be increased. The present boundary, enclosing 

cmly narrow corridors along ridges is inadequate to protect the area’s 

values. (1598) 

RESPONSE: h-escription #17 is applied to sensitive areas near Glass 

Mountain. OW use under this prescription restricts vehicles to existing 

mads or trails. This essentially preserves the status quo in the area. 

Glass Evbuntain has been identified as a potential candidate National Natural 

Landmark area to be studied and evaluated outside the Forest planning 

process. 

CaWElW.: Managmt Area #5 - Glass Mountain. The Glass Mountain traverse 

which is Shawn on the 1977 Interagency Imtor Vehicle Use Map is not shown on 

your Forest Plan map. (1203) 

166 
m: The motor vehicle use map included with the Draft Plan was not 

intended to show -vidual routes. The Forest Plan does incorp3rate the 

1977 Intarageracy mtor Vehicle Use Map as part of the Plan. This map will be 

upaatea after the Forest Plan is aaoptea and will include participation by 

the public. 

tXr”!: lh wnn maters include many features of scientific and scenic 

interest. Their interpretation will undabtedly be an important goal of the 

management of the Pbrn Basin National Scenic Area. Please designate the 

range south to and including the Fun& Bowl-as Limited Access Prescription 

#17. (1598) (1617) 

RFSPQNSE: only the primary management prescription can be applied to any 

given piece of ground. In this area, the primary managmt ei@nases are 

timber managemnt and range. However, OHV access is managed similar to 

prescription #I7 in that OW use is restricted to existing roads and 

trails. Sr”bile use would be allowed as lorg as there is sufficient s” 

cwer to protect ?xsauce values. 

m: Like many plans, you have ccolfused term. An off-road vehicle is 

usually any vehicle capable of off-road travel (four-wheel drive type). An 

OHV is a mn-licensed (Green Sticker) vehicle. You should mt use the texm 

off-mad vehicle when you mean off-road travel. hren a standard sedan can 

travel off-road. The only time you should refer to the vehicle is when a 

route is open to mtorized use but mt to unlicensed drivers or vehicles, or 

state that a roughly graded route will be open to unlicensed drivexs and 

uninsuredvehicles. (68) (379) 

“E: A section has been added to the affected envi”ent chapter under 

dispersed recreation that clarifies the terms ORV and OHV. In general the 

term OW is the correct one to use whm referring to vehicles that are 

capable of traveling off of two wheel drive roads. These include 4 wheel 

drive, 3 and 4 wheel all terrain vehicles (AW’s), and mtorbikes. 

Smbiles are referred to as OSVs (over-the-snow vehicles). 

m: 

In Prescription #7 - Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, delete “Prohibit 

off-road vehicle use“. We agree that there should mt be any “vehicle use 

off designated routes” but use of highway vehicles on designated routes 

should be allwed. One of the only psible routes for the statewide 

mtorized trail across this range is through the Forest. (1582, 379) (68, 

275, 277, 278, 338, 392, 1893, 2177) 

RFSPQNSE: Prescription #7 has been changed to read “prohibit vehicle use off 

of roads and restrict vehicle travel to designated routes.“ This would 

permit designation of an OHV route as part of the statewide trail system. It 

has not been detennined where this potential route would go, but it will be 

studied in an enviromtal analysis. There an? m open areas in or adjacent 

to the Bristlecone Pine Forest. 

ORVs should not be allowed aq” near the Bristlecone Forest. 

167 
-: All other Plans reviewed to date have had OW maps that reflected 

the OW land designation of the Preferred Alternative. We leamed at the 

January 6, 1987 public meeting that your map was of the exist- OW land 

designation and technically had nothjng to do with the Plan. We believe that 

with a subject as mntroversial as OHV use, there should be a map shming 

where use is prohibited, restricted, and unrestricted for both on pund and 

over -. We skungly suggest that such a map be included in the Final 

Plan. This will clarify the Plan for bth the pro- and the anti-OW public. 

(379) (487, 1431) 

RISPCNSE: The 1977 Interagency mtor Vehicle Use Map is the map that is 

adopted for the Forest Plan. It will be revised, using public input, after 

the Forest Plan is a&pted. The mtor vehicle use map in the Forest Plan is 

intended to show broad categories of OW use for the Forest such as open, 

closed, and restricted. The 1977 map further defines restricted to mean 

restricted to existing mutes only or to designated mutes. 

m: Close the Cbttonwcd creek road in the white Mountains to presthe riparian habitat fran vehicular abuse and erosion. 

Another respondent expressed the oppasing viewpint regardjng the McCleod 

Road: "The prop3sed closure of the Mcclecd Camp road, in order to protect 

the expanded Paiute (xltthroat Trout Area will eliminate one of the few 

primitive campsites and fishing areas accessible by 4WD in the Whites: it's 

never mtioned in the Plan that fishing in CbMM Basin will be closed 

Until this fish ppulation stabilizes." (1532, 2171) (153, 174, 1482, 1549, 

1590, 1962, 2171) 

"E: The McClecd Camp road is in Managemnt Area #13 and is managed 

under Prescription #17 which says that existing roads will be maintained at 

their current levels after designation. All existing roads in the white 

i%untains will be left open to OW use as stated in Prescription #17. If 

there is a problem with the cutthroat trout papulation, other measures are 

available to deal with that problem short of closing the road. Direction 

under Management Area #13 will be changed to "me &recti 'on under fish to 

ccolsider closing the Mccleod Camp Road. 

Vehicles are restricted to existirag routes, so they should not be inpacting 

the riparian areas. If resource damage is occurring to these areas, measures 

will be taken to Cantrol use and rehabilitate the areas. The didon for 

OWs under Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines contain criteria that relate 

OHV use and their impacts to resources such as riparian areas, soil loss, and 

water quality. 

m: We support the designation of Coyote and Mmache as "limited road 

use" with the stipAation that m new roads be added and the existing roads 

left in primitive condition so these areas do not become accessible to 2WD 

vehicles. We cppse any new develapnents such as mqgnmd or roads in 

mpte and Monache because they will Tesult in these areas being overused. 

(1192) (2170) 

168 
OFT-HIGHWAY VMICLES 

"E: No new roads will be cons.trUcted into previouSly "aded areas. 

However, existing roads may be reconstructed and dead end segments may he 

joined together in "ache to provide loop trips to discourage trespass mto 

closed areas. Both these areas will be "itored to determine if two-wheeled 

vehicles are usq the area and causing unacceptable impacts. Should that 

OCCUT, the Forest can issue an order which would restrict access to 4WJJ 

vehicles, bikes, and ATVs only. This process of -toring and possible 

restriction can prcceed outside the Forest p1atvh-g process. C!aqqr~unds 

will not be built within areas designated Prescription #17. 

m: Manag-t Area #8. Support analyzing ORV use and taking action 

to mitigate resoucce damage done. I applaud this effort. Especially 

impoaant in this area are the anti-dune formations found on White Wing 

Peak. This area receives unacceptable OW abuses and should receive 

high-priority attention. (129, 2185) (278, 1532) 

"E: This area is mostly managed under Prescription #14 which allms 

OW use only on designated roads and trails. Any use off of these mutes 

would be a violation and subject to citation. This area is also managed 

under direction for Manag-t Area #8. The Forest recognizes the resovce 

damage ~3w cccurring, and appropriate mitigation measures will he taken. 

Mitigation Could include stricter enforcemnt, better signing, and a stronger 

infomation program. 

aM-EWl': "ache Meadow has persisted over the years as a fine example of 

Forest multiple use. What threatens this area is the suggested increase in 

OW use and the cmstruction of new jeep roads and bike trails. I request 

that nq new roads or trails be built in lvlonache Meadow especially the 

suggested new bike trail to and around "ache Mountain. I will agree to the 

propal to connect tmth jeep roads which IMW dead-end at the south Sierra 

Wilderness bmdaq to fonn a loop. Hmever, this sbuld be done with 

minimum impact to the meadow habitat. (1180) (272, 381, 382, 487, 1010, 1565, 

1887, 2023) 

"E: The question of new bike trails and 4WD connecu loops is being 

studied in an environmental analysis. That process will be going on outside 

the Forest Plan. No decision has been ma& to construct a new bike trail 

axuund "ache Mountain. The Forest is riot suggesting an increase in OW 

use. Manag-t of that area will emphasize semi-prmitive non-mtorized and 

semi-primitive mtorized activities. An OW plan will be developed for the 

area that determines capacities for "ache within which the various 

lresources can be managed without degradation. 

m: Pi-. Increased public media focus on the area will stimulate 

mre 4-wheel drivers. Unless the Forest Senrice restricts OW use, the area 

will becane destroyed by new roads. (1261) 

RESPONSE: All of the Pi- Manag-t Area #6 is proposed to be managed 

UnderFTeSuY. 'ption #17 with the exception of the southem end where the 

-is is cn deer. Prescription #17 prohibits construction of new roads 

169 
into unrwded areas, and Ciinxtial under the Mule Deer presQipticil#4 is to 

manage OHV use Similar to PreSazL ‘pticm #17. 

c”xc: In the Paiute Further P1amh-g Area, the Sidehill Spring track 

ad be closed except for use by the wing pennittee. Illegal cutting of 

area. (1565) (1653, 1732, 1757) 

m: The road to Sidehill Spring is in a mi- between two 

recarmended wildarness areas; it would be left open to OHV travel. 

Woodcutting for this area is prcgxxd @ be prohibitea above 8,ooO feet 

elevation. 

bristlecone pine and the proliferaucsl of ow use must be stoppea in this 

mst of the bristlm pine is located ab3ve this elwation. 

m: Please restrict OW use in the Inyo to the 1500 acre Poleta area 

which is already heavily used for this purpose. (2101) (5, 151, 166, 266, 

288, 298, 934, 970, 1161, 1176, 1433, 1522, 1532, 1539, 1586, 1629, 1780, 

1781, 1810, 1928, 2059) 

mF€nisE: The Forest Plan h-mxrprates the 1977 Interagency mtor Vehicle 

Us& Map. This map shows an open area on the Forest k” as the Poleta Canyon 

area. The Forest Plan does not 

propme any additimal open areas. The one area at the southeast end of the 

white kbmtains proposed for prescription #18 has been changed to 

prescription #17. Executive Order #11644 required National Forests to 

designate apen, closed, and restricted areas, and the 1977 Interagency Motor 

Vehicle Use Map satisfys that requirement. 

This is the cmly open area on the Forest. 

m: Your map does not show the 

4WD trail fm Dead Horse Meadow to the Sage Hen Peak area which oanpletes a 

loop trip up into the Bristlecone Pine Forest. (201) 

“E: The motor vehicle use map with the Draft Plan did not attmpt to 

show all OW routes. The 1977 Interagency Motor Vehicle Use Map does not 

even show the OW route in question. However, the route does exist and there 

are no plans to close it to OW use. 

Managmt Area #13 - White Mountains. 

CCWEWl?: There is 

a pressing need to delete 4WD usage fm this category because law-abiding 

(where cross-un~~-~try travel is illegal) use of 4WD vehicles occurs on travel 

ways greater than 40“ wide explicitly and is often necessaq to feasibly 

reach mmte Forest areas. The proposal would create a Level E grade of road 

on the Forest to include all above-40” travel ways which are primarily suited 

for high clear- 4WD use. Level I) is not suitable because the Plan states 

that these are either constructed for local access to timber and closed after 

cutting, or will be maintained for adhninistrative use only. There is an 

urgent need for another category or revision of the Level D definition to 

accamodate these 4WD roads/travelways which enables needed remste 

recreational access. (2065) 

Rqest that you change the management definition of OW. 

170 
OFF-HIGHWAY VDLICLES 

-E: The EIS ccntains an expanded explanation of OHV te?ms and their 

relation to roads, trails, and routes. The Draft Plan and DEIS were weak in 

differentiating between Ws, ORVs, and use of vehicles off of roads or 4wD 

routes. 

m: 

gat& closed as 

=FIX%: For the mst part, existing OW routes are open to use, with the 

few exceptions where OW routes are signed closed. The 1977 Interagency 

Wtur Vehcile Use Map lists tkse areas as restricted to existing mutes. 

Howsver, in some cases, the Forest has sensitive areas such as the Ancient 

Bristlm Pine Forest wttera only a few mutes are suitable for OW travel 

even though there may be some other existing routes in the area. In this 

instance, the routes that are open to OW txavel are designated as such and 

are signed. 

Request that you manage 4WD rwds and kdlS apen WeSS posted OT 

were in the past for many reasons. (2065) 

ClM”: Request that you reverse the increasing closure of public lands to 

vehicular use. (2065) 

RESPmEZ: Moth of the closure of Forest land to OW use is a result of 

additional acreage being added to the wilderness system by Congress. By law, 

mtur vehicles are prohibited fran using wilderness. OW use has increased 

tremenaously in the last 10 years. prior to that increase, there was not the 

magnitude of problems currently associated with that use. As mre -le 

purchased OHVs and brought them to the Forest to use, there were isolated 

cases of damage to resources such as soil, water, wildlife, and riparian 

areas. Thera wers additional social conflicts between OW users and other 

users such as hikers, stock users, and nordic skiers. In the case of 

T~SOUTCB damage, the ahinistering agency usually resolves the conflict in 

favor of the resourcB by restrictirq the OW in space and/or time. In the 

case of social conflict, an attempt is usually made to bring the affected 

parties wether to work out a solution mutually agreeable to both sides. 

CCMMENR We question the advisability of any pruposed ORV trail through the 

Irryo National Forest. This is based on the potential adverse inpacts that 

could result fm the propzeal, especially those affecting Sierra bigtom and 

mule deer that seasonally inhabit both National Park and Forest l&. In 

the event of such a trail being mnstructed, we believe that the ocoltinued 

well-- of various Pspulatim of threatened Sierra bigl” would be 

sufficient justification to design an intenuption or brealc in the trail, or 

mute it east to the vicinity of U.S. 395 when it would go near existing or 

potential bigbm populations. This would be especially tme for bigl” 

winter ranges. We would remnnend such an adjustment to protect the Lee 

Vining-Lundy Canyon and the Wheeler Ridge populations. To the south, to 

hmre the continued well-being of the i%unt Baxter, Williamson and Langley 

populaticms, we recormend any such trail be routed east to the vicinity of 

U.S. 395 from Birch Creek south to Carroll Creek. (487) (272, 1180) 

171 
RESKNSE: The Forest has been issued a grant frun the state to study the 

possibility of designating a north/south OIN mute on or adjacent to the 

Forest. Mxt all of the preliminary route is on existing roads or 4WD 

mutffi. The preliminary location for this mute starts at the south end of 

the Forest near 01- and -travels north to the Lone Pine area, mstly on 

BLM and City of Los Fmgeles lands. At Lone Pine the proposed route crosses 

to the east side of the Owens Valley and travels north to the Indepndence 

area. Fran there it ascends into the Inyo and White mxmtains, where it 

drops back down to the valley floor north of Bishop. The route continues 

north through Casa Diablo wuntq and Banner Ridge area eventually “J 

north of the Pole Line Road north of the MaM, Basin Scenic Area. This 

segmnt is paa of the statewide trails system on a north/south mute called 

Sierra East. The route avoids any Sierra muntah sheep or mule deer range. 

Actual location and designation of the mute will be studied in an 

envircolmental analysis, taking into account alternative routes. 

U”l!: The area fran mghly Manmth Mountain to MaM, Lake is an ideal OHV 

area. The Sierra Safari is a classic event and events like it should be 

encouraged by the Forest Service. I do not see a need to werly develop the 

area, just allow the use to go on in a manner which is not overly managed. 

(45) 

FE5ECNSE: The Sierra Safari is a recreational event and is handled through 

the special use permit process. It is not within the scope of the Forest 

Plan to address this specific activity. Requests to mnduct this event and 

any other recreational event are handled on a case-by-case basis based on the 

special use permit application and the ability of the proponent to meet the 

terms and canditions of the special use permit. 

U”l!: I highly approve of your plans to decrease the area available to 

off-road vehicles and to increase the miles of mads and trails available to 

them. (47) 

RISKNSE: The Forest Plan does not specific=dly decrease the area available 

to OHVs. Areas recomnended for wilderness would be mmged status quo to 

preserve their wilderness characteristics. Any appropriate OW use m 

occurring in those rexmwd& areas auld oontinue as lang as the character 

of the area is not changed. Prescription #18 allows for mnstruction of 

roads. 

m: 

Plan. It is expensive and adversely all other Forest users. (381) 

“E: The Pacific southwest Regicm of the Forest Servica (California) 

has agreed to cooperate with the State in their State-wide Wails Plan. 

Do not Oooperate with the state of California State-wide OW Wails 

CUMENl?: I am writing in bp that these areas will not be closed to 

vehicles so my children will be able to enjoy them as I have (White 

Wuntains, the mte and Buttermilk areas). (1390) (486) 

172 
OFFHIGHWAY VMICLES 

RESECWSE: There is no direction that would close an area nu.i open to OHV use 

with the exception of any areas wiuch Cbrgress might designate as 

wilderness. Those areas managed under the Mule Deer Rt@asis Prescription 

may have sane sea“l closures to protect wildlife, but they would be open 

to OHV use mst of the time. 

CD”: 

on Forest Service land. 

it should be eliminated. (1539) 

“E: The present permittee for the mto-cross hs not wish to continue 

opxal5.q. !I% Town of i”th L&es derives sane eoonCrnic benefit fm the 

operation of this prmit because it brings people into the area in early 

June. There is also a demand fran mtorcyclists to use the course area 

during the season, and the presence of this course is an opprhmity to 

CoIlcentrate this type of use in one area. There is a possibility that the 

area under permit may again operate under a new permittee, as long as the 

permittee can meat all requirements of the permit. In the event there is ~3 

permittee, the wurse will be rehabilitated. 

I was appalled that your slide shows showed a mto-cross racetrack 

This is not an appropriate use of public land, and 

m: I vigorously recarmend that Prescription #18 be redesignated as 

Prescription #17 in all roadless areas. Prescription #18 is only appropriate 

for open sacrifice areas such as poleta Canyon. “Designated roads and 

trails” as the term applies to Prescription #17 could be defined as marung 

paved public roads, and public roads and trails which are signed open. All 

unsignea mads and trails shulld be CoIlStrued to be closed. (1839) (138, 328, 

332, 381, 444, 481, 1163, 1167, 1274, 1332, 1421, 1532, 1583, 1589, 1608, 

1613, 1664, 1722, 1777, 1801, 1868, 1900, 1907, 1922, 1923, 1928, 1930, 2045, 

2054, 2060, 2115, 2129, 2147, 2185) 

RESECWSE: Prescriptions #17 and 18 have been rewritten. Prescription #18 

generally restricts OHVs to existkg roads and apen areas. Poleta Gmyon is 

the only open area on the Forest. Paved public roads are not considered OW 

routes and do not cone under the 1977 Interagmcy Wtor Vehicle Use Plan. 

The Forest is divided into three categories for OW use: open, olosed, or 

restricted. The restricted category is signed in two ways: restricted to 

existing routes or to designated mutes. In areas restricted to existkg 

routes, OHVs may travel on any existing mute unless it is signed closed. In 

other restricted areas, OHVs may only travel on designated routes which are 

signed open to travel. Any other existing route in or adjacent to the 

designated mute muld be closed to OHV use even though it may not be signed 

as such. 

m: Regarding OHV use, I find that the current level of access mads 

are sufficient to satisfy the demand. I have driven many of the mads in 

this region and find that their use is substantially less than most trails 

that I have backpacked. A wide variety of habitats are readily accessible to 

OHVusers. (1866) 

173 
RESPCNSE: Any proposal to cc"t new CHV routes would first be addressd 

in an -tal l%clnmnt which includes plbliC participation. There are 

m Plans to sutstantially increase exiSt3l-g OHV routes. However, sane 

realigrment or new c"cb 'on may be necessary to prwkd resources or to 

facilitate OHV travel on the Farest. 

CX"!: I do rot agree that the 1977 Interagency Witor Vehicle Use Plan, 

which prohibits mtor vehicles off designated roads and trails, should be 

acbpted in the Inyo's Final Plan. (1935) 

RESPONSE: The Forest Plan does the 1977 Interagency C.b~ Vehicle Use 

Plan as being the best and only plan available at this time. Ilowever, it 

does need updating, a process which will occur with public participation 

designated routes only in areas where routes have been designated and signed 

as such. OHV use on most of the Forest is restricted to existing (as opposed 

to designated) routes. 

after the Forest Plan is adopted. The 1977 Plan prohibits OHVS off of 

CX"!: 

access. (1988) 

RESPONSE: Dexter CanycSl and Glass khmtain are covered by Prescription 

#17. The other prticms of these two areas that are covered by 

Prescripticms #10 and #11 which contain recreation direcb 'on that restricts 

OHV use to existing roads, the same as Prescription #17. 

Dexter Cany@n and Glass bbuntain should be designated as limited 

CX"!: As far as I can tell, the Plan contains M provision for the 

State4.de motorized trail System. This ita should be iraCl~ded in the Plan 

because the Inyo National Forest has Green Sticker grants to locate a trail 

through the Forest. (1893) 

RESPONSE: Please refer to the Standards and Guidelines for off-highway 

vehicles in the Final Plan. They state: "Cooperate with the State of 

California in developing a State-wide OHV hail Plan." 

CCEMENT: we are strcolgly opp3sed to the proposed construction of 36 miles of 

new ORV trails. (140) 

RESPONSE: The mileage figures in the Plan are only an estimate. Any plans 

to construd new OHV mutes would be covered by NEPA regulations, and the 

analysis process would include public involvement. Only after this prccess 

is cmpleted mld it be possible to pd with a new constn~ction project. 

CC": Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for off-road vehicles. Add to 

(1): "1977 Interagency Map will be umted and reprinted in quantities 

sufficient to meet the need for public educaticol and protection of roadless 

~IJDXS". Add to (4): "When necessary, critical wildlife and fish habitat 

will be closed to OW use. " 

174 
OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES 

-E: The Forest recognizes the need to revise the 1977 OW Map and that 

process will ccau when the forest planning prcmss has been ccmpleted. 

Revision will include public involvement and recognize any changes to the 

exi- pian which may be necessary to protect critical wildlife and fish 

habitat. 

ClX+WP2 Managemnt Area #6 has a 4WD route that cones fran Nevada a19 

Hun- Creek and then crosses through the Excelsior Mountains to 

Rattleslake. A portion of this road travels up a dry Stxeambd which appears 

to be designated as Ros semi-primitive "wtorized. This is unacceptable 

because it would intmpt exis- established vehicle routes. (1807) 

RESPCBJSE: The area in questiOn will be eXarmn * ed and the line for primitive 

m-mtorized Ros class will be moved so as not to exclude any existing OW 

route. Wtorized use is allowed in areas with the Ros class semi-primitive 

m-mtorized designation. However, when inventoried routes and trails are 

present, the area is designated as semi-primitive nwtorized. The change will 

be made to the ROS Class inventom. 

m: prescription #18 - Open Road&. Add to the facilities element: 

"Allow no new road construction that would degade imprtant wildlife 

habitat". Add the following to the protection element: "After consultation 

with Forest Sexvice and Deparbnent of Fish and Game biolqists, develop a 

plan describing let burn sites for wildlife habitat improvement." In scme 

cases, we feel that boundaries of the open maded prescription should be 

in the prefarred ?Ut-tive to Prescription #17 - Limited Access. 

These changes are shown on the enclosed map. (2190) 

m. Any new road mnstruction would be preceded by an mvircmwntal 

analysis, including public involvement, to assure, amng other thirgs, that 

the project corsiders any hprtant wildlife habitat. The Forest policy on 

fire suppression takes into account let burn areas on certain parts of the 

Forest. ccolfinement or 

Oontainment are tm of the three fire suppression strategies that could allow 

fire to burn in certain areas under certain, prescribed conditions. 

Wildlife considerations are a part of that policy. 

m: Prescription #17 - Limited Access. All lands south of the Owens 

River Gorge should be designated Prescription #17. (140) 

"E: Designating all lands under Prescription #17 would be neither 

practical nor desirable. The primary resauce importance of a given area of 

Forest land is the detmmuung factor in selecting what prescription to apply 

to that land. Prescription #17 was meant to be applied to areas where 

recreation and/or wildlife values are prevalent. Applying a prescription to 

a piece of land does not, in itself, me out direction that may be contained 

in another prescription. When looking at the 1977 Interagency Motor Vehicle 

Use Map, it is apparent that nwst of the land open to OW use south of the 

CXmxs River Gorge is restricted access, in that OW use is confined to 

existing or designated mutes. 

.. 

175 
COt+mW.: Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for off-mad vehicles. I 

s-ly agree with these standards. There should be a guideline for 

enforcaent to assure that the designations in the Plan are oheyed. 36 CFR 

295.2 (A) should be applied rigidly. (225) 

RESFONSE: The monitoring and evaluation process will evaluate whether the 

appropriate. 

standards and Guidelines are met. Enforcement guiaelines are mt 

Ovez-snoW Vehicles 

m: I would like to see the Plan limit the use of svlwmobiles along the 

eastem side of San Joaquin Ridge in the Winter and to see the dirt mads 

along its crest closed to off-mad vehicle use. (1875) 

REspoNsE: The Forest Plan proposes to allow sxmmbiles only on designated 

mutes or corridors between San Joacpin Wdge and U.S. 395. There will he 

routes designated on-the-ground where su;rwmobiles may travel. This wntrasts 

with the area east of U.S. 395 where -bile use is restricted only by 

adequate SIMW cover. The one sumner designated OW route along the top of 

San Joaquin Rise to Deadman Pass will remain open under the 1977 Interagency 

Pbbr Vehicle Use Map which will be undergoing a revision outside the Forest 

planning process. This revision will involve input fm the public, and at 

that time, all options for OHV use on the Forest, inc1udi.q San Joquin 

Ri%e, will be considered. 

CXPW3W: The permit area for Sierra Meadows Ski 'Iburing Center should be 

shown as closed to s"Dbiling on the sy3wm3bile use map. (1099) 

SFQNSE: The area in question will be changed on the update of the 1977 

Interagency Snowmobile Use Map which will OCCUT after the Forest Plan is 

approved. 

m: ROS map. The Lakes Basin should be classed as semi-primitive 

motorized due to the administcative use of srmimbiles, machines to set track 

and utilities access. Also, if the area is accessed by permit. me ROs 

designation of semi-primitive m-mtorized ai- Sherwin Lakes Wail 

contradicts the sxmmbile use map. The semi-primitive mn-motorized 

designation along the Minaret Sumnit contradicts future ski area developnent 

and existing jeep trails ai- the "it. (1099) 

RESPONSE: The ROS class for the Lakes Basin reflects the pr- use of the 

basin which is sumner use. The mded natural classification mst properly 

fits this ma. Administrative use of the Lakes Basin in the winter by 

sfminubiles by the mrdic permittee, Forest SeIvice, search and rescue, or 

fire personnel is authorized by pennit or an exemption to the Forest Order 

which closed this area to motorized CSV vehicles. Use of OSVs by the general 

public is prohibited by a Forest order. 

176 
OVER-SNOW VMICLES 

Ct"m,: The Plan does mt address the impact timber managmt has upn OSV 

recreation. OSV recreation or - play activity areas are mt recognized on 

the preferred managmt prescription map; mrdic and alpine skiing are 

recognized. Srmkey Bear Flats is listed as timber management whereas the 

5-year old carmercial -bile operation at Smkey Bear Flats is not noted 

at all. we request that the map reflect OSV recreation. Reqwest a formal 

agreement for multiple-use be prepared for each pmuttee and that plowed 

roads for lqging activities be either restricted to certain mn-peak SM>W 

months or carefully mitigated with current users. (1104) 

=-E: Managmt prescriptions that are applied to a specific piece of 

National Forest land reflect the preaaninant resource for that area. The 

fact that a timber prescription is applied does not man that thexe cannot be 

other resources or activities, such as OSV use, taking place. Winter is the 

preferred time of year to log since the timber can be skidded across the top 

of the glow and does mt disturb the soil and archawlogical resources. 

Direction for recreation under the High Level Timber Managmt Prescription 

(Rx #lo) all- for OW use when there is sufficient 42ow mer to protect 

soil and vegetation. Direction under the timber management prescriptions 

will include mitigatian measures that would require timber operators to 

provide access across plowed timber roads for officially designated mrdic 

and s"bile trails by kmckirg dawn the - berms. 

CCWG": Winter use of "biles seems to be under better control than in 

the past, but we need to be sure that they stay on designated roads. (914) 

RFSPONSE: Smbile use will be managed under the 1977 Interagency 

Smbile Use Map. This map will be revised after the Forest Plan is 

approved. The "bile use map does not restrict slowmobile use to roads, 

since, - for the most part, roads are not distinguished when there is adequate 

cover. There are marry marked sr"bile trails, and these follow road 

mrridors. 

CCWG": I would like to see the glow on both sides of U.S. 395 stay open to 

srmambiliq. OSVs belong on the and require - to m. The west 

side of u.S. 395 is where the best 42ow is located and -times the only 

410~. (1130) (53, 70, 143, 153, 183, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1119, 1123, 

1127, 1131, 1132, 1137, 1138, 1140, 1141, 1147, 1149, 1153, 1156, 1362, 1429, 

1592, 1726, 1727, 1728, 1741, 2120, 2127, 2240) 

"E: In the area where use is limited as shown on the snmmbile map 

included with the Draft Plan, s"biles would be restricted to designated 

comiars which are signed on-the-ground. The Forest Service will develop a 

winter map which will delineate bth mrdic and OSV use in line with 

direction in the Forest Plan. This would cccur when the 1977 Interagency 

S"bile Use Map is upaatea after the Forest Plan is approved. 

cxmnxr.: Maintain -bile access in Sherwin/Laurel area until the ski 

area is developed. (1099) (231) 

177 
REspoNsE: Both the 1977 Interagency Snmmbile Use Map and the Draft Forest 

Plan =ile Use Map shau the sherwin/Laursl area as open to "bile 

use. It is premature to discuss what might happen to .s"&ile use in the 

event there is a new ski developnent at Sherwin. 

aMlWl!: 

and am vary much opposed to the area closure. I feel ycu should redesign the 

area to make it desirable and useable to both skiers and s"&ilers. (1136) 

(339, 1152) 

m: The decisim on s"bile use in the Lakes Basin is being handled 

in an -tal analysis outside the Forest plamiq process. The 

analysis includes plblic participation. The decision of that analysis will 

bemne part of the management diredion fca: Management Area #a - Marmoth 

Escarpnent - 

I have b3-l sx"biling in the Malmmth area for the past 4 years 

m: Snowlllobile midom should be maintained betmen June Lake and 

"mth Lakes. At the present the, the Town Trails Cannittee has shown a 

sn"bile trail in the Lakes Basin area. (1891) 

m: It may be pible to designate a corridor west of U.S. 395 

between Mamnoth Lakes and June Lake. The actual designation of a corridor 

would be a park of the public involvement process when the 1977 Interagency 

mtor Vehicle Use Maps are @ate3 after the Forest Plan is approved. Also, 

see the abwe resp3nse. 

-: I would like to see a plan developed allowing OSV to have free use 

of the areas suitable for "mbiling. I am aware that the area has to be 

pmtec'ced fran three- and fm-wheel use. But, when the area is covered with 

-gh - to safely operate a wile, the "mbile will not damage 

the growth beneath it. There are many areas west of U.S. 395 that are 

desirable to visit. As the Marrmoth area has ~LWKI, the -bile trails in 

the area have been wen over by skiers. They find that the groaned trails 

the s"bi1es proauCe are easy to use. 

Wst of OUT group visit your area only a few times a year, and when we dD, it 

is not possible for us to came south to obtain permits ahead of time. We all 

mrk six days a week and "mbile cm Sundays. We are interested in keeping 

the area open to s"biling, and, if a pennit must be obtained for a trip 

west of U.S. 395, that it be obtainable by phone so that it could be mailed 

to us in time for cur visit. We also are very interested in keeping the area 

south and east of the Mmo Craters open. It is this area and the south and 

central Pbm Craters themselves that we mrmally ride. We ride the "o 

Mills area and south to the F"ice Flat belaw the lookout station on Glass 

r4nmtain. 

We are aware of the need for more areas for the skiers and mne of us want to 

be put onto a path that will result in an accident involving a s"bile 

with a skier. But, ha- a large investment in our sleds, we do mt want to 

be forced out of the only areas that we can use. We need at least 12" of 

178 
9ylw and the open area east of U.S. 395 does provide that most winters. It 

would be nice to be able to ride the back roads west of U.S. 395 fran time to 

time. bkst of them used to be designated as smmmbile trails. (99) (81, 

153, 457, 911, 1105, 1115, 1117, 1118, 1120, 1121, 1124, 1125, 1128, 1134, 

1135, 1139, 1142, 1143, 1144, 1145, 1146, 1148, 1150, 1155, 1612, 1645, 1845) 

RESPONSE: The existing 1977 Interegency S"nbile Use Map and the Draft 

Forest Plan Snmmbile Use Map both show the area south and east of Mcou, 

craters as open. The area west of U.S. 

395 on the Draft Forest Plan Snmmbile Use Map is mtly limited use; 

-bile travel is allowed on vehicle mutes not designated closed. There 

is sane open area imnecliately adjacent to U.S. 395. However, the Preferred 

Alternative adopted in the Forest Plan does not include any open OSV areas 

west of U.S. 395. OSV use will be restricted to designated corri&rs. A 

corridor to allow -biles to travel mrth fran i"&h Lakes to the June 

Lake area would be considered jn the umte of the 1977 Interagency 

Sr"bile Use Map. Other corridors open to ,"r&iles would also be 

considered for designation. The 1977 Interagency Smbile Use Map will be 

update3 after the Forest Plan is adopted. 

There are M plans to change that. 

Cct+": Support the preferred Alternative position of no sxmmbilirg west 

of U.S. 395. (1176) (147, 163, 231, 278, 293, 300, 324, 328, 329, 332, 340, 

358, 377, 381, 383, 398, 400, 419, 430, 437, 438, 449, 466, 498, 923, 950, 

952, 953, 978, 980, 998, 1008, 1032, 1107, 1159, 1162, 1167, 1168, 1180, 

1191, 1202, 1218, 1224, 1232, 1253, 1274, 1277, 1317, 1332, 1362, 1388, 1399, 

1402, 1407, 1421, 1427, 1469, 1485, 1487, 1496, 1498, 1529, 1532, 1537, 1539, 

1541, 1545, 1546, 1548, 1549, 1556, 1565, 1572, 1583, 1584, 1585, 1589, 1591, 

1622, 1638, 1653, 1674, 1683, 1695, 1731, 1732, 1757, 1759, 1777, 1789, 1806, 

1816, 1841, 1854, 1858, 1862, 1865, 1868, 1902, 1907, 1926, 1927, 1930, 1931, 

1933, 1948, 1964, 1971, 1975, 1980, 2045, 2054, 2066, 2113, 2117, 2122, 2129, 

2132, 2143, 2142, 2143, 2147, 2155, 2159, 2161) 

FU!SCNZ: The intent is to 

allow oontrolled -bile use west of U.S. 395 within designated corridors 

such as one to Inyo eaters. The Forest Plan will still eniphasize srmwmobile 

use east of u.S. 395,and dispersed win- and sunaner recreation west of U.S. 

395. These corridors Would be identified in the public irnrOlvement phase of 

the u@te of the 1977 Interagency E.lotor Vehicle Use Plan. 

The wordiq in the Final Plan has been modified. 

CCWEWl': I oppose any use of the National Forest by "biles. (998) 

(1176, 1532) 

RESFQNSE: President Nixon signed Executive Mer #11644 on February 8, 

1972. The purpose of this order was to "...establish policies and provide 

for procedures that will ensure that the use of off-mad vehicles on public 

lands will be controlled and directed so as to protect the reso- of those 

lands, to pramte the safety of all users of those lands, and to mininu 'ze 

conflicts among the various uses of tbose lands." It also went on to say 

"the regulations shall further require that the designation of such areas and 

trails shall be in accordance with the followhg: areas and trails shall be 

179 
OVER-SNOW VEHICLES 

located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing 

or pro& recreational uses of the same or neighbring public lands, and to 

ensure the cmpatibility of such uses with existing conditims in mated 

areas, taking into account mise and other factors." 

It is not a question of whether or not to have s"3hile use on the Forest, 

but rather where can this use fit in with other existing or proposed uses 

while mininu 'zing conflicts. 

CC@MFKC: This Plan is in favor of hikers and cross-ooUntry skiers, and 

denies -bile and off road use in an area where both have been carpMtible 

for years. The Plan doesn't discuss the difference in munt of 41ow and 

1- of onrerage east and west of U.S. 395. There are about three gmd 

years in ten on the east side of U.S. 395. The Plan doesl't sbow any 

difference between slowmobile use, which doesn't hann the area, and off-road 

vehicles which might. Let's all live together. (1879) 

"E: The Forest Service will develop a winter map which will delineate 

both nordic and OSV use in line with direction in the Forest Plan. This will 

be dane when the 1977 Interagency Motor Vehicle Use maps are upaatea using 

public involvement. This would OCCUT after the Forest Plan is afbpted. Sane 

slowmobile use can cccur west of U.S. 395, but it would be r-icted to 

designated corridors. There would not be any open OSV areas west of U.S. 

395. 

a"l': I don't like to see any mom land closed to S"0bilers. We as 

su>wrobilers are pa- for a green sticker every 3 years and use parking 

tickets, and there are not many places to ride. We do not do any damage to 

the terrain, so why take away what little enjoymat we've got? We are tired 

of seairg OUT Green Sticker my go- to other things. We are a 

resp3nsible organized club, and we are tired of all our riding areas taken 

away frcm us. The SIIDW covers any land we ride on so we do no damage to the 

terrain. Why don't you focus a little on 4wDers or possibly motorcycles? 

(101) (1099, 1104, 1105, 2165) 

"E: It is not the intent of the Forest Plan to'discriminate against 

s"bile use. The Forest requested and received a Green Sticker grant to 

do preliminary work on the Lookout Mountain Trailhead, which will be a 

slowmobile staging area on the east side of U.S. 395 near the Scenic Loop 

Road to Mammth. This is a substantial pject and &uld benefit many 

slowmobilers. It is not possible to have open "mbile areas mixed with 

mrdic ski areas due to the mnflicts that inevitably result. Any -bile 

us8 mt be cmptible with existing or proposed uses in an area; see 

prarious response relating to President Nixon's Executive Order). 

CXMlEHT: Request two separate A"V/OHV maps be developed, one for winter and 

one for sumner. In addition, the Winter and sumner OHV map should be titled 

"off-highway vehicle" as apposed to the "bile map titled "wer-sxm 

vehicle". Also, the open and closed designations should be the same. 

Ckrently, the maps reflect opposite open/closed designations, and this is 

180 
OVER-SNOW VEHICLES 

ccolfusing. Our grcmed trails for OUT camxxcial operation are destrayed 

each week by 4WD vehicles. Signing and barriers are needed as well as 

cc"ication and proper maps. (1104) (153) 

After the Forest Plan is approved, both the 1977 Interagmcy Motor 

Vehicle Use Map and the Snmmbile Use Map will be u@ated using public 

invulvakmt. Most likely, the winter map will alSo include other types of 

winter use such as nordic skiing. The three categories relating to OW use 

(closed, open, and restricted or limited) are applied differently relative to 

OW and OSV use. With adqate glow cover, much of the area IMW used can be 

managed as open, especially east of U.S. 395 where no "@zing uses OCCUT. 

In scme cases, wildlife a"s differ between sumner and winter use, and 

these concerns would be reflected in different use restrictions. In the case 

of wilderness and certain classified areas, m nwtor vehicle use of any kind 

is pennitted and these areas would be labeled closed for both maps. 

(XWl": Plan 111-12 and Facilities Map. The Draft Plan specifically states 

a need for increased use for both nordic and OSV facilities. The Plan 

allocates a specific area for a mrdic ski Center, proposes a Forest Service 

road to the center at White Wing, and then proposes to restrict or close off 

all other form of recreation to that area. Other fom of recreation 

traditionally prohibited near nordic ski centers are smmsh~~irg, 

snowmobiling, and hiking. The Plan needs to reflect a means for obtw 

its stated goal to meet the needs of the OSV carmunity. The two Green 

Sticker projects pending with the state are not reflected in the Plan. 

Continue to pursue state off-road highway funding sources to develop 

s"bile facilities east of U.S. 395. The Plan stated that the national 

trend in forest recreation managaent is to encourage private investment in 

developing and managing recreation sites on public land. The Forest Service 

continues to approach the private sedor to develop nordic skiing but does 

not approach the private sector to develop OSV or other glow play 

activities. The OSV camunity is in need of marked and grcxmed trails, 

pld parkiq areas, multiple-use recreation areas, and lak~ing that will 

access the county-wide trails. The Forest Service goals within the Plan for 

developing OSV trails are not clearly stated. (1104, 1099) 

RISJXNSE: At the time the Draft Plan was written, the Forest did not know 

the status of the Green Sticker grant for Lookout Wumtain "railhead. At the 

present time, only the p1armi.q dollars for this project have been apprwed 

by the OW carmission; these p1anni.q dollars still must pass the Governor's 

budget process in July 1988 before they can be allocated to canplete the 

en-tal analysis. This analysis will determine the scope of the 

project, including potential sumner use as well as a winter staging area for 

-biles. The Forest has two existing snowmobile permittees which operate 

rental programs. There are many kilcmeters of marked -bile trails and 

the permittees gmnn their own trails for rentals. There is a lack of 

off-highway parking to safely unload "mbiles. One of the purp3ses of 

proping the Loakout Wumtain "railhead was to satisfy this need for safe 

parkiq. The towns of M~IIMD~~ Lakes and June Lake contain sufficient lcdging 

to meet the present demand. 

181 
cuwmr: Alpine ski developnent within Sherwin Bowl need rrrt Close off osv 

rec?=eaticn, but will enhance it as pointed cut in cur rep3.rt about 

snuambiling in Wan county dated August 1985. Marmoth Wuntah's 

devalopnent at Hartley Spr- again need mt close or restrict OSV 

rec?=eaticn but enhance it with shared parkcrgfacilities. These areas need 

mt be Closed or restricted and we oppose the cxln?3nt proposal on the osv map 

to close and restrict these two areas. (1104) (1099. 2165) 

RESPONSE: The Forest Plan proposes to keep the area east of U.S. 395 as an 

open area for s"bi1es. S-bile use west of U.S. 395 will be 

restricted to designated corridors. These corridors will be located and 

agreed to during the revision process of, the 1977 Interagency mtor Vehicle 

and S"bile Use Maps. The Forest Plan does not close the area near the 

The area within the Tawn of Malnmth Lakes is 

restricted to snuambile use, but the area cut Old mth Road and near 

sharwin c'reek 

proposed Sherwin Bawl ski Area. 

is open for unrestricted OSV use. 

CXWlXF: The Mnn Craters (Area #5288) are an exceptionally beautiful chain 

of rhyolite volt-. They may be the best example of this type of landform 

world-wide, yet their beauty and their value as a natural T~SOUTCB is 

especially SUSCeptible to degradation by mtor vehicles. I urge that all 

vehicles, OWs, nuuntain bikes, s"biles, and helicopters be kept out of 

the Mnn Craters. We have a fantastic volcanic landscap there, but it is 

soft and easily mazred by vehicle travel. hren "nbiles, which generally 

ride up on the sxxm cover, have cut through to the soft pumice in many places 

and have left extensive tracks. I feel that it is difficult, if mt 

hpxsible, to restrict s"bi1e use to times and conditions that will only 

allow safe, m"ctive travel. Therefore, I urge that their use in the 

Wnm Craters be excluded altogether so that people may enjoy this idque 

resource without any vehicle scars. Them are thxsands of acres of Forest 

land nearby in which to enjoy snambiling. Let's protect this one fragile 

comer of the Forest fmn it. (1579) 

RESPONSE: The managanent plan for the Mxm Basin National Forest Scenic Area 

is being developd outside the Forest planning prcce~s. That document will 

address the use of OSVs for the p0rtica-1 of the Wnm Craters area that is 

presently used by OSVs. The portion that lies outside the Scenic Area is 

proposed to be left open to OSV use, as"jnJ them is adquate sy3w mer to 

ptwt the resources. By adequate sncw mer, we mean enough so that the 

OSV will mt dig into the ground and leave tracks that can be seen in the 

sumner. 

m: S"z!biling is a fast-grming winter sport, and it's family 

oriented. With s"bi1es costing as much as $5,500, it is a growing 

ecoIlcmic force. If the Plan is acbpted as proposed, the Southern California 

snambilers will have m reason to purchase snowmobiles if they do mt have 

a reasonable place to ride for an enjoyable experience. This will result in 

loss of sales at dealers and loss of business to the local services. (2204) 

RL3FONSE: Former President Nixon's Executive Order stated that OW 

(including OSVs) use can OCCUT on federal land if it does not conflict with 

182 
exisfAng or propxed uses. It must also be cmpatible with basic reso~lrces 

such as soil, water, and vegetation. The Forest will -de for OSV use 

within that framework. The proposed Looluxlt Mxmtain Trailhead is a positive 

step toward pmviding a staging area for s"%iles. 

cci": The Mammth Lakes Town Buncil recognizes the MmRtnity need to 

offer diversified winter recreation. The Mamuoth Lakes General Plan 

direction is to support winter play developmnts and activities and favors 

"5q over s~cky vehicle recreation withjn the Town of Mammth Lakes, 

b4n-o County and the Inyo National Forest. (922) (102) 

"E: The intent of the Forest Plan is to allow OSV use wherevw it is 

cmpatible with basic resomces and other uses. The section in Forest-wide 

Standards and Guidelines for off-road vehicles will be revised to read 

off-highway and --the-- vehicles (OHV and OSV). Manag-t direction 

will pertah to both these categories. In addition, the 1977 Interagency 

Mtor Vehicle and Srxmmbile Use Maps will be revised after the Forest Plan 

is a&pted. The revision process will include public involvanmt fran all 

SrWPs. 

UM4lWl?: Object to the areas permitted for "obiling, specifically 

Devil's Postpile and Rock Creek. These should be for nordic skiing instead. 

( 121 1 

REspcBvsE: The Devil's Postpile area is ~y3w essentially restricted from 

srxmmbile use due to the extension of the Ansel Adam Wildemess boundary to 

include Manmvth Pass. The only other way down to this area is via the 

Minaret Road which is generally too stsep and unsafe due to avalanche paths. 

Occasionally, there may be times whm srxmmbiles can access this area, but 

for the majority of the time it will be unavailable. 

The Rock Creek area is closed to public -bile use abwe the parkirg area 

at East Fork. The permittee may use a mtorized OSV to access his operations 

at Rock Creek Winter Lcdge. 

w: 

trails. (214) 

RESPONSE: The 1977 Interagency &%"bile Use Map is the regulating document 

for snowmobile use. After the Forest Plan is approved, that map will be 

u@ated, using public mvolvement, and will probably be retitled Over The 

Snow Vehicle Use Plan. In some areas, it is appropriate to restrict OSV use 

to certain trails or corridors. In other areas, as long as thexe is 

sufficient 91ow cover to protect vegetation and soil resources and m 

conflicts are identified with other USBIS, there wuld be no reason to 

restxict OSV use. 

Sncwrobiles shauld be restricted to designated and signed mads and 

183 
a%PfiST: Cross comtzy ski areas should be pximted, especially in the 

country around Deadman and Glass Mountain which is prom for and being 

logged. Facilities should be provided such as par- areas, restroans and 

cmpp~unds which are open in the winter. Reconsider developed mrdic skiing 

in the Inyo Crater area. I muld like mre parking for cross country skiers 

at places like the Obsidian Dane ski trail on U.S. 395 and along the Mammth 

Scenic Lwp. (79, 163, 1548) (20, 24, 48, 50, 57, 63, 75, 78, 80, 88, 94, 

114, 175, 214, 225, 278, 298, 303, 313, 314, 339, 351, 370, 430, 443, 901, 

906, 933, 943, 1013, 1099, 1104, 1105, 1202, 1361, 1388, 1430, 1519, 1539, 

1566, 1579, 1586, 1591, 1592, 1611, 1613, 1629, 1634, 1731, 1777, 1791, 1836, 

1889, 1891, 1923, 1926, 1933, 1975, 2035, 2060, 2112, 2156, 2170, 2180, 2185) 

RESFCNSE: As a result of public ccmxxk, much of the area between Mammth 

and White Wing has been designated Prescription #16 which has been mdified 

and retitled. This area will include the large pocket of red fir located at 

the base of San JoagUin =@e. The preaarmnan ' t recreational activities in 

the area will consist of sumner and winter trail use of all types. -is 

will be on hiking, equestrian, mxntain bike, and mrdic trail 

opportunities. S-bile use will be by designated corridors. Sumner 

vehicle use will be limited to existing designated roads. Facilities could 

include parkhg, toilets, interpretive and picnic developnents, and a 

moderate mrdic ski center with both grrxmed and ungrocmed trail systems. 

Specific recreation managemat direction is included in Prescription #16 - 

Dispersed Recreation. The area around Glass buntain, as well as many other 

areas around Marmpth and June Lake, will be available for backwuntry mrdic 

skiing and will not be in conflict with the high timber managmat 

prescription or other prescriptions. 

m: The section on dispersed -ation should include a discussion of 

dispersed backcountry, the winter equivalent to hiking. Unfortunately, all 

references in the Plan and DEIS am to "developed" mrdic skiing with mrdic 

"centers" and grocmed trails: this developed mrdic skiing is unaccountably 

referred to as "dispersed". Developea mrdic skiing is not "dispersed" 

recreation, but is much like alpine skiing with l&ges, restaurants, and 

shops. Backmtry mrdic skiing sh3uld be discussed separately in the Plan. 

(2170) 

RESFCNSE: IntheResoUrCeEh- t description in the Plan, we mention 

developing facilities that supFort mrdic skiing. These facilities can range 

fran parking lots and toilets to food services, rentals, and groaned trails. 

Not all nordic ski- takes place on ppmd trails; backcountry skiing is 

remgnized as a valuable and desirable form of recreational skiing. Our 

definition of "dispersed mrdic skiing" refers to the course or trail that is 

used by the skier whether it is grocmed track or cross country. Once the 

skier is on the trail, the use is considered a form of dispersed recreation. 

The developed portion is the base facility that contains the amenities that 

Support the skiing activity. Just as hiking takes place on prepred trails 

and is amsidered a dispersed activi*, so is nordic skiing. The description 

is very brief arid is intended to cmly point out the key points of the 

184 
NORDIC RECREATION 

analysis of the management situation. 

the full range of dispersed activities and opportunities. 

It is not an in depth description of 

m: Like to see toboggan hills. (901) 

RESPONSE: The developed recreation direction calls for developing day use, 

interpretive, and infonnation sites and trails, and to mrdi&te with other 

agencies for developnent and maintamme needed to provide par- for 92ow 

play and nordic skiing. Appropriately lccated par- and associated 

facilities can be developed for 410~ play areas in general. However, the 

Forest Semice will not specifically develop toboggan hills nor be 

respco7sible for maintenance and administration of such, mainly fran a 

liability standpint. These facilities could be provided through a 

ccolcessionaire. 

CCNMRW Pennit developed nordic trails within Prescription #14. Please add 

to the developed recreation directi ves: "Allow for -lay activities and 

facilities. (1099, 1638) 

RESPONSE: Nordic trails would be possible within areas designated 

Prescription #14. Until a decision regarding alpine ski developnent is made 

in these areas, dispersed recreational activities including nordic skiing are 

appropriate uses. In areas with attractive nordic oppxhnities, design of 

facilities to amamdate both nordic and alpine would be psssible if 

identified and cx"ted through the environmental analysis process. 

Recreation direction allm for a full range of dispersed activities. 

CX&NJWF: 

cross-country ski area. (1652) 

"E: The Glass Creek area is and will ccoltinue to be available for 

A mre proper use of the Glass (seek area would be for a low cost 

backcomtry nordic skiing. 

CCWlDKP: I support h-escription #16 for the Inyo CYaters area. The Dry 

cceek and Irryo c~oss-~ty ski areas must be developd to provide 

the c~oss-axultLy skier/visitor with a quality experience. Current projected 

cross-country SAOTs are not accurate in ccmparisun to actual potential 

growth. 12-15,000 Ws would probably be mre accurate. (1099, 556) (50, 

79, 175, 339) 

RFSPONSE: The growth curves used to project nordic ski use were the highest 

available to us as we realized that nordic skiing was the fastest growing 

activity on the Forest. Much of the growth in nordic skiing, in the mth 

area, is related in part to the overall growth in alpine skiing, the 

hxeased capcity of Mnmtain, the limits on the alpine ticket 

sales, and alpine skiers taking advantage of both sports. The activity has 

nrd"d in the last few years; there is not a long history of grayth or a 

firm idea of where the nordic ski jndustry is going. In the future 

12,000-15.000 SAOTs may be a possibility; hever, added onto the total 

185 
potential alpine skiers, the capacity of the resource to provide alpine and 

nordic terrain will probably not be the limiting factor for developnent. 

Instead, growth may be limited by the ability of the Camrmnity to meet the 

basic needs of the reneation popilation. 

m: If groaned trails nust exist, they should be put in places where 

facilities and parking already are dsvelopd, such as near present downhill 

skiing oprations. 

"E: Qoaned trails would not be allowed in wilderness. Hmever, they 

would be allawed outside of wilderness on lands suitable for a wide rarge of 

adivities. It may be possible to canbine mrdic with alpine base facilities 

if ccmflicts between the txm uses are mitigated and adequate rocm and 

facilities exist for both. 

They sbould not te put in wilderness areas. (943) 

recreational 0- 'ties and when3 coordinated with other angoing 

m: There is no mention of RCS restrictions other than for nordic ski 

omrhmities. Need to clarify. Also state s~3w and mn-sI1ow uses 

separately. (68) (379) 

RESEQNSE: We have deleted the reference to Ros restrictions for nordic 

skiing frun Prescription #16. The Nordic Ski h-escription #16 has been 

m3dified and renamed Dispersed Recreation. Please refer to the rewritten 

directian for recreatian and timber managemat in the Prescription. 

CCMiWE The Forest Service prarides five free areas and also grcun several 

areas which may include Shady Rest, Obsidian Dane, Inyo Craters, June Lake 

Jmction, and west of the Scenic Loop Road out of Mammth. With all the 

budget cuts the Forest Semiice has faced, I cannot see spndirg the "ey to 

keep up these areas. (1105) 

RFSPONSE: only the Shady Rest and Obsidian Dane areas are cccasionally 

grcrmed, and then rmstly by volunteers. The other tr$'- may give the 

appearance of groaning due to the use of these marked routes by 

s"biles. Ahxt all of the recreation buaets are utilized in 

maintainirg and administering sunner oriented recreation facilities. 

m: The timber management guidelines in Prescription #16 are a major 

problem. In the DEIS sumnary of Prescription #16, it is stated that 

"...(timber harvest) direction follows that in the modified timber managaent 

prescriptions.. .'I. Hadever, the timber guidelines in Prescription #16 are 

identical to the guidelines in Prescription #10 - High Level Timber 

Managemat except the size of clearcuts which is intermediate between 

Prescription #9 - Modified Timber and Prescription #lo. High level timber 

managemat is not oaupatible with the nonhc skiing experience. Timber 

should be managed as per other developea recreation areas such as 

Prescriptions #13 or #15. 

186 
SDRDIC RECREATION 

In prescription #14, please add the following under timber: "Allow timber 

prcd~~ction only where it has been &ament& to be cost-effective." Please 

add to third recreation dire5a 've: "..other management activities such as 

92ow play facilities in the area." Please add to the sixth recreation 

directive: "Allow OW arld muntain biking." Please add the follwiq 

recreation direotives: "Encourage the developnent of a hut systm between 

June Lake and Mamnoth Lakes. Eimnxage the conjunctive use of base 

facilities for nordic and alpine purp3ses." In Management Area #7 - upper 

(xyens River, eliminate Presoriptim #16. Provide instead, for dispersed 

back-- mrdic skiing in this area. (1631, 1638, 2170) 

"E: Both the prescription and the managemnt of timber have changed in 

the Final Plan. prescription #16 has been rewritten and renamed; it 

recOgnizes the dispersed recreation values, activities, and opportunities 

available in the Deadman area that are imp3rtant resources adjacent to the 

Town of mth Lakes. No one recreational use will &"ate, but the area 

will be developed with trail system that take the best advantage of the 

natural character of the inheren t resources. Timber managaent activities 

will no longer include the red fir area as it will be droppd fm the tinker 

base. The Jeffrey pire west of U.S. 395 will be managed to maintain uneven 

aged stand characteristics with opening sizes not to exceed 3-5 acres. 

Managmt direction for these prescriptions have been totally rewritten. 

m: I find it misleading that extensive harvest of virgin red fir is 

pld in Prescription #16 as well as Prescription #lo, yet most people mll 

loak at Rx #16 on the map and say "oh, a mrdic center", not "oh my, old 

growth red fir harvest". (1634) (1013) 

RESFGN2.E: prescription #16 has been totally rewritten to emphasize dispersed 

recreation, sumner and winter, and to mentxate on dispersed nordic ski 

opportunities as oppsed to developd nordic facilities. DevelOpea 

facilities could still be part of the total package. The timber managment 

prescription applied will be an uneven-aged management emphasis which fits 

better with the recreational emphas3s in the area. 

CCM4EWF: Prescription #16 - Nordic Ski mea. Modlify the first paragraph 

under recreation to read: "Offer an e"ically viable area for "exial 

mrdic skiing operations through a prospectus to the private sector." (1013) 

RFSFQNSE: Prescription #16 has been extensively revlsed and retitled 

Dispersed Recreakon. As stated in the description, "Rnphasis is on 

dispersed mn-motorized winter recreation to accarmodate the increashq 

public demand for mrdic skilng and s~3w play without significantly 

detracting from sumner dispersed recreational opportunities. " The paragraph 

you reference has been deleted. The paragraph that tal& abut c"zial 

nordic skiing now reads "Permit ccmnetcial develop3 nordic operations only 

in areas of exist* and potential alpine base facilities. These will be 

modest day-use facilities." 

187 
m: We pmpase the abolishment of designated Research Natural Areas. 

These areas should be incowrated into wilderness and wilderness recovery 

areas. (298) (166, 266, 1634, 2101) 

RESPONSE: Research Natural Areas (RNRS) can be even mre restrictive than 

wilderness designation. RNAs can be included within wilderness such as the 

Last Chance RNA within the Golden hout Wildemess. The objectives of 

establishing RNAs are as follows: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

preserve a wide spctnnn of pristine representative areas that typify 

imp3rtant forest, shrubland, grassland, alpine, aquatic, geological, and 

similar natural situations for research, study, observation, rmnitoring, 

and tbof;e acational activities that maintain urmxlified conditions. 

pres- and maintain genetic diversity. 

prated against serious enviromsntal disruptim. 

Serve as reference areas for the study of succession. 

F'ruvi.de on site and extension educational activities. 

Serve as base line areas for masurirg long-term ecological changes. 

Serve as control areas for manipulative research. 

-tor effects of resource mg-t techniques and practices. 

Protection and management standards for RWIS are to maintain unmodified 

canditim and natural processes. wing is not permitted. Grazing is 

permitted only where it is essential to maintain a specific vegetative type. 

Recreation is only permitted where it does not threaten research or 

educational values. Roads, fences, or signs are prohibited unless they 

contribute to the objectives or to the protection of the area. RwLs are 

withdrawn fm mineral en- after they becane established. 

UMIWF: 

and have for a long time. 

can stay as they have ken for a hundred years? (989) (2171) 

RESPONSE: Refer to the above response on the objectives for RNAs. After an 

RWI is established, a management plan must be prepared for the area. This 

manag-t plan insures maintenance of the objectives for which the Research 

Natural Area was originally established. In managing the vegetation, if such 

practices as livestock grazing are to be used to maintain ecologic 

conditions, the managment plan would describe those practices, explain their 

use, and list their proposed scheaulirg. 

The Forest can identify transportation plans that would adversely inpact the 

area. Conversely, the Forest can also indicate the RNA's impact on the 

Forest tranqmrtation system. The managanent plan for the RNA would deal 

with the question of existing access and whether or not that access mld be 

appropriate for manag-t of the area for the ~urposes for which the RNA was 

designated. Access for recreational use of the area would not be 

appropriate. 

Having hiked through McAfee Meadow, I knm that cows do graze there 

why must access to this area be closed so thirgs 

188 
c"T: I am pleased to see that the Forest 1s attenpting to meet the 

demand for Research Natural Areas (RNA). Hawever, the Forest has not made 

any provision for a red fir vegetation type RNA. I recamend that an RNA be 

established for the red fir vegetation type found along San Joaqub Rime 

just west of Mam~th. (1433) 

RESPONSE: Research Natural Areas are part of a national network of field 

ecological research areas. Regicmal Foresters and Research Station Directors 

establish a regional Research Natural Area "nittee to determine needs for 

RNAs within each Region and each National Forest. RNAs are located to best 

represent the ecological conditicns needed to ccmplete the natural area 

system. The Research Natural Area ccnmittee has not identified the red fir 

ewsystem on the Inyo as a needed addition to the system; it is already 

represented elsewhere within the California Region or nationally. 

m: I ccmnend the Forest Service efforts to identify and pmtect major 

vegetation types present in the Inyo, and I support this management 

prescription for the seven recormended areas. However, I do have several 

corments abut the management of target vegetation types, primarily for 

research, study, and observation on Draft Plan Iv-58. This is an madequate 

criterion for managirg a research area serving biological/ecological 

researchers. Thus, the intrductoq statement on Page 111-28 should be 

amended to read: "The purpose is to maintain the ecological integri+q of 

native .plant and animal ccmnunities, including natural population levels, for 

the purpose of.. . . " (1611) (381, 1519) 

RESFONSE: Please refer to the following statement in Plan Chapter 111: 

"Candidate RNAs are managed so that their natural ecosystems are protected 

until the establishment process is ccmpleted. " Protecting natural ecosystems 

implies '"htain(irg) the ecological integrity of native plant and animal 

ca"kties, including natural population levels.. . 'I. This direction will 

retain the characteristics of the candidate areas until such time as they can 

be considered for RNA status. 

(XXMWF: An 

important addition to the Forest Plans muld be providing criteria outlinirg 

RNA needs and goals and how the Inyo Forest intends to help Region 5 meet 

those goals. We support the establishment of the two candidate RNAs of 

McAfee Meadow and Whipmill Flat as outlined in the DEIS. Interm 

management and pmtection plans will need to be included in the Fmal Plan 

and EIS for the candidate RNAs. We are pleased that current direction states 

it is protecting these areas, but we are c"ed that current direction and 

perso~el might change. It would be a tremendous loss if the candidate RNAs 

were damaged prior to final RNA designation. The interim protection of 

proposed RNAs should became a manag-t priority. (1411) (129, 954, 1549, 

2047, 2183) 

RESFCNSE: Management Prescripticol #5 - Research Natural Areas applies not 

cmly to established RNAs but also to candidate RNAs. As stated, the puIpose 

is to maintain the ecological integrity of target vegetation types. 

The National Audubn Society supports the designation of RNAs. 

189 
Management direction for each of the varicus resource e1-b is targeted to 

achieve that stated purpose. The fact that there is a prescription targeted 

for RNAs shows that it is a managenent priority. 

Managgnent directi 081 for candidate RNAs is also spelled out in the 

managmt. 

establishent report prepared prior to actual designation. tkce the RNA is 

established, then the "g-t plan furthar defines its protection and 

m: The Indiana Sumnit Research Natural Area is cmly 1,162 acres which 

is far too snall to meet this plrpose; mm, all of the m"dmg * lands 

are %anaged for carmercial timber FDochlcticpI" per DEIS 111-80. We urge the 

Forest Service to pruvide far greater protection for this unique 2esource by 

creating or 

will enm1-8 preservaticm of a f"iq, pure Jeffrey pine ecosyStem. The 

EIS should also specifically identify the location Of the remarnusg Jeffrey 

pine old grawth and discuss the impacts of lsoposed managmt on that 

resource. (1649) (1631) 

* Research Naixral Areas or by acbptiq luanagement that 

.. 

-E: When the Iradi- S&t RNA Was proposed, the b.mdaIy for the 

area was drawn with thought given to its location and size being sufficient 

to protect the Jeffrey pine resource. The Chief of the Forest Swice and 

his omnittee that oversees RNA proposals agreed that the p-al was 

sufficient for protection and manag-t standards. The fact that adjacent 

stands of Jeffrey pine are managed for carmercial timber proauctian does mt 

affect the RNA or its stated purpose. An enlarged RNA is mt needed and 

management activities outside the RNA have not been shown to have any effect 

on the RNA for the purpxes for which it was established. 

CZtMWl': The McAfee RNA which is nestled at the end of the Barcmft 

Mountain Road has been proposed and, if established, will be another area 

strictly off limits to the average citizen. Access will be discouraged 

except for qualified persons for research in order to pres- a unique 

alpine ecosystem. The necessity of establishing this area escapes me since 

developnents or signs of disturbances within the area, and that it is 

unlikely that natural muld be substantially altered by any 

propxed managercent of the area and its "diq s. This area also 

includes that exhpmely rare and naturally c?.xu?~- phe" luam as a 

stone corral which is &"nt -gh to shm on the Forest Service map. 

(1588) (989, 2171) 

mFCNSE: Your carment that Wee Meadow area is uniqye alludes to the 

outstanding attributes of the area. The Forest Service is charged with 

locating those Research Natural Areas that best represent the ecological 

conditions needed to oanplete the natural area system, where conflicting uses 

areminjmal . The Great Basin alpine step Vegetation type is both a 

regional RNA target element and an element as yet unrepresented in Research 

Natural Areas on federal lands elsewhen? in the nation. The McAfes Meadow 

area meets the key criteria applied to any candidate RNA of size, access, 

manageability, freedan fmm developnents or signs of disturbance, low 

the Forest S" states DEIS PppendiCes 1-1 to 1-3 that tha are 

190 
potential fco: CCkLflict with existing or potential uses, and qudity stands of 

target vegetation. 

m: DEIS Apprdlx ’ I states that both candidate FWAs contain rare plant 

species. These plants should be specifically listed in the Final Plan and 

EIS under the RNA candidate description. (1108) 

RESPONSE: Forest policy is not to publish specific site locations Of rare 

Plants. 

m: 

the ccolcept and purpose of RNAs. (382) 

RESWNSE: An energy element for F’rescription #5 - Research Natural Areas 

has been charged to read: “Allow no energy exploration or developnent;”. 

your ccmnent was correct; the two are rot canpatible. 

Allowing energy exploration and aeVelopnent is not cunpatible with 

m: 

the Wm Basin Naticmal Forest Scenic Area, Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, 

and the Hoover, Ansel Adams, John Muir, Golden Trout, and South Sierra 

Wildernesses. This Plan will reccmnend statutory wilderness status for Table 

Mnmtain (4,100), Ticga Lake (900), White Nxmtains (53,ooO), and Paiute 

(54,ooO) for their important features. This Plan will protect Indiana 

Sunnit, Harvey Hall, White Mountain, Last olance Meadow, Sentme1 Meadow, 

WhipFooIwill Flat, and McAfee Research Natural Areas. This Plan will protect 

the North Fork Kern, South Fork Kern and Middle Fork San Joaquin proposed 

wild rivers. This Plan will establish Pape Flat granitic intrusion, 

Buttermilk granitic danes, Hot creek Starkweather glacial polish, Ticga 

Tarns, Inyo eaters group, Earthquake Fault, and Convict Lake special 

interest areas for their inprtant features. This Plan will r- White 

Mountains, MDno Lake and Nnm craters, Indiana Sunnit, i”ache Meadow, Harvey 

”rce Hall, Last Chance Meadow, Long Valley, i” Mesa, North Fork Oak 

creek, Olancha Peak, Onion Valley, Ritter Range, San Joaquh Ridge, Sentinel 

Ridge, Shingle Mill bench, Aberdeen volcanic field, Alabama Hills, Banner 

Sprirgs bunchgrass, Convict creek, Coyote Ridge, Coyote Flat, Division creek 

and Glass Pbuntain for National Natural Lamhark status for their imp3rtant 

features. (24) (1026) 

RESPONSE: The Plan only reccmnends establishment of additional Research 

Natural Areas; they would be designated outside of the Forest planning 

prccess. However, direction under Management Prescription #5 wxld protect 

RNAs, both established and “m-ded. 

Under Forest-mde Standards and Guidelines, the direction is to undextake no 

management activities that would preclude designation of candidate rivers as 

a Wild and Scenic River. This mld protect than for possible inclusion 

into the system, which is the responsibility of Congress. 

The Plan does not recormend special interest areas. However, the EIS 

recOgnizeS the potential of several identified special interest areas which 

I support the h-eferred Alternative because this Plan will protect 

191 
RIPARIAN AREAS 

the Forest intends to evz saneto 

the Regional Forester for classification. That process will take place 

outside of the Forest planning pxcess. Most of the potential candidates for 

National Natural Landmarks receive reoognition under CUzTent managemnt; 

others have been identified for evaluation as potential special interest 

areas. 

Direction under the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines are to evaluate and 

reccmnend carddate specla1 interest areas for classification and candidate 

National Natural Landbnarks for "ination by 1990. 

late with the psibility of r-. 

CXWBWI': Request that the following Standards and Guidelines for Research 

Natural Areas and Special Int-t Areas be adopted: "To protect areas of 

Outstanding scientific, scenic, botanic, or geologic values as Research 

Natural Areas, national natural leks, or special interest areas, the 

Forest shall: 

A) Establish RN?is for baseline ecological study, ptection of gene 

pools, and as habitat for Forest-listed sensitive plant species, 

B) Inventory and recormend Natimal Natural Landmark status for tbse 

sites illustrating the geological and ecological diversity of the U.S. 

C) Inventory and recDmnend SIA status for areas of outstandxg 

nationally significant geologic, botanic, zoologic, paleontologic, or other 

natural values. 

protect and preserve the values of special areas as identified in the 

establishment report or area manag-t plan to amform with managanent area 

direction and applicable prescriptions. " (108) 

RISFQNSE: The direction undex Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for 

Research Natural Areas adequately covers the inventory and establishment 

process. Direction for managing potential or established RNAs is canpletely 

covered under Manag-t Prescription #5 - Research Natural Areas. 

Direction for protectirg the only established special interest area, the 

Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, is covered under Forest-wide Standards and 

Guidelines for special interest areas and under Managanent Prescription #7. 

Actual evaluation and recarmendations for additimal SIAs or "Ls muld take 

place outside the Forest Plan by 1990. 

D) 

aX"T.: protecting riparian areas is a focus of particular cancem. The 

banks of shreams and ponds are easily damaged. Such damage is difficult and 

sanetimes costly to repair and recovery is slow, especially at high 

altitudes. (1175) 

RESPONSE: The Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines give particular emphasis 

to protecting riparian areas. The Plan sets forth diskbance standards 

which apply to each stream type. other managanent direction is also aimed at 

protecting the riparian areas M the Forest. 

192 
RIPARIAN AREAS 

CC"r: The follming Standards and Guidelines should be incorporated into 

tbose included in the Plan and DEIS. Without; these additions, CNPS does not 

believe sufficient protection of riparian and wetland habitats is guaranteed. 

1. Incowrate the new definition for wetlands and SMZs that we have 

included above. 

2. Class I, 11 and I11 streams should have visual quality objectives of 

retention or preservation. 

3. Maintain or inipmve wetland and riparian-dependent resources in wetlands, 

stream corridors (Order 1 and greater), lake share areas, and around 

seeps, springs, andmeadaws. 

A. where uses conflict, favor protection of wetland and riparian 

depemdent resources (water, fish, vegetation, wildlife, and 

aesthetics) over other resources. 

Identify wetlands and riparian areas prior to land disturbance, and 

apply appropriate prescriptions to ensure protection of dependent 

resources. 

mepare and adhere to a project implementation plan for any activity 

within wetland or riparian habitats, and include at least the 

following: 

- Objectives for vegetation management based upn the needs of 

- Maxi" amount of vegetation manipulation, and manipulation 

- Maxi" area of soil wed, and erosion control measures; 

- Analysis of areas with veq steep slopes (>60%), very high 

erasion potential, or high instability, and describe procedures 

to limit disturbance to these areas 

opportunities and procedures for restoration of dwaded areas. 

Within the SMZ, old growth ocolifers or hardwx& should be retained for 

slag dependent wildlife species and for large bccdy debris input needed 

for stream stability and fish habitat. 

New road systems will be designed and constructed to mininu 'ze disturbance 

to the riparian areas. l'!can.sprt of sediment fm disturbed areas shall 

be" 'zed by pending, vegetative buffer strip, or other means. 

In addition, the Standards and Guidelines should: 1) Describe the amount of 

canopy to be left intact if harvest cccurs in the SMZ as well as detailing 

any, and the extent of, regeneration cuts jn permitted SMZs, and 2) Under 

Standards and Guidelines #50 and #60, native vegetation should be added to 

the list of resources (fish, wildlife, water quality) that are protected in 

riparian areas. (1108) (91, 1161, 1411, 1433, 1562, 1617, 2183, 2190, 2196, 

2210) 

B. 

C. 

dement management; 

pmes, that will OCCUT; 

- 

4. 

5. 

RFS-E: Refer to following ccmnent and response for a definition of 

riparian areas. Direction already exists that gives preference to riparian 

dependent resources in these areas, thus pur Canrents #2, #3 and #4 are not 

wnsidered necessary. Substantial charges have been made III the Forest-wide 

Standards and Guidelines in the Final Plan to strengthen riparian area 

direction. 

aXmw: The riparian areas should be outlined in a separate Management 

PreSQ-iption in a similar format as that for Wild and Scenic Rivers (Plan 

193 
REspoNsE: The pmtecucn and management of riparian areas is guided by 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines. Water quality objectives are set in 

the standards and Guidelines also. These resaurces are adqlately p?ateZt€d 

by present laws, policy and direction in the Plan. 

”?r: There should be a greater mphasis and effort an reaUcig erosion 

and siltation by increash~ the “ber of check dams in streams and meadows 

Standard and Guideline #5 for rehabilitatian of riparian areas should be 

given a mch higher prioriiq. (382) 

-E: We believe that the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for 

riparian areas and water quality pmtectian indicate that these resources 

have a high priority. Hawever, wa are not sew a high priority on one 

particular meth=d of impIoving these resaurces. We agree that many riparian 

areas need s~ne form of restoratim work to repair the damage fm past 

management practices. Hawever, we are also faced with the reality of buaget 

and manper cmnstraints. Setting a priority of preventing further damage to 

reasonably healthy riparian systems and usig low cost (easy to mnstn~ct and 

maintain) restoration methods are key to our making progress in restoring all 

riparian areas. Check dams will be used whwx alternative wntrol methods 

are determined not to be cost-effective or not capable of achieving the 

desired results. 

which haw been arergra~ed and -*I@. (111-29, IV-21 and IV-31). The 

CfM”: No management activities shaild take place in riparian areas until 

an inventory is cnnpleted and specific directions given for protecting all 

riparian areas. (1858) 

RFSWNSE: It is unrealistic to shut down the Forest until an inventory is 

cunplete. Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines will provide direction for 

managemat of riparian areas to a level that benefits riparian depmdent 

resources. 

CCW4EIW: to use of the arbitxary 100 foot wide zone for SMZ and 

pmtection of riparian vegetation. Often wetland and riparian vegetation 

extends mre than 100 feet fmn the water’s me. Request that the Inyo 

National Forest include provisions within its definition of the SMZ to 

protect wetlands based upon the presence of wetland indicator plants, wetland 

soil types identified by the Soil Conservation Service and certain types of 

hyamlqic situations . ( 1108 ) 

“E: We are no longer using the tenn streamside management zone (WE). 

The riparian definitions provided in the Plan allm for three different 

physicgraphic stream types. These riparian areas will respnd differently to 

impacts. Riparian widths in wet meackws will be very different than for 

steep v-sham canyons. The Standards and Guidelines attenpt to recognize 

these differences and manage riparian areas accordingly. The use of 

194 
RIPARIAN AREAS 

irdicator plants is not always a @ method for determining riparian area 

width because yearly fluctuatians in flaws can cause annual charges in 

distribution of herbacems species, and plant species may cmly be useful for 

identifying the Mate riparian area and not areas adjacent to the 

riparian area. Riparian areas identified in the Plan are largely based on 

specific vegetation cmnmities. The guidelines transcend beyond the 

mate riparian zone. The wading in the Standards and Guidelines have 

been shwg&m& to include the abwe amcepts. 

COMMEEIT: Limitkg SMZS to perennial creeks is totally inadequate. 

protection was intended to be &ended to intwmittent and ephemeral streams. 

(1108) 

-E: Managing riparian areas is not limited to only perennial streams. 

The aphasis provided by the riparian and watershed Forest-wide Standards and 

Guidelines are also applicable to habitats in and adjacent to intennittat 

and ephemeral streams. Refer also to the previous reqome. 

CCM.EN!: Meadow ccnnnmities are barely mentioned in the Plan, and should be 

treated separately in the Standards and Guidelines section. Refpest the 

following items be included in the riparian/meadow Standards and Guidelines: 

"Meadows shall be managed to ensure the protection and maintenaxe of native 

plant and wildlife species diversity and vegetative cover. 

1. No seeding or planting of rrol-native plant species shall occur: 

2. Best Management Practices shall be hplaented to protect meadow 

vegetation and maintain plant cover: 

3. Where uses ccolflict, favor meah-depmdent resoutces over other 

resources: 

4. Utilization of meadow vegetation shall not exceed levels set forth in the 

Forest Service Manual. " 

Also, with respect to meadows, ad like to see the follawing ccolcepts in 

the Plan or DEIS as goals, "I managanent requirements, or Standards and 

Guidelines: 

1. Forest managanent shall not result in meadow degradation including loss 

of vegetative cover and soil, ar reductions in species diversity. 

2. Meadows on the Forest will be inventoried, and those found to be mst 

significant will be protected and managed by use of a special Managemat 

Prescription with custonized grazing regimes and mnitorhg. (1108) 

"E: Meadaws are considered riparian areas. Standards and Guidelines 

that apply to riparian areas also apply to meadows. Stream Type C is an 

example of meacaowS. Non-~tive species will only be used for revegetation 

purposes if native species are not successful in soil stabilization, or if 

native species are not available. Your Items #2 and #3 are already addressed 

in the guidelines in either riparian or watershed sections. Regarding your 

Item #4, standards for grazing in meadows will not exceed established 

utilization standards. These standads will be set in the allotment 

manag-t plans for specific allotments and are depdent on vegetation and 

soils condition and -trend. Meadow inventories have alreacty been conducted on 

the Inyo and meadow restoration wrk is already initiated based on the 

prioritization that resulted fran that inventory. Standards and Guidelines 

195 
RIPARIAN AREAS 

already state that riparian areas will be managed primarily for riparian 

values, thus degradation of these areas will not be prmitted. 

EM4DTl': No trees shDuld be cut within 50 feet on either side of a Class 1 

thraugh Class 3 stream. Any propxed *am crossings huld be evaluated by 

an interdisciplinary team including a qualified fishery biologist, soil 

scientist, and qineer. Mcolitoring of multiple use activities may be 

necessary to insure the selected Plan does rot result in an increase of 

stream sediments. (1248) 

RESCNX: The exis- Standards and Guidelines sufficiently address this. 

CCWfm'r: Riparian Areas, DEIS 11-44. We need to krmi mre clearly how you 

define "consistent resource damage". Also, what are "unacceptable changes" 

in the riparian areas? When would the location of new mads, campsites, 

etc., be "absolutely necessary"? (1431) (487) 

RFSPONSE: These terms are defined on a site specific basis by resource 

professionals. 

CUWm'F: The prohibition on managenat activities that Cause unacceptable 

changes in streams and lakes applies ciiiy to new manag-t actrvities. This 

prohibition should apply to all activities including grazing and various 

developnents. Even mderate increases in grazing impacts for riparian areas 

(as predicted) should mt be allowed, and grazing may have to be curtailed or 

eliminated in scme riparian areas. (2023) (319, 1532, 1586, 1617, 1629, 2170, 

2190) 

FESFiNSE: For the most part, the Standards and Guidelines for riparian areas 

do apply tn new activities. However, where the opportunity arises, 

activities will be modified to meet Forest-wide Standads and Guidelines. 

For example, the Standards and Guidelines will be used in the range allotment 

managmmt planning prucess to provide direction for riparian de-t, 

fish, and watershed resources. There is no increase in grazing levels in the 

Final Plan. 

m: Management Area #7. Develop water sources to "ize grazing 

damage to riparian areas. (1099) 

-E: Your suggestion has keen added as me possible way to improve 

riparian areas as a Standard and Guideline. 

m: Specify hm you will protect these riparian and watershed areas 

fran livestock grazing, any further dmnhill ski developnent or other 

recreational interests, lcggirg, OW use, hydroelectric developnents, etc. 

Carefully define the mrd "conflict" in your statement "...resources 

depadent on riparian areas receive priority over other resources where the 

two come into conflict." The riparian areas and waA%rshe& shMlld be managed 

primarily for wildlife. Other uses Md be allowed cmly when it is ~~KX.KI 

196 
RIPARIAN AREAS 

that wildlife and the riparian resource will mt be damaged. Support the 

preferred Alternative's statement that resaxms dependent on riparian areas 

should receive priority over other resources. (980, 1532, 1933) (3, 65, 177, 

214, 231, 264, 300, 322, 324, 329, 333, 351, 358, 430, 449, 467, 471, 481, 

498, 903, 933, 935, 953, 968, 976, 978, 979, 998, 1008, 1009, 1024, 1029, 

1031, 1032, 1107, 1171, 1174, 1176, 1180, 1191, 1202, 1223, 1229, 1274, 1277, 

1283, 1295, 1317, 1398, 1407, 1414, 1427, 1429, 1431, 1464, 1485, 1487, 1498, 

1513, 1514, 1517, 1519, 1521, 1543, 1548, 1549, 1565, 1566, 1574, 1576, 1579, 

1585, 1589, 1593, 1594, 1608, 1611, 1617, 1625, 1632, 1633, 1634, 1648, 1652, 

1656, 1657, 1659, 1660, 1662, 1709, 1714, 1715, 1725, 1730, 1731, 1744, 1749, 

1774, 1776, 1777, 1785, 1798, 1801, 1804, 1816, 1837, 1841, 1851, 1862, 1865, 

1871, 1873, 1876, 1893, 1902, 1904, 1907, 1928, 1930, 1973, 1977, 1980, 1983, 

1987, 2030, 2031, 2034, 2035, 2045, 2054, 2061, 2066, 2091, 2115, 2117, 2120, 

2152, 2161, 2170, 2190, 2194) 

RESPONSE: We define "conflicts" using the follming Stdcemnt fm the 

Preferred Alternative description for riparian resources in the EIS: 

"Prohibit any activities in riparian areas that muld have unacceptable 

long-term effects cm water quality, fish, other aquatic fauna, wildlife, or 

water-depmdent plant life. Fish habitat and watershed improvement work 

discussed under separate heading muld also be expected to benefit riparian 

areas." The Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for riparian, fish, 

wildlife and range have been substantially revised to add more specific 

information. The. FEIS and Final Plan make a clear cannitment to the 

~ktion of riparian habitats. 

CCtWWl': A riparian element is only used in sane of the Management 

Prescriptions. In order for the Managemmt Prescriptions to be ocmpared with 

one another and be canprehensive, they all require inclusion of the same 

elements. For riparian and riparian-depmdent resources: the elements of 

fisheries, riparian, threatened, endangered and sensitive species: watershed; 

and wildlife should be included in all Prescriptions. To best alleviate this 

problem, and ensure a-te protection of riparian and wetland habitats fran 

multiple use, WS recormends that a separate Management Prescription for 

riparian and wetland habitats be developea us- same or all of the ideas we 

have outlined above. (1108) 

RESKNSE: 

each Managment Area. 

needed for a particular Management Area. 

The Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines apply to all resources in 

An element is only added if more specific direction is 

m: Riparian habitats are rat receiving the attention they deseme. 

Garments used for riparian habitats such as "consistent resource damage" and 

"unacceptable changes" lead us to believe that a certain level of increased 

impacts may be acceptable. Specifically, the Plan and DEIS point out that 50 

miles of stseam have had the water removed on Inyo National Forest, that much 

of the range is in p301^ or unsatisfactory condition (WS assumes that if the 

raqe is in pax condition then riparian areas must &),and 90% of meadows 

are damaged or threatened by accelerating emsion. 

Erosicm is so bad on the Inyu National Forest that the Plan and DEIS sound as 

if Inyo National Forest has given up 081 .trying to rectify the matter which is 

197 
RIPARIAN AREAS 

stated to be critical in the future. ami cannot suggart this casual 

open mFnd about the future and the potential availability of techniques to 

attitude abcmt a sericua prvblem. Inyo Naticnal F& needs to maintab an 

deal with the acceleratiq erosicn problem. Need to ercperiment with new 

techniques and find a solution. Should make a strong Cormitment in the Plan 

to this effect. (1108) (29, 274, 319, 437, 1107, 1176, 1295, 1586, 1634, 

1650, 1784, 2047, 2122, 2170, 2190, 2213) 

m: ThisIXmnent 1UmQs several different paas of the Plan. The Inyo 

has a record of aggressive watershed rashation Hlork. Meadavs on the Iqo 

tiere intensively surveyed a "br of years ago, and rashation mrk 

initiated as a result of this invantcuy. I believe the 90% damaged meadow 

figure cams finm the assumptim that oqt of 26,000 acres of meadau, 23,500 

are b&q proposed for watershed rashation. Thus, 23,500 acres cut of 

26,000 must be in poor ccmditim. TNs is not necessarily true. 

c€m": 

discussion of the management in the varicus areas. The Preferred Alternative 

that only 17,000 acres of the 26,000 ac189 of wet meadow be managed 

for full watershed restoration, in cenkast to the 23,500 acres 

recamwdation in the AMN Altemative. Since wet meadows caprise mre than 

2/3 of riparian vegetation on the Inyo, it is exhremely important to restore 

as much as pxsible of this valuable resoume. (2023) 

RES-: In the DEIS, we put a financial czmstra.int on the FORPLAN model in 

the preferred Alternative that resulted in restoration work on colly 17,000 

acres. The FEIS and Plan recormend that all 23,500 acres be treated. 

Specific dir€ctions are 1aCki.q in the Plan and particularly in the 

m: The DEIS 111-82 that thare has been accelerated erosion, 

aspecially in wet meadows, primarily due to arergrazm in the past. 

Further, it is stated that there has been a decrease in riparian diversity 

due to heavy recreation (DEIS 111-22). Since riparian and wetland areas 

represent only two percent Of the Inyo National F-t (DEIS 111-22), it is 

in the Forest's interest, and legally mandated, to not only protect these 

areas, but to also improve them. The Final Plan and EIS should include 

specific management plans, Minimum Managrmt Requirements and Standards and 

Guidelines for ptecting and improving riparian and wetland habitats. 

Siniply stating that removal of the current grazing pressure would mt 

alleviate the erosion problem (DEIS 111-82) is mt adequate. The Inyo 

National Forest should actively pursue measures to maintain areas. (2047) 

(104) 

"E: The Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines provide adequate 

protection for the managment of riparian areas. Remxring grazing pressure 

without restoration work on streams would mt necessarily alleviate erosion. 

ollce headcutting and streambank deterioration begin, aggressive restoration 

work will be required to alleviate these problems. Once these areas are 

restored, then grazing managenent practices stated in the Forest-wide 

S- and Guidelines should be sufficient to prokt the meab. 

198 
RIPARIAN AFIE4.S 

a"r: Range (DEIS lX-76). A total of 6,400 acres of wet meadow will be 

subject to accelerated erosion. The Farest Service seem to thwc this is an 

"insignificant figwe"; "It is not great enxlgh to mticeably affect 

Forest-wide outputs." This is unacceptable der the Preferred Alternative. 

(1617) 

mF"SE: The 6400 acres is roughly the difference between 17,000 acres that 

were propsed for treatment in the Draft Preferred Alternative and the 23,500 

recarmended for treatmat in the Amenities Alternative. This 6400 acres will 

be added into the Final Preferred Alternative for trea-t. 

cm-mxr: one criticism of the Plan is its attitude concerning the 

amtinuance of grazing on meadows with accelerating erosion problems. Inyu 

National Forest maintains that ?x"irg liveskck would mt benefit the 

meadows or imprwe conditions. This seems highly implausible considering the 

results achieved throughout the west. Countless studies, many by USFS 

prsmnel have demxstrated the success of livestock exclusion and recovery 

of badly unstable riparian habitats. sod-fonnkg vegetation and willows 

reinvade quickly and stabilize banks. Excluding livestock and possibly 

planting seed and willow cuttings could do wonders in short time periods. 

check dams, gabions, and other stzuctures can trap eroding soil. A stroq 

cannitinst in the Plan under Standards and Guidelines mld go a long way in 

providing sane guarantees that we can exped future changes. 

aiPS believes that seriously meadows should be withdrawn fran grazing 

allotments; there is m adequate justificatim for exposing these meadaws to 

amtinued stress. 

CNPS further maintains that the Iqm Forest cannot justify increased stocMng 

rates on allotments with eroding meadows. Standards and Guidelines will not 

keep increased nt" of cows out of these meadows, only fences or remxal 

of livestock can achieve this. Inyo National Forest cannot justify 

increasing AUMS on allotments with damaged meadows because of the "ies 

proposed for meadow restoration. The mey is needed for past problems and 

besides, there is m guarantee that Congress will appropriate the mney for 

meadow restoration in the future. (1108) (281, 319, 1160, 1431, 1776, 1939, 

1983, 2170) 

"E: Given the punice soils on the Inyo, once headcutting or streambank 

degradation occurs as a result of graziq or other impacts, the water table 

drops and the characteristics of the meadow shifts to mre xeric vegetation 

-ties. Once this occurs, merely removing livestock will not suffice in 

restor- the meadows. Watershed restoration work can raise the water level 

and shift the meadow back to mre mesic plant cormu~ll 'ties. Implementation of 

grazing rewmwdaticms in the Standards and Guidelines for riparian areas 

should insure the protection of meadows following this work. There are 

several methods that auld be used for restoring meadows and aquatic 

ecoglstems. A few include fencirg, revegetation, check dams, gabions and 

reducing stmkirg rates. Every case is different and may require different 

restoration measures. There is no increase in AUMS in the Final Plan. 

199 
CCM”: An inventory of riparian habitat 01 the Inyo Natimal Forest caild 

-be mz& beneficial. (1433) (161, 176, 239, 381, 487, 953, 980, 1108, 1431, 

1532, 1548, 1565, 1617, 1634, 1648, 1660, 1664, 1670, 1723, 1842, 2136, 2141, 

2178) 

RESPONSE: We have intfxsively inventoried meadow riparian areas and have 

prioritized these for watershed restoration work. Our next goal is 

to inventory ramning aquatic and riparian areas. 

CCM”: In addition to setting a date for the inventory‘s canpletion, the 

Plan should stipulate that m management activities which may degrade 

riparian areas are to take place until the inventury is finished. (2170) 

(910) 

RESPONSE: 

riparian areas will OCCZLT. 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines state that m degradation of 

CCM”: R-an my exprience in the p.mbAim, and rmnitoring of 

riparian habitats, I recomnend that the frquercy/reprtirg period be changed 

fran the stated 5 years/lO years cycle to 1 year/2 year cycle for the first 

10 years and then switched to a lcmger cycle time in- after the tenth 

year. R-ery of riparian areas after installation of gabions, fences, 

etc., is rapid and a large wlm of beneficial data is lost if nwnitoring is 

not conducted on the cycle I have rea;mnended. (1433) (1617) 

RESPONSE: Increasing the fr%quencies of project nunitoring would allow for a 

better evaluation of the results, but it is doubtful that funding m11 be 

available for this. Given the intensity of data wlleCtian, the numhr of 

riparian/acpatic ecosystems, and the number of iinpmvaent projects, a one or 

two year fresuency and reporting @cd are not realistic. There may be 

areas that are considered especially sensitive that will be put under such a 

“itoriq scheme, but for the mz& part a lager time frame will be used. 

CCM”: Pkmitoring objectives for proper use, appropriate livestock 

“bers, mnpliance with area managemat plans, effectiveness of area 

management plans, need to be written into the Plan. Utilization tables 

&miq proper use levels for key species should be included. Sane crztical 

areas to consider are the Kern Plateau, Coyote Flat, the Sierra escarpnent 

fran Shanrnn Canym to Tinemaha M, and the White Mountains. (2170) (1632) 

RESPONSE: 

using specific allo-t manag-t plans. Significant *tion has been 

added to the and Standards and Guidelines for range and riparian areas and 

the Range Prescription #11 regarding how this will be accanplished. 

Ripriandirech ‘on stated in the FEIS and Plan will be ixqJlemented 

CCM”: Riparian Areas, Issues and Cb”s (11-14). The Plan does not 

seen to ccmply with the strrmg legal requirements m riparian management (See 

36 CFR 219.27 [E]). Also, the definitiO1 Of the probl€zil is m. The Plan 

does mt have to establish the significance of riparian areas, but their 

200 
RIPARIAN AREJls 

extent, condition, and necessary management actions. Indicators should 

include the inpacts of roads and ORV use. (2170) (1617) 

RFSPONSE: The Standards and Guidelines for riparian areas and range have 

been substantially modified in the Final Plan. Please refer to these 

sections. 

m: The statement that, under scme alternatives, grazing impacts 

"...would be associated with the 1,000 to 2,000 acres of wet meadaws found m 

areas on which grazing increases under scme alt-tives" does mt recOgnize 

existing destruction of riparian habitat and aspen types, especially along 

the base of the Sierra (e.g., Botiler Canyon area, Parker Bench vicinity, and 

in the Glass muntains) where deer and other wildlife habitat is heavily 

degraded. The destructive effects of livestc& on riparian areas and aspen 

groves will be reduced by curtailing the armunt of time livestock spend 

there; managmt practices which will be used to accmplish this goal 

include fencing, salting, herdimg, water developnent and deferring or 

eliminating grazing." Change the mrdirg on DEIS 11-60 reg- riparian 

areas to read: "prohibit any activities in riparian areas that would have 

unacceptable loq-term effects on water quality, fish (or other aquatic 

fauna) or water-depmdent plant life." (2170, 1617) (1649, 2190) 

RESPONSE: Riparian management dirwtion was significantly strmgthened in 

the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines. These Standards and Guidelmes 

will be implemented using allotment managanent plans as the vehicle for 

implementation. 

m: 

- Modify #4 to: "When unacceptable damage (as defined in Forest-wide 

Standards and Guidelines for riparian areas) is occurring, the grazing season 

will be delayed. If delay is umu-sful in preventing damage to riparian 

habitat, livestock grazing will be eliminated in the affected areas." 

- Add to #8: Definition of "surface disturbance" and description of extent 

of area away fran stream. 

- Other additi-: 

A. The integri+q of desert springs in the White, Inyo and South Sierra 

Pbuntains to preserve them as habitat islands for relict populations of 

rare, sensitive, and yet undiscovered species should be maintained. 

B. All Standards and Guidelines listed for soil, water and range managmt 

should apply to riparian areas. 

C. The imp3rtance and distinctive values of riparian areas should be 

recognized when inpl-ting management activities. Preferential 

mideration sbould be given to riparian area dependent resources over 

other resources in cases of otherwise unreSOlvable conflicts. 

D. Riparian areas sbould be delineated and evaluated before implementing any 

managmt activity. 

E. Range and wildlife habitat imp"ent projects and/or silvicultural 

prescripticm should be designed to benefit riparian area depenaent 

resources. 

Riparian areas should be managed to achieve or maintain high ecolcgical 

status. 

Regarding Forest-wide Standards and Wdelines for Riparian Areas: 

- Good Plan -tl-: #1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. 

F. 

201 
G. 

H. 

I. 

J. 

K. 

L. 

M. 

N. 

0. 

P. 

Q. 

R. 

F'riority should be given to range, wildlife habitat, and watershed 

iq"mt projects that will rehabilitate riparian areas that cannot be 

restmed in a timely manner by other manag-t techniques. Fencing 

should be used for proMon of riparian areas only where m other 

warkab10 altexnaative exists. 

on streams where Lahmtan cutthroat and Paiute cutthroat -trout are 

present or scheduled for in-&on, the riparian areas should be 

mtained or to a "gd" or "excellent" resoace value rating 

for fisheries. 

Beaver should be managed to maintain or enhance riparian dtim within 

habitat capability. 

Attenp3ts slnuld be made to achieve at least 90% of the natural bank 

stability for streams suppring Lahcoltan or Paiute cutthroat -trout; 80% 

should be aimed for on all other streams. 

Salt and sheep bed grounds should be located at least 1/4 mile outside 

riparian areas. 

New livestock water developnents skuld be placed outside riparian 

Inventoried water developnents should be mvd out of riparian areas wha 

and where feasible. 

A mineral evaluation by qualified geologists, miriiq engineers, or 

mineral specialists should be required before approval of operating plans 

in key riparian areas. 

Direct and indirect support of flood plain developnent and new 

ccastructian in wetlands should be avoided wherever there is a practical 

altwmative. 

The Forest should take advantage of opportunities to resolve and preserve 

the natural and beneficial values served by flood plains, and to 

preserve, enhance and appropriately manage the natural and beneficial 

values of wetlands. 

Fish passage should be provided at all crossings of kmmn fish habitat by 

meting the fish passage requiremen ts and adhering to guidelines 

specified in "Fish Migration and Fish Passage, a Practical Guide to 

Solving Fish Passage Problems." (USDA Forest Service, Region 5, September 

1977). 

The land manager, utilizing interdisciplinary team inputs, should assure 

that any necessary stream alteration is carried out in accordance with 

prescribed specifications to meet at least the following performance 

criteria: 

1. Avoid channel changes wherever feasible. 

2. Make every reasonable effort during any needed channel work to 

preserve the natural aquatic environment or "r 'ze adverse 

effects. Where channel changes are necessary, do not increase 

natural channel velocities in the affected stream reach. Assure 

this by installing drop structureS, by constructing acceptable 

meanders, or by other approved me-. If a stream supports a 

fishery, design drup structures to permit fish passage. 

3. Where water velocities are increased by placing of a bridge or 

culvert, or other activity, and thus precludes established fish 

"ent upstream, install suitable facilities to allow for 

unrestxicted fish passage. 

Limit construction and other activities affectirg stream charnels tn 

those periods when such activities will have the least detrimntal 

areas. 

4. 

202 
RIPARIAN AREAS 

effect on the aquatic "merit, unless emeqency situations 

arise. 

Take adqmte mitigation measures if amstNction or other 

activities will adversely affect water temperatures. 

Defer const~~ction and other activities affecting channels ab3ve 

spawning areas if they will adversely affect eggs or alevins in the 

gravel. 

when channel changes or alterations are the best alternative, 

provide mitigating measures to enhame replacement of the aquatic 

habitat to as near a natural dtion as possible. 

Maintain streamside vegetation if feasible: if destxoyed, replace 

vegetation to provide for the necessary needs of the aquatic 

-t . when channel charges are unavoidable, canplete new channels 

(inc~udirg scou~ and erosicol protection) before turning water into 

them. 

Locate and treat constLUction esuipoent service areas in such a way 

as to prevent gas, oil or other contaminants frun washing or 

leaching into them. 

Protect or replace streamside vegetation when its remwal will 

result in increased stream temperature detrimental to aquatic 

habitat, and/or increased turbidity, bed load, and suspended solids 

which muld be detrimntal to fish-spa- beds or other aquatic 

habitat. 

In road Canstruction, mintmame and other earf3-mirg activities, 

place the toe of overcast material above the mean high water line. 

If the best alternative is to encroach on the stream, use 

wnstruction methods and/or structural barriers to prevent fill 

material frcm entering the stream channel. 

Construct all temporary roads associated with timber harvesting or 

other activities to grades not excedirg safe limits for surface 

water conh-01; make sure such roads contain sufficient water bars or 

other structures to prevent ercded material frun reachiq streams. 

On sidehills and near channel crossings, make sure road drainages 

discharge where sediment can settle out before runoff reaches a 

stream channel, unless this is clearly impssible. 

Design water collection systems installed to prutect roads or 

facilities so that waters turned onto slopes or into nakral 

channels will not exceed the safe capacity of the slopes or 

channels. 

Minimize transprt of sediment frcm disturbed areas by flocculation, 

pndng, vegetative barrier strips or other means. 

D3 not locate log 1-s adjacent to stream channels or on areas 

where surface runoff will discharge directly into the channel. 

Design, construct and maintain roadway sections that are to be 

parallel and contiguous to stream channels so as to "ize 

concentrated surface mff frcm the roadbed and slopes. When 

appropriate, provide special design features such as slope drains, 

insloping, "irg, berms or other facilities. 

heat wash water from gravel aushhg operations so that the level 

of turbidity of discharge water does not exceed the turbidity level, 

at normal flow, of the stream into which it is released. 

Avoid construction during wet season or other undesirable runoff 

pericds to minimize sedimentation directly into streams. If 

5. 

6. 

7. 

4 

0. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

203 
RIPARIAN AREAS 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

26. 

27. 

28. 

29. 

30. 

31. 

32. 

33. 

34. 

35. 

36. 

37. 

38. 

consh&on is essential during such periods, minimize 

sedimentation damage by installing debris basins or using other 

mei3xds to trap sediment. 

Do not operate wheeled, track-mted or other heavy equipnent in 

stream courses except when approved by the land manager at 

designated crossings. If such quipnent is essential to 

construction activities, its use is to be specifxally authorized by 

the land manager. 

prahihit flushing of desilting basins, pnds and mirs into 

streams. 

When physically feasible, require use of a recharge pnd rather than 

a stream as part of storm drain systens for all industrial, 

residential and recreatirmal developnents. 

Borrow materials fran stream channels only where this is not 

detrhental to water quality, fisheries or channel hydraulics. 

Do not remnre borrow material fmn channels that are within or 

contiguous to established recreation areas unless necessary to 

improve channel hydraulics or the aquakc envinaYnent. 

Revegetate lands impactea by channel charges with available native 

plants and appmpriate n~n-~tin plants. 

Before revqetating, reshape lands impacted by stream channel 

oprations and lands contiguous to streams that have been altered by 

construction activities to as near na-al wnditions as possible. 

Conduct lcgging and "itruction operations so as to prevent debris 

fmn entering stream channels. 

Do rot fell trees into stream, lakes, meadows or bogs. 

Design and construct bridges, culverts, water level nxxrdhg and 

stream channel pmtection facilities, including riprap, to hanmnize 

Ccnsider the total scenic value when an evaluation dictates the need 

for a road paralleling a stream. For example, a stream channel 

change, properly design& and construct&, might result in a road 

with less adverse visual and physical inpact than muld construction 

of the road across a steep slope. 

Wherever feasible, make sur8 altered streambanks have slopes which 

are not barriers to recreation use. 

hrohibit stream channel changes and encroachment on streams within 

or conti- to established or proposed recreation areas unless 

absolutely essential for the purpose of correcting an existkg 

channel pmbllem, protecting life and/or enhancing the aquatic 

environment. 

Do not channelize streams to protect recreation structures and 

facilities fmn flmdiq when located on flccdplains or basins. 

Where channelization is used, shap and revcgetate the *acted area 

in a manner ccmpatible with natural stream dynamics. 

If access along a streambanlc is needed under a bridge span to be 

built wer a large stream, make the bridge sufficiently long to 

prwide roim for such access. 

where streams offer t>3ating or floatjng oprtmities, make sure 

channel structures or alterations allow for safe passage and do not 

detract fmn scenic qualities. 

Design culverts, bridges, and other facilities to pass or to protect 

against flcods which may reasonably be expected to "r during the 

life of the facility. When selecting flood design, consider 

r) 

with the Meal environment. 

204 
SENSITIVE PLANTS 

relationships between risk and hazard of failure as well as mnetary and 

rmrumnetary wsts of pmidxg protection. 

Design culverts, bridges or hardened fords whexe it is necessary to 

cross stream courses with temporary roads associated with timber 

harvesting or other activities. Make such facilities of sufficient 

size and design to provide capacity for the flow of water 

anticipated during the period of use of the road. When the, 

temporary road is rm longer needed for the purpose for which it was 

designed, rerowe all bridges and culverts. When such facilities are 

renwved, also remove associated fills so that they will not be 

affected by the stream. Shap remwed fill material to blend with 

the natural tam and revegetate all disturbed soil. 

Do not use soil materials to wver the decks of temporary bridges. 

When flow m a stxeam wurse is temporarily diverted to acccrnrodate 

construction or other activities, restore the flow to the natural 

wurse before the next runoff season. 

42. Bed and backfill all culverts in accordance with approved 

engineering practices. 

43. upon canpleting a project or activity, “erosion-proof“ all temporary 

roads by means of cross btches, ripping, seedirg or other suitable 

means. Provide silting ponds or other facilities as needed to 

prevent silt-laden water from entering streams. 

Make sure that riprap or other erosion protection materials are of 

sufficient size and placed in such a manner as to withstand bridges 

whch ar-e designed for passage of a 100-year flood. 

45. Extend riprap or other proktion materials below the bed of the 

stream far enough to protect against swur and to a height 

sufficient to protect against the predicted or rewrded 25 or 50 

year flood occurrence, as appropriate. (2170) (1532, 2190) 

39. 

40. 

41. 

44. 

RFSPONSE: Your suggestions were reviewed; many of them have been 

inwrprated into the Forest-wide Standards and Wdelmes under riparian, 

facilities, fish, wildlife or range. 

m: The Deparhnent of Fish and Gam recQrmends that the section on Page 

111-85 &odd discuss the relative rarity of the taxa, where they are k” 

to occuz‘, the size of existing ppulations, an estimate of a viable 

population size, the amount of genetic diversity represented by these 

populations, and the threats or lack of threats on these populations which 

result frun managemnt activities that are currently permitted on the lands 

they occupy. (2190) 

RESFQNSE: The sensitive plant portions of the Plan will be upaated to 

reflect current information on sensitive plants. Specific information 

regarding the location, distribution, demographics and existing management 

direction are located in the Supervisor’s Office. mst of Vns informakon 

will not be reiterated in the Plan. The Forest has a working list of 

sensitive plants. This is used to prioritize species for writing plant 

manag-t guides. These will direct management for individual species. 

205 
ltpics such as viable p3pllation size and genetic =varsity can cnly be 

handled following intensive data ColleCtial and will be included in the 

specie -t sui-. 

m: We need a canplete inventoxy of dtiva plants in this planniq 

period. We need to initiate managemnt remm~~ for these sensitive 

Plants. (1532) 

m: The Inyo has prioritized 22 sensitive plant species on the basis 

of sensitivity to dcus land mnagemnt practices, lunwle&e qf habitat 

-ts, endemicity of the species., and other factors. Amsther 31 plant 

species of a” are being retained on watch lists to prevent future 

listing. seventeen of these need additialal informatian. Funding 

constcaints do not allow the jnvenlmxy of all sensitive plant species in any 

cme year. Inventmy efforts are centered armmi high priority species, the 

developnent of management guides for these species, and those 

specie/poprlations that could be impaCtea by other resume pjects. 

CxM”: 

Forest biotic cannwnity p”ticm prqram. (2178) 

Need to develop not anly a sensitive plant prcgram tut a sensitive 

REspapJsE: Research Natural Areas and Special In- Areas Were aWelOpea 

to provide areas where unique biotic cannwnities ad be ptected. A 

tlxxoqh discussion of RMIS and SIAs can be fcimd in thxe sectians. 

FO&-wide Standards and Guidelines ala insure pt€dion Of plant and 

animal species and the habitats that they “py. 

m: change Standard and Guideline #4 for sensitive plants to: “Permit 

scientific studies on sensitive species as lcxY.3 as such activity does not 

advarsely affect the species under investigation.“ (2170) 

REspapJsE: We have inmrprated your suggested charge. 

m: The DEIS (Page 111-86, Table 111-21) lists eighteen sensitive plant 

species. In addition, the CMlDB has rear& for Arabis tiehmii, Drab 

potenual need to add these to the +orest’s and Region’> sensitive species 

list in the Final EIS and Plan. (1108) (225, 381, 487, 1411, 1431, 1634, 

1652, 2047, 2170, 2190) 

m: These have already been added to the Forest sensitive plant 

species list dated January 1987. Since the iriception of the DEIS and Plan, 

The 

latest information is included in the Final Plan. 

several charges have occurred that were not included in these documents. 

206 
SENSITIVE PLANTS 

rXtMWl2 Need to clarify the taxonarclc status of some species on the Forest 

sensitive species list. The species requiring these studies should be 

discussed in AppmXx 1. (1108) (1431) 

RESPONSE: Changes have o"ed in scientific names and in the status of 

several plants. For example, Lupinus dedeckerae has recently been changed to 

- L. padre-cmleyi. There are also questions aht the validity of L. 

sublanatus and pinetonnn being verifiable Species. There have also 

been changes in the Inyo's sensitive plant species list: the most recent 

taxobnic classification will be used in the Final EIS and Plan. Specific 

species needs will be addressed in the Sensitive Plant prosram Managaent 

Plan. 

axrMElvr: The Standards and Guidelines for sensitive plants (Plan IV-33) 

refer to a Forest "Watch List". If the Illyo National Forest has a separate 

list of plants of cuncem we feel that this list should be included in the 

Final Plan and EIS. (1108) 

RESPONSE: In addition to the sensitive species list, there are two watch 

lists. Watch List #1 are those species that CNPS lists as nedirg mre 

infonnation before a decision on their status can be made. There is a need 

to distirguish bebeen the geographic rarity of these species and historical 

distribution of the species. Watch List #2 are species that were listed in 

the past, but are currently delisted for various reascazs. This does not 

preclude the opporhnu 'ty to list these again if necessary. This information 

is available on the Forest, and does not need to be included in the 

FEIS/Plan. 

m: The first sentence on DEIS 111-85 is refuted by the sentence on 

Plan 111-31 which states mrrectly that demand for sensitive plant protection 

does originate with the public and that it has expressed concern. As also 

discussed under Plan 111-31, a current list of such plants needs to be used. 

It is noted that four of those listed are California State-listed as rare. 

Is the @icy regarding state listed species to be different than or the same 

as federally listed? Please indicate what your manag-t propsal is to be 

on this matter. (1431) 

RESFQNSE: See the Affected E"a t section of the EIS for a written 

discussion. As stated in previous carments, the species list will be upaatea 

to reflect the mst current available information. Four plants found on the 

Forest are also designated as rare by the State of California. These are: 

Astagralus "sis, Oqp tantha roosionnn, Wekera eurekensis, and Lupinus 

padre-cruwleyi. 

CCEWENT: Sensitive plant species on the Inyo. In particular, pack stock 

traffic should not be a potential concern with proper maintenance of these 

passes. Isn't Astragalus ravenii poisonous to livestmk? (1645) 

RESFQNSE: 

This species is listed as the ninth highest priority (out of 22) on the 

Astragalus ravenii is listed as a sensitive species on the Inyo. 

207 
SENSITIVE PLANTS 

Forest. 

Populaticm. 

pAential for inpact is thDught to be low. 

There is little layIwxl about the habitat requirements or locaticms of 

Since all lmown ppulatiom are located in the wilderness, the 

m: It is of significance that the Inyo National Forest provides 

habitat for eight sensitive plant species which are endemic to the lands 

within the Forest. The DEIS 111-86, Table 111-21 lists eighteen sensitive 

plant species. AlthDugh the Plan and DEIS 111-85 say that M federally listed 

plants grow m the Inyo, it is stated that two plants are propxed for 

fe3xa.l 1isth-g. Based LI&XE-I the plank listed in DEIS 111-86, Figure 111-21, 

it can be seen that twelve federal candidate species cccur cm the Inyo of 

which cme species (-era -ensis) will likely be dropp2d to category 

3C when the list is revised. (1411, 1431) (2170) 

RESWNSE: Of the 22 species listed as sensitive m the Inyo, nine are 

proposed for federal listing as Category 2. These are species that require 

additional studies to better determine the status of the species. Two 

species, Abronia alpina and Astragalus m"is are propxed as Category 1 

species. Category 1 species are those for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service has adequate data to warrant a federal listing. These two species 

are the highest priority sensitive plants, and species management guides are 

currently being prepared. 

CCtMEWT: 

your list. (2170) 

REspoIELsE: Lupinus duranii was listed as a sensitive species in the past and 

is bsiq cansidered for relisting. It will remain on the Inyo NatiW 

Forest Watch List #2 until this evaluatim is canpleted. 

Add Luph duranii, a sensitive species endemic to MOMJ Bash to 

CU&NC 

Lupinus dedeckerae shwld be renamed Lupinus padre-cnmleyi. (2190) 

m: Tlnxe is SQTL~ 

debate as to whe- this species was originally collected in California. 

The lupine species will be changed in the Final Plan and EIS. 

Records of ODB indicate that Sedum pinetonun should be deleted, 

Sedum pinetom is currently cm Inyo Watch List #2. 

CCtMEWT: Due to jnpacts of tramplirg, grazirg should be reduced or cattle 

eliminated entirely fran Ramshaw Meadow in the Golden 'kout Wilderness where 

the Inyo Forest's mxt sensitive plant grows (Abronia alpina). (1180) 

REspoIELsE: 

the highest priority species cm the Forest. 

be -de in this plan. 

ppulaticm to further assess the effeds of livestock trapling. 

A species managemat guide is baing prepared for Abrcslia alpina, 

Rw"&tiw for grazirg will 

In additim, two exclosures are being placed in this 

CCMfR?F: 

habitat projected after bplemntatim of the hfd Alternative. 

Very CCBlcerned with the levels of dishrbance of sensitive plant 

The 

208 
SENSITIVE PLANTS 

DEIS IV-116-117 describe "low" levels of protection and "moderate to high" 

levels of threat for sensitive plant habitat by the end of the fifth decade. 

These projected decreases in sensitive plant habitat could in fact result in 

the listing of scme species as "threatened" or "endangexed" as a result of 

Forest Service actions. (1108) (1411, 1431, 2047, 2170) 

SFCINSE: At a Regional Biolqist/Botanist workslaop, several prototyps were 

developed for "itoring plans. One of these was for sensitive plants. 

These plans have tentative Regional appmval. The mnitoring guidelines for 

sensitive plants developed at this meeting all replace those that are 

currently in the Plan. The Forest has a strorq ccntnihent to insure that 

sensitive species do not becane listed. All threatened and endangered 

species are assessed for any propxed project in a site specific 

envi"ental analysis. 

C€M.lEW: On Plan V-8, you state a 50% variation (decline in nunhers) is 

required before further action is taken. In wntrast, threatened or 

endangered species of wildlife rquire action if any appreciable declme is 

noted. Why are sensitive plants, including state listed rare species and 

federal candidate threatened or endangered species, not similarly treated? 

Inyo National Forest has no suprting data to justify permitting 50% 

declines in species for which no mini" viable population level has been 

established. CNPS requests a much mre conservative level (20%) be 

established to ensure no sensitive species require future federal listing as 

threatened or endangered. A citizen petition for federal listing as a result 

of USFS actions would not look gccd. (1108) (1777, 2115, 2170) 

SFQNSE: The ravised "Lkring guide will not allow altering managenent 

practices that will degrade populations of sensitive plants without a field 

evaluation approved by a professional btanist, until species management 

plans are ccmpleted. These plans will establish parameters for allowable 

impacts. 

-: contrary to the statement under the "rm implementation 

requirements on DEIS 11-38, management of sensitive species to ensure that 

they do not becane threatened or endangered is legally mandated (E Manual 

2670.3). (1108) (134, 487, 2047, 2190) 

SFCINSE: This statement is in the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines. 

m: Suggest that an additional goal be added to this part of the Pian 

that states, where feasible, actions will be taken to "recover" sensitive 

species to a condition sufficient to warrant delisting as sensitive, 

threatened, or endangered. (1108) 

"E: It states that habitat 

for threatened and endangered and sensitive species will be protected or 

imprwed to aid in their recxjveq. 

The goal statement has not been modified. 

209 
SENSITIVE PLANPS 

cc"r: very disturbed that sensitive Plants are only mtid in the 

Prescription for "designated wil&mss" ur&r threatened, endangered or 

sensitive species. certainly, wilderness management will have the least 

inpact of all the Management Prescriptims m sensitive plants. We strongly 

feel that in order to pmtect the habitat required by sensitive species fmm 

multiple use that a separate Managmt Presa~. 'ption for the areas haw 

sensitive plant species should be developed. This would recognize the 

special manag-t needs of the Forest's 6,800 acres of lux" sensitive plant 

habitat. (1108) 

m: when a particular resource is not included in a Prescription, the 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines and/or manag€"t area direction are 

cansidered sufficient. Guidelines that exist in the Plan allow M 

activities that muld decrease sensitive plant species below viable 

"itoring guidelines (refer to previous comnent). 

population levels. Additimal .on will be illiplementea in the 

UXMDW.: Sensitive Plants, Plan JJ-33. The Inyo Forest shDuld prohibit the 

taking of threatened and endangaed plant species except under U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife permit. It should also prohibit the mllection or takiq of 

sensitive plants except as authorized by the Forest Supervisor. (1431) 

RESFQNSE: This will be added to the Sensitive Plant proSram Manag-t 

Plan. 

CCMENJ!: One area of the Plan where we anticipate wnflicts may develop with 

respect to threatened and endang& species managmt concerns the funding 

allocated for obtaining base line information and &toring ppulation 

trends. We believe that the funding allocated in the Plan is -sly 

inadequate to implement a trend analysis program. The rarity of rmst listed 

or candidate species dictates that extensive and prolonged -eys be 

undertaken that are by their very nature expensive to carry out. Unreliable 

data are obtained through less intensive studies. We strongly advocate that 

significantly higher levels of funding for "ibring of sensitive plant and 

wildlife resources be allocated in the Final Plan. A high priority should be 

assigned to obtaining such funding for acquisition of initial base line data 

and for sustained lcolg-term resource "itoring and protection. (487) 

RESFQNSE: F'undhg is a concern in managing sensitive plant species because 

the Forest does rot have control of mnies allocated fm higher level 

offices. Goals on the Inyu are to canplete one plant managemnt guide per 

year beginnirq with high priority species; to insure protection of sensitive 

plant populations in areas where other resource projects are proposed; and to 

continue monitoring plant species where viability is a concern. 

CXBMWF: DEIS (111-86) states that grazing impacts Abda alpina, 

Astragalus "sis, Cryp tantha rwsiorum, and Trifolium dedeckerae. CNPS 

opposes impacts to these species fm grazing and requests Inyo National 

Forest follow its Standards and Guidelines, and the Forest Service Manual. 

210 
WS opposes any increase in AUMs for allotments where these species are 

laulwn. (1108) 

EUSFiXSE: Guidance for cjrazing activities in relation to sensitive plant 

species will be addressed in the species managmt mdes. In areas here 

gazing is detennisd to be detr-tal, mnagemnt activities will be 

rodified to protect plant ppulatims fran this impact. Allotment management 

plans will also be used to direct grazing activities in relation to sensitive 

plant ppulations. 

C€M-DV.: We present the following outline for consideration as an additional 

Management Prescription for the Plan: 

Description: The purp3se of this prescription is to recognize and preserve 

the habitat needs of sensitive plant species. In areas where sensitive plant 

species OCCUT, timber harvest methods will be limited to shelterme3 if it 

can be demonstrated to not be detrimental to the species. Skidding equipat 

will not be permitted, motorized vehicle traffic will not be allowed, and 

where negative effects are noted, livestock grazing will be eliminated. 

Managemmt Direction and associated Standards and Guidelines: 

1. 

prescription#19 - Sensitive Plants. 

Include a 150-foot buffer zone amund ppulations within each Management 

Prescription ma. Ecmstic livestock grazing, motorized and 

m-motorized vehicles will rot be permitted within the buffer mne. 

2. Pesticide or herbicide use will not be permitted within or immdiately 

adjacent to sensitive plant populations. 

3. Timber harvest, where determined appzopriate, will be seasonally limited 

to the period having the least impact to the species (during dormancy or 

after seed set). Prescription #9 - Mdified Timber should be used for 

300 feet outside buffer zone. 

Meet visual quality objective of retention or partial retention. 

coordinate with sensitive plant "ibring officer. 

diversity database on population, habitat and rare status information. 

4. 

5. 

6. Coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Game's natural 

If the distribution of sensitive plant does not warrant inclusion within a 

separate Managmt Area 19, then CNPS recormends that a separate sensitive 

plant element and correqmnding Managmt Direction be included in 

Management aeScription for areas supprtirg sensitive species. (1108) (65, 

1431, 1634) 

"E: A separate prescription for sensitive plants is not amsidered 

necessary. A will be made to disallm management activities that 

are shown to be detrimental to sensitive plant populations. Your item #6 has 

been incorporated into the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines to insure 

protection of populations. Item 1, 2 and 3 are specific management methods 

that would be addressed in species management guides. Item 4 does not 

necessarily insure protection of sensitive plant populations. 

m: In the Plan under future condition of 

follaving information be provided for sensitive 

the Forest, WS requests the 

species: 1. Which species 

211 
SENSITIVE PLANTS 

will have habitat pm~tion, and what pportiOn of the k” populations 

will be protected, and 2. which, if any, species could psibly be delisted 

as a result of Forest management. (1108) 

“E: These recarmendations will be addressed in the species management 

guides that are being develqxd for all sensitive plant species. To 

appropriately address these c”s, considerable data on these species 

needs to be collected and analyzed. 

m: CNPS feels strongly atout the Inyo National Forest having a 

cxnmi-hnent to the preparation of species management. guides. These guides 

take a species-wide, and Forest-wide, look at sensitive plant management. 

Species manag-t guides pmvide for holistic management. They identify the 

habitat needs, manag-t cnnstrahts, opprtunities for enhancement, and 

make determinations of what ppulations are required for the long-term 

preservation of the species. It is pssible for sensitive plants to be 

inaaVertently harmed witbut sone type of Forest-wide management plan. It is 

important that the available hfonnation abut specLes be “piled in one 

place. Inyo National Forest should make a firm dt”t to preparing these 

guides. The need for these guides and a Forest-wide inventory for sensitive 

species should be stated in Appmdix 1. (1108) (487) 

RESFCNSE: A management plan pr0Vidir-g direction to long-term managexent of 

sensitive plant species is currently being prepared. Gne facet of this Plan 

provides direction for developing species manag-t guides. We are 

presently in the prccess of developing species manag-t guides for Abda 

alpina and Astragalus “ensis. 

-: Adc3itional area of wn- to aiPS is the management of sensitive 

plants during the perid before species management guides have been 

prepared. In the absence of species managemnt guides, the only rewnsible 

managemnt is total avoidance of inipacts to sensitive species. This should 

be stated in the Plan and DEIS. (1108) (1431) 

“E: Refer to the mnitorjng guidelines in the Fml Plan for sensitive 

plant. These revised guidelines state: “No impacts to plant populations that 

cb not have a species managaent plan: unless recx“ded by the Forest 

Supenrisor . ” 

m: The Plan does not specifically designate any plant species as a 

management indicator species. Of the eighteen species considered sensitive, 

two are listed by the State of California as rare and two are federal 

candidates (DEIS 111-85). We reiterate that state and fxlerally listed and 

candidate species should be designated MIS. This should be reflected in the 

managmt requirements. (1411) 

RESECNSE: MIS is just one 

concept used to insure that all biological resources on the Inyo are 

cansidered in management decisions. other wncepts are plant cannunity and 

strudure diversity, old-growth, mags, down logs, sensitive plants, fish, 

Sensitive species are essentialy managed as MIS. 

212 
SCCIOECONCMIC ENVIR0"T 

etc. Of the 22 sensitive plant species, 4 are listed as rare by the State of 

California, '2 are Category 1 propsed species for federal list-, and 9 are 

category 2 species with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

COM": Sensitive Plants, Plan IV-33. The Inyo should cmrdmate its 

programs with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Dep-t of Fish 

and Game, appropriate Nevada State resources agencies, and other groups and 

individuals concerned with the conservation of threatened, endangered and 

sensitive plant species. (1431) 

RESPONSE: The Forest Service does Mordinate and cooperate with other 

reso- agencies m developing its sensitive plant species program. 

CC": Although the DEIS reports that range managemmt affects sensitive 

plants, this ckement fails to include "grazing pressure'' as an indicator or 

a consequence of this activity on DEIS IV-114. Given that Figure 111-21 on 

DEIS 111-86 states that "grazing" was mentioned as a potential conflict for 

Abronia alpina, Astraglus mormensis, Cryp tantha rwsiom, and Trifolium 

dedeckerae, we believe that grazing pressure should be thoroughly duxussed 

in this Chapter and fully addressed in Figure IV-30 on Page IV-116. (487) 

(1431, 1617, 2170) 

RESFONSE: The effects of lives- grazing on these species is largely 

unlamwn and will be addressed in the species management guides. Data 

collection and draft species management guides are in progress for two of 

these species and will be initiated for the rwminhg two in the near future. 

CYBMWT.: Hackelia shanm 'thii does have a conflict with cattle grazing in 

the Golden Trout Wilderness. (381) 

FfESQNSE: This species is given the 21st priority out of 22 plant species 

that the Inyo reccgnizes as sensitive. Data is not available at this time to 

assess the effects of cattle grazing in the Golden Trout Wilderness. When 

the managmt guide for Hackelia &" 'thii is canpleted, it will mclude 

an assessment of potential impaots on the species, and how these can be 

alleviated. 

CC": It m l d m t affect the U.S. econorry at all to close public lands 

to private profit. I don't 

think it's unreasonable that since the people of the U.S. own the land that 

the profits should accrue to them. All the profits. (1600) 

IESFCNSE: In many areas, particularly in the West, the only opprhmities 

for sane land uses are on publicly owned lands. The mandate of the Forest 

Service is to manage for multiple uses on National Forest System lac&. 

I am not askkg you to eliminate alpine ski-. 

The 

213 
Forest issues many special we permits for a wide range of uses including 

alpine skiing. All revenues fm them are returned to the U.S. Treanuy. 

m: congress has mandated that MtLREll resourCe IlUIagmt on OUT 

public lands takes precedence over resource utilization and cam^% 'tu 

output. The primary purpose for the existence of these lands is to ensure 

the perpetuation of the ecosystems they support, not to subsidize the ecorrmy 

of a few industr ies and individuals. (1108) (19, 90, 111, 1271, 1638, 1650, 

1968, 2164, 2164, 2170, 2171, 2212) 

"E: congress has mandated that Naeonal Forest system lands be managed 

for multiple uses. That includes the prcduction of both "K& 'ty and 

nul-- 'ty outputs. Perpetuation of ecwystems does mt exclude 

utilization of the land. Forest lands are owned by eveqmne, hoth corrmodl 'ty 

and rmn-cumKxh 'ty us-, and recaipts fm ccnmxll 'ty users are remed to 

the U.S. Treasury. 

03MENT: In his January 12, 1987 letter to all Regional Foresters, Forest 

Service Chief Max Peterson stated that an upaatea assessment of future demand 

is essential in establishing resource outputs fm the National Forests, and 

new infomation relating to the timber resource is particularly critical due 

to recent fluctuations and uncerkun ' ty of future markets and prices. Since 

the Inyo Plan uses 1982 as a base year for planning decisicns when poor 

markets existed, your Forest seems to be in need of an upaatea assessment of 

future demand for wmd produds. I am confident such a reassessment will 

show that demand for timber on the Inyo is much higher than previously 

anticipated. Actually, this should be a foregone conclusion when one looks 

at the substantial bid pre"s on the Irqu Forest timber sales for the past 

few years. If it is available to increase per the Chief's letter, the Inyo 

will need to modify the Preferred Alternative to satisfy the projected 

demands. The Inyo Forest needs to recxgnize the importance of its ASQ as 

part of the total timber supply; proposed reductions in the timber sale 

program will have a negative effect on several mills which dew on the Inyo 

as a partial source of timber and will place unnec%ssary pressure on other 

public and private sources of timber. (458) (2179) 

RESPONSE: The Forest has reduced its ASQ because the values accIuing €ran 

recreation in the area west of U.S. 395 are higher than those accruing fm 

timber. It was not done because of demand analysis. Demand constantly 

fluctuates for both timber and specific recreation uses. Conditions that 

vary significantly fm the Final Plan can trigger an anenchent to the Plan. 

CXXPfEW: I am concerned about the social and ecoranic consequences that will 

result from your proposed Preferred Alternative. Currently the Inyo National 

Forest has the capability to support a long-term sustained yield of 24.7 WF 

annually, yet your proposed Plan will have an allowable hamest of 9.75 WF 

annually. I would like to go on record as a supporter of the Resources 

P1annh-g Act Alternative that prop3sed an ASQ of 16.9 WF in the first 

decade, and increasing to 19.8 MWF by the fifth decade. Unnecessary timber 

volume reduction on the Inyo Forest directly affects timber industry related 

214 
jobs that provide -ices to or derive benefits from the industry. (1347) 

(297, 425, 427, 918, 1790) 

RESFQNSE: The allmable harvest in the Final Plan is based not only on how 

much volume pCduction the Forest Can Sustain, but on em6m"tal and 

e"ic factors as well. The RF'A Alternative of 16.9 WF hamest in the 

first decade is not realistic. The harvest volume proposed in the Plan will 

sustain current markets. If demand increases wer time, volumes can be 

adjusted. 

CSMlExr: There is no ansideration of hcrw Forest outputs affect the state or 

even if outputs are adquate to meet historical needs of depmdmt users, 

such as purchasers of Inyo timber, within ecoranic sub-regions of the State. 

(297) 

RESFQNSE: Because of its location in the Eastem Sierra, markets for Inyo 

timber are limited. The Preferred Alternative will meet current local 

demand. If conditims charge, the Plan can be amended. 

cX"r: You state that the Inyo National Forest has an insignificant 

ecoranic impact on Wthem California (DEIS 111-4). This ignores the 

importance of clean potable water to Los Angeles. If developnent on the Inyo 

were to seriously dqrade the Mnm Basin and o;.Jens RL~ water quality, this 

could have a significant effect. (225) 

RESFQNSE: 

of the Plan. 

This is true. protedion of the water resouTce is a key ccrnponent 

CXMVENT: In many sections of the Plan, it tecams obvious that the Inyo is 

operat- as an automus organization without regard to the cumulative 

effects that may result from activities proposed on adjacent Forests or on 

the other Forests in California. For example, when the Inyo Plan discusses 

the proposed &up m firewzcd availability from the Forest, there is a 

failure to discuss firewood that may be available from other Forests or other 

local sources. The same can be said abut the proposed reduction in timber 

volumes. We and the general public need to be informed of the overall impact 

of all the plans on a state-wide basis. For tlus reason, we reconanend that 

mne of the Forest plans be appmed until the cumulative effect of all the 

Plans can be studled. (49) 

RESF"SE: Because of the Inyo National Forest's location in an isolated 

section of the Eastem Sierra, its impacts on other areas with regard to 

M;mnodity production is limited. The markets of the Forest are localized and 

limited. The Plan ensures continued production of wood products to meet 

lccal needs and a continuation of the current grazlng and meral programs. 

All Region 5 Forest Plans are reviewed by the Regional Office in San 

Francisco to ensure that they are consistent with other National Forests in 

meting regional and national needs. 

215 
m: My main cxmcern for writing this letter is the fact that if them 

is a new ski area developrent, there would be mre jobs for the people frun 

Mann~th to Lane Pine. (1054) (909, 1638) 

RESFQNSE: Ski area developnent could generate additional job opportunities 

in the area. ReCreatian use on the Forest has a significant impad on the 

local eco“ies and any additid developnent could prcduce opportunities 

for seasonal and service jobs. 

ax”!: I note that your Plan states that “timber ha“g . does not 

contribute significantly to the Irryo area’s ecolscmic base“ or to Regional 

timber targets, and that livestock grazing is a “mirxx part of the total 

present net value on the Inyo Forest”. Accordingly, I urge you to redirect 

your management projections for lumbx and grazing. (1009) 

RESFCNSE: Those projections have been ?xf3xed. 

03”: A major cc” I have is the overdevelopnent in the Manmsth/June 

~akes region. This city is already exceeding the capabilities of the 

enviranment to support it, yet the Plan does little to encourage reasonable 

developnent. I urge the Forest Service to more carefully “itor developnent 

in this region and to allow growth at a mre reasonable rate that does not 

&amtically impact on the envhxsmmt. In the section for Leasable Minerals 

- Oil, Gas, and Geothermal, please add: “Include cumulative impact analysis 

on such issues as pund water, deer migration, noise, air quality and 

recreatimal land visual impacts where the potential for multiple energy 

developnents exist. (1074, 1490, 1638) (62, 73, 77, 80, 95, 158, 481, 914, 

933, 946, 954, 1028, 1042, 1043, 1045, 1050, 1051, 1055, 1056, 1059, 1064, 

1065, 1066, 1069, 1079, 1085, 1088, 1090, 1161, 1178, 1222, 1244, 1256, 1333, 

1463, 1494, 1503, 1509, 1532, 1617, 1654, 1753, 1793, 1797, 1798, 1800, 1830, 

1858, 1871, 1892, 1921, 1940, 1951, 1995, 2000, 2006, 2062, 2072, 2078, 2087, 

2103, 2104, 2122, 2142, 2178, 2191) 

“E: The Ma”th/I” Unit Plan, approved in 1978 by the Regional 

Forester, is the existing planning document which direds developrent in the 

area. The Forest Service position is that any major developrent proposal 

that is not apprwed by the Plan would not be permitted until it has been 

verified that the infrastructure can suppx-t it. The National Bwi”ental 

Policy Act (NEPA) requires an envimmwntal analysis for each project. In 

addition, the prom developnent would require that a cumulative effects 

study be done. The proposal could be for a new ski area, geothermal plant, 

or other major wnskuction project. The clrmulative effects study would 

evaluate all foreseeable projects in the Ma”th/June area with an analysis 

of their impacts m both the physical and social envwts. It would 

include an analysis of the infrastzuctm? needed to support additional 

developnent includiq water, sewage, transp3rtation, school, fire protection 

and other facility needs. This would ensure that not only impads on the 

physical envircomnent are considered, but also that effects on the social 

enviroMlent are included in the analysis. 

216 
CXW~ENT: Like many wb have been living here, we oppse the further 

We're ooncemed to mmage sensitive 

stewardship of the unique and wcolderful wildness of our geographical 

environment. We want as much of it as possible to remain open to the public, 

free and not privately owned. Calling one alternative "Amenities" 

trivializes the need for ~tural areas, wildmess, accessible scenery and a 

wide recreation opprhmity spectnun. Because of both its ecological 

fragility and proxinuty to urban areas, the Inyo must be protected and 

managed as a mtal health refuge for the spiritual and emotional 

regewation of those millions who must live and mrk in an artificial, 

maddening man-made environment. (1639, 1015) (123, 225, 227, 1919) 

"E: The Plan emphasizes non-ccITmodl 'ty resources: wildmess, 

recreation, wildlife and aesthetics. 

of this concrete jungle. 

a.".: Concerned about any carmercial use of the Forest including 

luxbering, cattle grazing, and mining. The more our population grows, the 

more we need the existing natural resources of the Forest, not only for its 

beauty, but for the fast shrinking habitat of our wildlife. It is my opmion 

that the Forest Service should advocate preservation lnstead of multiple 

use. Rotec+xon of wildlife habitat (old growth forests) and species 

diversity should receive priority over other uses. The prhxy purpose for 

the existence of these lands is to ensure the perpetuation of the ecosystems 

they support, not to subsidize the eco~~ny of a few industries and 

individuals. The Forest Service should be an active and vigilant force in 

protection of wilderness lands, madless areas, and wildlife habitat from the 

per and greed of developers. (340, 1011, 1216, 1108, 1271) (3, 63, 65, 90, 

107, 127, 279, 288, 333, 381, 382, 1041, 1185, 1223, 1295, 1496, 1522, 1591, 

1704, 1710, 1713, 1733, 1762, 1810, 1820, 1851, 2008, 2061, 2112, 2170) 

RFSPONSE: The legislated mandate for management by the Park Service is 

p"ation. The Forest Service is mandated by law to provide for the 

multiple-use of National Forest Systm lands. That includes protecbon or 

m-CDrrmodl 'ty resources, providing for opprtunities on public lands that are 

not available on private lands and ensuring that the Forest lands can be 

enjoyed by all the public. See the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines and 

the Sunnary of the &i% sections for specific direction to ensure protection 

of wildlife habitat and species diversity. 

enhancement of nabal resources, utilization of both 'ty and 

a.".: First and foremxt, we feel that the Inyo Forest should be managed 

for its recreational values. While we understand the multiple use concept 

that guides the managemat decisions of the Forest Service, we feel that the 

location of the Inyo Forest is such that the recreational values should be 

mized in relationship to the timbering and mineral extraction uses of 

the Forest. (1666) (174, 969, 1429, 2133, 2194) 

RESPONSE: The recreation resource is given primary aphasis in the Plan, 

while providing for the use of all other resources. Management of the timber 

reso- west of U.S. 395 has been changed because of the high r-eation 

217 
values in the area. Red fir stands will rot be harvested; the remainder of 

the area will be harvested using llneven-aged management techniques. 

m: The time is lcmg overdue to pt a much higher priority on the 

protection of wildlife habitat versus dwalopnent of resources. In my 

opjnion, the balanced approach suggested in the multiple use principle has 

been non-existent. Developnent has been weight& to an extreme; it is time 

topreserve and pmtect. (1653) (2132, 2166) 

"E: The protection of wildlife habitat is a major enq?hasis in the 

Plan. See the Standards and Guidelines, for wildlife and the Sumnary of the 

APS for a discussion. 

m: An additional indicator shmld be added: "Do Forest Service 

prcgrams have an ecoIlcmic inipact on local jurisdicticns and service 

providers?" (Eccaurm 'C AsSffiSnent 11-3). Both the Plan and EIS fail to 

address Forest policy impacts on lccal service infrastmctunzs, the ability 

of local "nn-iities to accamodate irmeased activity generated fran the 

Forest and the availability of a private land base to service visiting Forest 

users. (1638) (225) 

RISPONSE: The impact of Forest Senrice programs on local jurisdictim is 

addressed in chaptars I11 and N of the EIS in Section C (Ecoraru 'C 

-t and Social nnrironment); sumnarized in ewranic canparative 

tables in Chapter 11; and was a significant factor in the managmat 

decisions for the Final Plan. 

mi The restrictive managaent policies mandated by the preferred 

Alternative will also have a deleterious effect upon the econanic well-beof the only public service facility located in Fish Lake Valley, the local 

store and service station. (486) (1587) 

RESFCNSE: The management policies of the Plan were omstz11-I -A so as not to 

have a negative impact on the ecoranies of local cui~ties. The range 

resource will be maintained at current levels, mining opportunities will be 

protectea, and additional recreational opprtunities will be provided 

including the recarmendation for a substantial wildemess area in the white 

Mountains. The Mccleod Camp Road will not be closed as was proposed in the 

Draft Plan. 

CCMMENT: Resource outputs, both "kxh 'ty and m-cormy3dl. "cy, affect many 

-le beyond the hmiiate impact area. Cmmkxh 'ty prcduction activities 

also prcduce a broad range of econCmic activity. Direct retums fran both 

federal and state governments mcur not only as payments of fees (or 

stumpage), but also as coprate and personal in" taxes, and the 

generation of property taxes. Ripple activities in vendor businesses extend 

throughout the local cc" 'ties as well as camnmities outside the impact 

area. We would like to see rmre serious consideration of these types of 

effects. (1432) (129, 2171, 2193) 

218 
RESFCM3E: Resource outputs fmm the Forest dD impact a wide area and them 

is a substantial mltiplier effect. The primary econaRic effects are most 

easily tracked, but them are alsn services and intangible impacts that 

camwt be easily defined. See Chapter 11, Figure 35 of the EIS for a sumnazy 

of cxnxmic effects: Chapter IV, Section B for a discussion of the "Direct, 

Indirect, and Qnnulative Envimnmental Consequences" of the Preferred 

Alternative. 

a"r: The Forest is bounded by a number of other federal manag-t units 

including Bureau of Land Management; "biyata -National Forest: Yosemite, Kings 

Canyon, Sequoia National Parks; the Sima and Sequoia National Forests. 

There needs to be a me thorough mideration of the way in which Inyo 

National Forest outputs canplement, supplement, or otherwise in-act with 

resource outputs of the other units. (1432) 

RESFCM3E: The Forest cooritinates with adjacent National Forests in 

manag-t decisions of all types, including wild and scenic river 

designations with the Sierra and Sequoia, wilderness designation with the 

Toiyabe, and the manag-t of lands that adjoin us. The Forest also 

coordinates with the Bureau of Land Managemat on managemat decisions since 

much of the Inyu is interspersed with BLM lands. Because all National 

Fbmsts are in one system, outputs, goals and manag-t direction are the 

proaud of evaluation nation-wide, region-wide, and local needs. All 

agencies, inc1udir-g the National Park Service, had the opportunity to review 

and canr\ent on the Draft Plan. Decisions in the Final Plan reflect 

coordination efforts with local, state and federal agencies. See cllapter VI, 

EIS "Consultation and Mailing List. " 

m: We need not remind you that residents of Mammth Lakes and visitors 

to the Eastem Siarra fm Southem California represent only a tiny fraction 

of the population you serve as public qloyees. We note an absence, in both 

the DEIS and Draft Plan, of attention to several subgraups of the American 

citizenry who are potentially important to the developmnt of a year-round 

forest utilizatiun program. We request that you inwrprate into both the 

final EIS and Plan evidence of specific attention to the anticipated growth 

in the U.S. senior citizen population over the next 15 years with its 

attendant impact on usage of Inyo National Forest, and the anticipated 

daqraptuc shift that will make Hispanics and Asians the dominant ethnic 

populations of L.A. County and the greater Southem California area by the 

year 2000 with a resulting impact on recreational use of the Inyo Forest. 

While socioeooncanic factors related to both of these phencmena may be beyond 

the scope of your charye, them should be evidence of "mal sensitivity to 

the fact that the user population of Inyo Forest should and must expand 

beyona those who are wealthy emugh to drive to Mammth, rent a condo and pay 

for ski rental and lift tickets. (1406) (2178) 

RESPONSE: The Plan provides for a wide range of recreation opportunities for 

all segments of the public. This includes not only a variety of facilities 

ranging fm primitive campsites rmring 110 fee to highly developed 

caqg"ds with many semces provided. It provides for both winter and 

sumner recreation use. Much of the Forest is used by people for dI.spersed 

219 
recreation wing rm fees: camping, hiking, mss-wunky skiing, muntain 

climbing, "mbiling, and sightseeing. Demgraphic projections, recreation 

use trends, and population forecasts were all used to construct demand 

projections that determined Plan projects. 

The Los Angeles area is identified as a seccoldary zone of social influence 

for the Forest (czlapter 111, EIS "Affected EnviroMlen t"). Demand proj&ions 

for recreation on the Forest were developd by the Regional Office. Based on 

growth in major population centers, the Southern California area had a major 

influence upon the factors developd for the Region (Appndix B). These 

demand projections were used in land allocation decisions identified in the 

Plan. Major developnent projects will require site specific analyses which 

will inexprate cuzrent Population statistics. 

Cl3MENT: You state: "It is expected that an increased local population could 

stabilize the fluctuating tourist ecc~lcmy of the 1970's." This statement 

should be deleted. The population graKth envisioned by the Forest Plan would 

be fueled almst entirely by winter recreation developnent and, therefore, 

would mre likely lead to increased instability. (1891) (225) 

RE": The statement was intended to emphasize the need for local 

pplation growth that would help to stabilize the fluctuating tourist 

ecancmy. The Plan aphasizes increased developd and dispersed recreation 

opprtunities, both sumner and winter. 

cx"?r: Thelandc%meEh 'ppattern of an area can directly affect the 

dwelopnent pattern of a ca"ity and thereby spatially enhance or detract 

fran the "nunity's social interactions and cohesiveness. An additional 

indicator should be added: "How can the Forest Plan enhance the social 

integrity of lmal "ities through the land adjustment process." (Social 

Assesmt 11-3) (1638) 

RESFCXSE: See Chapter 111, EIS (Affected Ehvinmwnt) for a discussion of 

the lands program under "L- 'p Adjustments" and "Special Uses". Also 

AdjlLstrnents" for Forest priorities. The basic goal of land acquisition or 

exchange is to protect resources. 

Chapter IV (Fo-t-wide Standards and Guidelines) under "Landownership 

Cam"f: The consmptive pursuits such as timber, mining and grazing benefit 

only a mall numter of current residents and are often subsidized by all 

taxpayers. (1974) (89, 1007, 1570) 

RES-E: The National Forests are mandated to be managed for multiple uses, 

both cormodl 'ty and non-cxankxb 'ty. 'ties have a 

ripple or multiplier effect and have both primaxy and secondazy impacts on 

theeconcmy. Themmmb 'ties themselves prwide benefits to taxpayers in the 

form of meat, wool, paper and wood, energy, minerals and water. 

Receipts derived frcm 

220 
SoCIOE€ONoMIC ENVIRONMENT 

cX”?r: While we realize that it is &fficult to put a dollar value on 

public enjoymnt of fish and wildlife resou~ces or on the wntmued existence 

of a healthy ecosystem as evidenced by the presence of sensitive animal and 

plant species, we believe that you should at least attempt to make the reader 

aware that these factors do influence the ecoMmic health of the Forest in 

many ways (DEIS, S-14 and S-17). In the Final Plan, please include a strong 

recqnition that protection of scenic beauty, species divexsity, and 

ecological balance, are matters of priority over all other interests. The 

present projection of a reduction 59-65% in old growth forest and a 17% 

reduction in wet meadow areas, is not a responsible management goal for the 

Inyo National Forest. (487, 264) (65, 329, 1930, 2170) 

RESFONSE: AllI7col-m ‘ty resoucces such as wildlife and wilderness were 

given dollar values in the econmic analyses using the “willingness to pay” 

technique. The Plan enphasizes m-ccmnzd~ ‘ty resources. There would not be 

a reduction of 59-65% in old growth on the Forest. That section was poorly 

written and has been revised. 

CYXt”: We are wncemed that, at best, such management muld result in 

decreased public fish and wildlife values over the life of the Plan. We do 

not believe that defining the upper limits of prcduction oriented outputs 

based on the public’s demand provides the safeguards necessary to mtain 

the forest ecosystem in a viable, functioning fom. Because this alt-tive 

does not set realistic upper limits on consumptive use of the forest 

resources, this may not be the best alternative. (487) (225) 

RESWNSE: The Plan prarides direction for only this planning period. All 

values in the Plan are the best estimates available at this time. During the 

rrrmitoring and evaluation process in Plan implementation, resource impacts 

and outputs will be reviewed. If necessary, the Plan can be revised at any 

time. 

lXWEtfC: The FORPLAN del, which has been used to develop consequences for 

the alternatives cansidered, uses an objective function based up Present 

Net Value (PW). Non-priced benefits, including wilderness values and 

wildlife management are very subjective assessnents in the analytical 

methoaolcgy of FORPLAN which only provides a deterministic solution sensitive 

to the input assmptions. I would strorgly urge additional sensitivity 

analysis with greater enphasis on ran-priced benefits before placing too much 

reliance on the results of the analysis. The discount rate of 4% with 

sensitivity at 7 1/8% that was used may reflect current ecormnic conditions 

in a deflationary perid. Since the Plan time horizon is 15 years, I would 

also suggest a sensitivity analysis using a 12% discount rate - of course 

with mre appropriate emphasis on ran-priced benefits. This muld account 

for potential future inflation. (351) (104) 

RESME: Many non-mket values are included in the FORPLAN analysis, 

including those for dispersed recreation, wilderness, fishing, wildlife, 

hunthg and water. These are RPA values, based on extensive 

willingness-to-pay research studies. The discount rates used were detemuned 

by the Water Resources Council and are being used by all National Forests. 

221 
These are real rates and do not include a risk factor, which is a major 

factor in private jnvestment analysis. 

ccr+”: The values used for selecting cwnstraints to the objective fimction 

for the FORPLAN model should use a longer term planning brim. I would 

suggest 150 years which is already inmrparated into timber managaent. This 

long-term horizon should provide mre -is on values for future 

. tiesof 

ts for 

generations and mt just hmdiate exploitaticm. Because of u” 

the values of these future generaticms including new requiremen 

scientific knowledge, additional value would have to be given to such 

mn-priced benefits as undisturbed wilderness, scenic and cultural items, and 

diversity of wildlife. (351) 

“E: Ths farther out in the planning brim, the leSs the net 

value of a figure when it is discounted back to the present. 150 years is 

the planning horizon for timber because of rotation age. The planning perid 

is ten years. Any predictions beyona that point are invalid because of the 

uncertainties of M~UEI~ resoufce wses and the change associated with 

social data. The intrinsic values accruing to such factors as wildlife and 

plant diversity, scenic and cultural protection, for future generatim is 

incorprated into the Plan outside of the foIlnal ntxlelirg process. 

CQIWWl’: The price trends used in the Plan in FDRPLAN seem unrealistic (DEIS 

nppendix B-25). California planners use 1980 RPA timber price trends in 

FORPLAN even though the 1985 RPA p1~3ram found price trends to be much 

lower. The 1980 .trends increase the already overestimated timber values 

rapidly in the future. Due to these trends, assumed values are projected to 

triple within 50 years and actual current timber prices are believed to 

septuple within this time. Such increases are unrealistic and have 

significant effects on timber ecoxmics in FORPLAN. Also, the Forest Service 

use of a 4% discount rate is questionable. This is far lower than rates used 

by private hdmtry. Forest Service investments us- this rate are highly 

inefficient! (2170) (1790) 

RESPONSE: When the FORPLAN analysis was done for the Plan, the most current 

data was used. FORPLAN analysis mt be redone 

constantly; however, the Plan can be amended or revised at any time, if 

durirg Plan implementation, the nKmit0ri.q process indicates that it is 

necessary. The 4 percent real discount rate used by the Forest Service is 

appropriate for gwemment investment. 

This charges cnnstantly. 

See the response above. 

CfMdEXC: Inyu and MOM3 Counties contain extensive public land holdings which 

severely limit the tax base for these go”wk entities. The counties‘ 

schools and roads, the beneficiaries of the Public Land Use Receipts Act of 

1904, in this case will be negatively inpacted by the loss of potential 

revenues which will result through the implementation of the h-eferred 

Alternative. The PRF insures an intnediate 9% loss in timber revenues, a 

steadily decreasing range revenue, a static mineral revenue and a marylnal 

increase from the concentrated ski areas. The projected downturn in the 

camodities area will further damage the lccal cammities as they strive to 

222 
SOILS 

develop mn-recreational based industry and add to the continuing problem of 

cyclical heavy unemployment. In addition, the type of recreational uses, 

primitive and semi-primitive, which the PRF ensjlasizes are those which 

generate the snallest number of lccal jobs and service related income. These 

types of recreationists are txaditimally known to stimulate the local 

econanies the least. (2171) (297) 

RESPGNSE: The Preferred Alternative as defined in the Plan is designed to 

have no significant negative jnpact on the local eccOmnies. Although timber 

rwenues will be reduced, the volume of sawtimber prcduced on the Inyo is not 

substantial. meld will continue to be proauCea at current levels: range 

use will remain at current levels; mining will be developxl in conjunction 

with developwnts in the eccolcmy; energy developnent will take place in 

conjunction with increased demand or changes in social condibons. The Inyo 

is a prcducer not only of revenues, but of services to the local 

ca"nities. The Preferred Alkznative enp?hasizes both developed and 

dispersed recreation. (See Sumnary Fkoxm 'c Effects Tables, Chapter 11, EIS). 

SOILS 

EW": Adverse effects fran activities impacting the condition of soils 

shwld be mitigate3 to include their restoration or the activity should not 

be allowed to continue. (1609) 

RESPONSE: 

dishrbing activity. 

the soil resource do what you suggest. 

will further "imize soil losses during surface disbbiq activities. 

We agree that soil restoration is an important part of any surface 

We believe the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for 

Following Best Management Practices 

m: Because of erosional problems arising fran site preparation such as 

what has hap& near Tehachapi, this aspect has to be regulated and 

mnitored very skingmtly. (382) 

RFSKlNSE: We agree that soil erosion is an important concern. Exosion 

control measures are identified during the initial activity evaluation and 

are W for the duration of the activity. We believe that Forest-wide 

Standards and Guidelines for the soil resource help us minimize soil erosion 

where surface dishrbiq activities OCCUT. 

COMMENT: If you indeed intend to reduce erosion, then the Forest Service 

shld see that M-th and June "ntain Ski Areas met erosion control 

standards 100%. Accadirg to the DEIS, "Soils are still eroding", the EPP'S 

have been only partially implemented, and "800 acres have yet to be 

stabilized." Accxxdiq to my simple calculations, that's 53%. (1634) 

"E: Erosion control and stabilization on Mamnth and June Wmntains is 

an oxgoing activity which is partly in respsnse to poorer than anticipated 

rwegetation successes in the past and partly to yearly earth wing 

activities perfom by the Manmth-June Mmntain managers. Until the level 

223 
SPECIAL -ST AREAS 

of earth mwirq drops to a low level and the slower revegetation efforts 

catch up, sediment prcduction will continue fran these areas. The ultimate 

goal is to fully -1-t all erosion protection plans and to have all 

disturbed acres revegetated. 

m: The Draft Plan and DEIS indicate soil conditions generally are "in 

optimal condition." When the appraisals get down to specifics, the 

condrti0n.s are found to be considerably less than optimal.. (2178) 

FUSPQNSE: The general condition of the soils on the Forest is that they are 

relatively undisturbed. The soils are generally in as gad a condition as 

they can cccur naturally. As defined in the Plan, the erosion of these soils 

is generally low and their productivity is optimum. Alteration of the soil 

by some disturbing activity mcreases erosion and lowers the productivity. 

These changes generally occur on a site specific basis and are related to 

man's actinties. Naturally occu~~ing events such as heavy rains can result 

in the same changes. 

-: Support the establishment of Special Interest Areas (SB) for the 

ptection of unique assemblages of sensitive or geographically rare plants 

andanimal s, unusual species and representatives of unccmron natural plant 

cammities. Very ccolcerned that the Plan does not list any candidate or 

propsed SIAs. The numerous rare plants and their associated carmunities are 

excellent opprhmities for establishing botanical special mterest areas. 

Those plant species that may not be protected by the propsed RNAs should be 

listed and considered for mclusion in btanical SIAs. (2047) (65, 1890) 

"E: The Forest dd not prope any additional botanical specla1 

interest areas (SIAs) in the FEE. No specific candidates for botanical SIAS 

were identified in the scoping process for the Plan. Those areas that were 

suggested for SIA status in cannents received on the Draft Plan may be 

included in a Forest reccmnendation to the Regional Forester for 

classification of SI?.s. 

m: Desert riparian areas of the Forest need special protection. A 

special interest area should be established for the (?&ton- aeek drainage 

in the White Nbuntain Wilderness. (1664) 

FESPCNSZ: Managwent of the Cottonwcod Creek area of the white Mountains is 

sensitive due to the presence of the Paiute cutthroat .trout, a threatened 

species. Other Great Basin riparian ecosysteins may be rmre appropriate to 

consider as representative. 

aX+ffWP: 

established a Great Basin National Park. 

It is the dream of many that sanetime in the future there will be 

I would hope that a major 

224 
SPECIAL INTEREST AREAS 

contribution to this effort can be realized by the preservation and proper 

management of these areas of the Inyo National Forest. (481) 

RESPONSE: The Inyo National Forest is managed under the laws and regulations 

of the Departnent of Agriculture, Forest Service. There is m intent to 

manage any area of the Forest for potential designation as a National Park. 

Designation of a National Park is strictly Congress' responsibility, and 

National Parks are managed under the laws and regulations of the Depariment 

of Interior, National Park Service. 

MMMEEPP: In the case of Glass c'reek, I suggest that an exception be made 

with respect to Eastem Sierra lower elevation streams and that the Glass 

creek ecosystem be declared a special interest area. It presents an 

oppnAuuty to preserve an entire free-flow- stream ecosystem fran its 

source to its wnfluence with Deadman Creek wh~ch is unusual in the Eastern 

Sierra where few streams have escapd human impact. Old growth red fir, 

nesting goshawks, migrating deer, pine martens, and the possibility of future 

Latontan cutthroat trout intrcduction dramatize the need for includiq this 

ecosystem as a special interest area, especially as Deadman Glass Flow and 

the Obsidian Dome are alreadv kina so desianated. (979. 1947) ~, (139. . 214. .~~_ ., ~~ 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ 

225, 232, 281, 293, 300, -%G, 328,-329, 332, 358, 377, 381, 400, 4ii, 420; 

430, 467, 481, 905, 912, 944, 946, 950, 952, 953, 978, 1o00, 1008, 1009, 

1014, 1015, 1024, 1029, 1033, 1099, 1107, 1159, 1160, 1177, 1180, 1188, 1191, 

1202, 1222, 1229, 1248, 1252, 1269, 1278, 1280, 1283, 1295, 1305, 1317, 1331, 

1332; 

1522, 

1581, 

1653, 

1747, 

1864, 

1930, 

2023, 

2141, 

1333; 1348; 

1524, 1529, 

1582, 1585, 

1657, 1659, 

1749, 1762, 

1868, 1873, 

1931, 1933, 

2027, 2030, 

2142, 2147, 

1418, 1429, 1430; 1431, 1433, 

1532, 1543, 1545, 1549, 1565, 

1589, 1592, 1598, 1604, 1608, 

1660, 1662, 1670, 1709, 1714, 

1776, 1777, 1789, 1798, 1800, 

1880, 1893, 1904, 1905, 1906, 

1935, 1954, 1971, 1980, 1983, 

2034, 2035, 2061, 2070, 2112, 

2148, 2152, 2162, 2166, 2170, 

1469, 1485, 1487; 

1569, 1576, 1577, 

1616, 1625, 1633, 

1729, 1730, 1731, 

1801, 1819, 1860, 

1907, 1912, 1923, 

1985, 1990, 1994, 

2113, 2117, 2119, 

2178, 2183) 

1516, 1518, 

1578, 1579, 

1649, 1652, 

1732, 1744, 

1862, 1863, 

1924, 1926, 

2007, 2015, 

2129, 2136, 

RESEONSE: The Forest intends to evaluate candidate Special Interest Areas 

during Plan implementation. That process will take place outside the Forest 

plamirtg process. The Glass Creek meadow has been placed under Managment 

prescription #17 which will protect the maded characteristics of the area. 

COMMWl': Not satisfied with the small nmkr of botanical SEAS on the large 

and botanically outstanding Inyo National Forest. Rquest that the Inyo 

Forest reevaluate SIA candidates. Sane examples include the narrows at the 

head of Marble Canyon where it leaves Squaw Flat which is the lowest 

elevation occurrence for the Bristlecone Pine and Caulostramina jaegeri and 

Haplopappus gilmanii; Coldwater Canyon in the White Mount- where the most 

outstandiq population of -era emekensis occurs as well as other 

special botanical values, and Inyo muntain crest fran Sidehill Sprirg to one 

half mile south of Seep Hole Spring. (1108) (91, 1411) 

RESFONSE: 

appropriate, foster public use and enjoyment of areas with scenic, 

The objectives of Special Interest Areas are to pmtect and, where 

225 
historical, geolcgical, botanical, zoolcgical, paleontological, or other 

Special characteristics. A” ObjecUVe is to classify areas that 

possess unusual remeation and scientific values so that these special values 

are available for public study, use or enjoymnt. One fact to consider, 

especially in relation to ram, endangered, or sensitive plants, is the 

effect of designaticn on the plants themselves and the surnxlnding 

ecosystem. Formal designation as an SIA may mt, in the long run, achieve 

the stated ms of protection, since the designation will uncbubtedly 

attract use which could possibly damage these areas. A carem evaluation of 

potential candidate botanical SIAs needs to be made prior to recarmending 

them for classification. 

m: Anti-dunes atop white Wing Peak and dimicton cliffs in the southem 

Deadnan drainage should be irnresta ’gated for possible geologic RNAs or SI&. 

Eastern Sierra red fir, mbmdhg fran volcanic annihilation, should be 

studied as a possible biologic RNA or SIA. (2185) 

RES-: We will evaluate these features you suggest during Plan 

implementation. 

CStMWR 

sites that is parallel to the ane for W. (1108) (991, 1411) 

RESFCNSE: There are different purposes for RNAs and SIAs. RNAs are not 

designated for the primary purpose of recreation and use. Their primary 

pur~ose is for research; anything that might interfere w~th that purpose 

would be discouraged or prohibited. The management plans for RNAs contain 

specific direction for managing the areas for the purposes of research. If 

other uses such as “ation can be accOrmOdated without inpairing research 

values, they can be permitted. The Forest Plan identifies potential RNAs and 

applies prescription #5 to deal with the management of existing and potential 

RNAs. This is to insure that existing values of potential RNAs are preserved 

until such time that the area is formally evaluated, naninated, and 

classified as part of the RwL system. 

On the other hand, SIAS have a different objective which is to protect and, 

where appropriate, foster public use and enjoymerit of areas with scenic, 

historical, geological, botanical, zoological, palentological, or other 

special characteristics. The objective is to also classify those areas that 

psess unusual recreation and scientific values so that these special values 

are available for public study, use, or enjopat. 

After a feature or area is classified as an SIA, the management plan for that 

SIA would detail any protective measures necessary for preservation of the 

area. The Forest does not feel that a special prescriptim is needed to 

manage identified potential candidates for special interest areas. 

There needs to be an SIA prescription for candidates and designated 

C€WlDW: An effort needs to be made to identify and protect areas of special 

geologic significance. Because this was not clone in the past, significant 

volcanic blast pits were obliterated fmn the slopes of Mamwth Mxntain Ski 

226 
Area &ring terrain modifications to establish ski rims. The Inyo has an 

ab" of geologic features which are studied by researchers and students 

throughaut the country. These features need inventory and protection to 

assu~e their lqevity. (2185) 

-E: The Affected Knvinnunent section of the EIS ccoltains a listing of 

geologic features that have been identified as candidate areas for special 

interest geologic areas. In addition, the EIS contains a lis- of 

potential candidate National Natural Lan&arks. These will be evaluated and 

recormendeed for nanination by 1990 per direction in the Forest-wide Standards 

and Guidelines. Evaluation and naninatiOn*will occuz' outside the Forest 

PI- process. 

ccw": Management Area #5 - Glass Mnmtain. The area around Glass 

lvlountain is ham to the largest pure Jeffrey pine forest in the world, as 

well as a pure stand of limber pine (Sentinel Meadow RNA), numerous wet 

meadows, steep-walled canyons, and sand flats. Glass Wuntah was an 

imp3rtant obsidian source to local Indian trikes and, at 11,123 feet, towers 

abwe the sm"g ' landscape. It affords unparalleled views of the White 

Wmntains and Sierra Nevada as well as the Wm Basin and Owens Valley. Due 

to its highly diverse habitat types and unique floral and faunal assemblages, 

the Glass Mountah ecosyStem should be fully protected fm human 

disturbances. (140) 

RESFONSE: The Forest has listed potential National Nabral Lambark ("I,) 

candidate areas, one of which is Glass Wuntah. "L designation would not 

charge the management of the area, but it would focus attention on the 

special qualities of the area. Another possible form of designation would be 

as a Special Interest Area. However, that designation includes recreational 

use of the area as one of its objectives which you inply would be 

detximental. A Research Natural Area designation is not desirable since the 

area has not been identified as needed on the list of potential RNAs. Part 

of the area you identify has, as you stated, already been designated as the 

Sentinel Meadow RNA. There are no plans to expand the Sentinel Meadow RNA 

because it was designated to preseme the lcdgepole pine ecosystem. 

-: With respect to Special Interest Areas, Figure 111-22 found on DEIS 

111-89 lists a nmbr of cmdidate National Natural Lamharks but fails to 

describe the special features of each. This mission should be rectified. 

(2190) 

RESEONSE: Specific infonnation regarding "Ls is available at the Forest 

Supervisor's Office in Bishop, California. 

-: Management Area #7. Within an area slated for prescription #10 - 

High Level Timber, exists a very unique set of features generally not knmn 

to the Inyo visitor, the Chalk Bluffs. I would like to see scme further 

protections given to the area imnediately surrounding, and upslope from, 

these features to prevent any accidental damage occuzing fm the timber 

practices. ( 1608 ) 

227 
TIMBER MANAGEMENT 

RESPONSE: During the s0opir-g process for potential Special Interest Areas 

and National Natural Landmark areas, the Chalk Bluffs were not identified as 

being on National Forest land. Managmt of private land is outside the 

scope of the Forest Plan. Any measures needed for protection of significant 

features on National Forest land during timber harvesting operations would be 

covered in the timber sale operating plan. 

TIMBER 

CCmIEW: Please add the follcwirg under "Timber": Allow timber proaUction 

only where it has been documented to be cost-effective. (1638) 

RESPONSE: The ASQ determination for the Forest 1s based on ec~3-c 

analysis. Individual sales include project-level ewnauc analyses. Sales 

on the Inyo are cost-effective. 

cX"w.: An area of wncem is the east slope of Wlute Wq Ridge. The 

access road is #2550, abut 0.5 mile northwest of Upper Deadman Canggmund. 

Ahout 0.6 miles up the road, a ravine cunirg down on the left muld make a 

gd hikhg trail. Tim groves of Jeffrey pines, spray marked blue for 

cuiztirg, are nearby. Either or both would make a fine picnic area. Along 

the first mile of this mad are mtly mid-sized and young fir trees. 

Jeffrey pine seedlings are restricted to the road cut and in a few situations 

with southern exposure. Under present climatological corChtions, what is the 

regeneration potential of this area in Jeffrey pine, if the logging is 

carried out? (1631) 

RESPONSE: This is site specific information beyond the scope of the Forest 

Plan. Your carment has been referred to the Ranger District for use in 

project analyses. 

cX"w.: Where are the 29,000 acres unregenerable within five years of final 

harvest? What type of soils? Red fir, Jeffrey pine or lcdgepole? (DEIS 

11-79). This should be discussed in "Affected hvirOnment". (1634) 

RESEWSE: The acres mentioned are scattered wer the Forest on various sites 

with a mix of species and are identified by site index only. They are 

designated hy the FORPLAN -1 fm the Forest database and are 

autnnatically excluded fran wnsideration for timber harvest. 

cX"w.: Regarding timber harvest 

for recreation and scenic segments, no timber harvesting should be allowed to 

prevent erosion. (121) 

RESPONSE: Standards and Guidelines for soil, water and riparian areas 

pruvide protection fran soil erosion for silvicultural treatments. 

Prescription #8 - Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

228 
aIYMEW.: The selected Plan should oppose logging, mad construction or 

oannercial developcent in the fragile Glass Creek Meadow. (281) 

RESPONSE: 

Glass Creek Meadow will be managed under Prescription #17. 

Glass Cr& Meadow has been deleted fm the timber base. 

aIYMEW.: The costs and benefits of timber m the preferred Alternative 

clearly shay that this alternative is puttq too much mney into timber 

production. The ratio is much better in the CEE Alt-tive and probably 

best in the AMN Alternative. (5) (1723, 2170) 

RESPONSE: The PRF 

Alt-tive emphasizes a mixture of ccrmy3dl 'ty and amenity resource outputs; 

the CEE Alt-tive seeks the mst cost-effective mix of land allocations; 

and the AMN Alternative "izes amenities with little regard for the 

effects on ca"xhty outputs. The Final Preferred Alternative best answers 

all the issues and concerns while achievq a balanced nuxture of all 

resource outputs. 

EUXxXN. 'cs is only one of marry evaluation criteria used. 

COMMENI: With recreation a major part of the Inyo's use, access is very 

important. Timher production pnmtes and maintams both contmlled and 

uncontrolled access. (469) (280, 2179, 2197) 

RESPONSE: There will be approximately 2 miles of new recreation roads 

wnstructed mually wing the pl- perid (10 years), and 4 miles is 

-led for reconstruction. For the most part, these will be interior 

campground spur roads. No additional road construction for timber harvest is 

needed. Existing tlmber roads can provide access for recreation users. 

CDMMEWF: It is noted that the ASQ is higher in the preferred Altexnative 

than in the bT4R and CEE Alternatives. Better to reduce the harvest level and 

make the PNV Improve. (5) (2170) 

"E: Present Net Value (PNV) in the Inyo FORPLAN del is mst 

sensitive to recreation values. The model does not allocate acres to timber 

prduction if there is existing recreation use on them. PNV changes with 

reference to timber in response to physiographic conditions such as slope, 

elevation, soils, and other features. 

aIYMEW.: Lcggq on the Inyo for other than fuelwood seems illogical other 

than to provide a few wntract jobs and mill jobs in far off counties. 

E"ically, it is not a cost-effective operatian as planned and it affects 

recreation, tourism, wildlife. (484) (65, 1498, 1611) 

RESPCNSE: Lcggq an the Inyo provides benefits to local eco-es in 

additian to those derived fran wxd products. These include employment 

omrtunities and ccrmy3dl 'ties purchased with salary mmes. Standards and 

Guidelines and Managfmmt Directiun ensure that timber proaUction will not 

adversely impact other resources. 

229 
CCMmW: prated and restme the largest pure Jeffrey pine forest in the 

world. (298) (1649) 

REsFimsE: The Forest goal in the Plan is to manage the timber resource to 

provide a sustained yield of tcmber proaUcts. Management direch ‘on for 

timber rsquires that artificial regeneratim be ccmpleted within three years 

of clearcutting to ensum that adequate restockrng * is attained within five 

years of harvest. R-es species originally cmupyhg the stand are replanted 

with seedlings germinated fran locally collected seed. The Indiana Sumnit 

Research Natural Area (1,162 acres) is a pure stand of Jeffrey pine that will 

not be entered. 

The Allowable Sale Quanti- (ASQ) has been reduced in the Final Plan. Timber 

west of U.S. 395 will be managed under the --aged management system; 

hamsting in the red fir stratum has been deleted for the planning period. 

CUWEm?: Tf”tion of all lcgging practices in the Inyo and restoration of 

all previously logged areas. (298) (79, 157, 166, 266, 315, 384, 450, 461, 

492, 934, 954, 970, 1407, 1471, 1500, 1548, 1592, 1602, 1608, 1611, 1632, 

1656, 1668, 1699, 1700, 1759, 1858, 1900, 1971, 2101, 2124, 2129, 2142, 2177, 

2180, 2202) 

REsFONSE: National F0-k are managed for multiple Uses. The National 

Forest Manag-t Act requires that any forested area that is understocked as 

a result of lcggirg be reforested in five years. 

Cl3”T: Very mch against increasing timber cutting in the Forest. 

Probably those cutters will get a cut-rate price. (931) (19, 27, 89, 214, 

232, 274, 278, 293, 300, 320, 329, 398, 430, 441, 466, 484, 915, 1107, 1161, 

1185, 1317, 1407, 1421, 1515, 1532, 1545, 1577, 1592, 1660, 1677, 1691, 1693, 

1706, 1778, 1781, 1789, 1805, 1806, 1809, 1813, 1814, 1819, 1820, 1838, 1841, 

1851, 1865, 1874, 1875, 1893, 1927, 1971, 1977, 1992, 2023, 2033, 2061, 2103, 

2113, 2129, 2164, 2167, 2170) 

RFSFONSE: The XQ has been reduced in the Final Plan. The purchaser of 

Forest Service timber pays at least the current value of the wood on the 

stmp less costs associated with logging, transp3rtation and manufacturing. 

Timber is sold by cmiptitive bid for at least “um rates. 

Cl3”T: The consideration of mal of timbered areas with mre than 30% 

slope is not sound management. Current ecoIyJmics may not justify 

enviromtally d lcggirg methods at present, but with the increasirg 

demand for timber prcducts, these areas will beccme ewnmically viable. 

(469) (225, 1432, 1458, 1891, 2048, 2179) 

RESPONSE: If it bewnes eooncmiCally viable to harvest timber on slopes 

greater than 30%, 14,154 acres of these lands have been designated as capable 

and suitable for camwcial timber proauctiOn. These lands will provide 

flexibility in resprfhq ’ to changing econaRic dtions. 

230 
TIMBER 

m: Any and all cutting should be restricted to that which enhances 

scenic values, maintains watershed, and preserves wildlife habitat. (481) 

(65, 76, 214) 

RES-E: There is specific direction for each management area to ensun? 

that manag-t of the timber resource is ccnipatible with other resource 

values and the managenat -is of the area. 

fX": Permanent growth plots should be established to &tor the Forest 

inventoq. The stands are, at best, Site .IV and V and are difficult to 

regenerate. (484) 

=ME: Current randan sampling by stxata every ten years prduces 

statistically accurate grayth and volm data. The average timber site on 

the Inyo Forest is Class IV on the cormercial timberland. In the past five 

years, this Forest has successfully reforested 651 acres of Jeffrey pine, 149 

acres of loagepole pine and 49 acres of red fir at costs below average 

regional costs. 

m: Restrict timber harvest to the Jeffrey pine timber type on the 

Forest. .h-cm a Region 5 perspective, the very mall yield fran fir stands on 

the Inyo does not justify a sale program. (1099) (1652) 

RFSFONSE: There will be no timber harvest in the red fir skah this 

plannhg period. Timber manag-t will only OCCUT WL- the Jeffrey pine, 

mixed conifer and lodgepole pine strata. 

m: I have earned a living for 30 years fran forest products. We are 

wncemed as our employers feel that if mre harvest timber is taken away 

that OUT jobs will also be in jeopardv as the supply of timber will be 

reduced by the future proposals. If we keep losing timber to wilderness 

areas and cannot get enough to keep the samill running, I, along with a lot 

of other people, will lose our jobs. (1196, 1198) (135, 352, 990, 1528) 

RESPONSE: !&". 'cs and employment were taken into account in developing the 

Final Preferred Alternative. The ASQ was not reduced to a level that would 

significantly affect jobs. In addition, the Plan will be reevaluated after 

five years and can be amended if e"ic or other conditions warrant. 

CCMENT: ccslanercial thbring should be allowed west of U.S. 395 and we 

recamad more roads be cut into these areas. (1429) 

RESFONSE: Timber will be managed west of U.S. 395. Because of the amount of 

recreation use in the area, however, the uneven-aged managenent system will 

be used. As the red fir stram in this area will not be harvested during 

this planning period, no additional roads will be needed to access the timber 

resource. 

231 
m: No clearcutting or road building for timber harvesting should be 

allowed. (1548) (121, 214, 278, 298, 329, 466, 968, 1108, 1464, 1562, 1616, 

1668, 2048) 

RESPONSE: 

the planning period. 

uneven-aged managment system. 

the even-aged system. 

There is no road construction scheduled for timber harvesting in 

West of U.S. 395 the timber will be managed undex the 

Timber east of U.S. 395 will be managed under 

No timber will be cut in inventoried roadless areas. 

a": Until the canpanies that own their om forests cannot supply public 

demand, there is no need to give away public "kr. What muld be the 

effects on the econany of closing the Inyo to lcgging? (1600) 

RESFONSE: Privately owned forests cannot supply the softwood needs of the 

nation. Goverrrment timber is appraised on stumpage values' and sold by 

cmptitive bidding using the appraised value for the bid. The Inyo 

sells timber averaging $1,000,ooO per year at an annual cost to the 

Government of $800,000. 

m: Achieving the Forest Service goal of pdding sawtimber "while 

maintaining other resource values.. . " may not be pssible. Recreati0.n values 

always suffer in timber management areas. High quality recreation and timber 

managemnt are not "patible, m matter whether the harvest methcd is 

clearcutting or selective cutting. (1650) 

"E: Timber management has been reduced west of U.S. 395 whe?=e there is 

high recreation use. Recreation values do mt always suffer in timber 

managemnt are,as. Clearings in the forest can provide visual diversity, 

additional benefits for wildlife species and opportunities for primitive 

camping. Interclm5.plinary teams develop timber projects to ensure that all 

resources are considered in the propssals. 

CXt-M3W The Inyo Forest is capable of prcducing 16.9 million board feet of 

timber annually fmn 110,ooO acres. We supprt timber management on the 

largest available timber base, 110,701 acres to attain FPA outputs through 

sound silvicultural practices applied on a site-specific basis. We need an 

annual timber sale program of at least 16.9 million board feet off of 110,700 

acres of forested land suitable for timber dcti.on. Anv less muld not 

only affect my job, but thousands mre in the d products*industq. (1432, 

1527, 348) (228, 280, 290, 291, 304, 335, 347, 349, 357, 422, 468, 469, 918, 

951, 983, 1198, 1226, 1525, 1526, 1528, 1549, 1754, 1790, 1791, 1869, 2017, 

2048, 2134, 2171, 2179, 2197) 

RESPONSE: Markets at the present time are not capable of supporting such an 

extensive timber program. The Plan has been developd to provide for a 

mtinuing supply of wxd proauds, based on current conditions. If market 

conditions change, the Plan can be amended to provide for additional volumes. 

232 
CxMYENT: Insure that below cost timber sales do not take place. Back up 

information on cost efficiency of red fir lcgging. Separate analysis of 

logging. Red fir and Jeffrey pine are 1- mether. (1845) (1349) 

"E: Forest Service appraisal p"3s estimate a fair market value 

on the timber and conditions of sale. An analysis of all loggmg and 

appraisal costs are made prior to advertisnent, and a determination of cost 

efficiency is made on each sale. If the appraisal indicates a deficit net 

stmipage or belaw cost value, then a request fm the tlmher industry IS 

required before the sale can be advertised. A mixed species sale having high 

value pine and law value fir has to be cost-effective on the whole before it 

will be advertised. Values for all species are determined and appraised as a 

total sale offering. If other extenuating circunstances exist on a deficit 

sale withaut an indusby request, the case will be subnitted to the Regional 

Forester for concurrence before proceed-Lng ' with advertisnent. 

c"r: Request that logging only OCCUT XI SMZs (Streamside Management 

Zones) where disease or insect control are required. If logging occucs in 

the SMZ, a description of the techniques to be used to harvest the trees such 

as how logs will be remwed and how much caw~py mer shall be left intact 

sbould appear m the Plan or EX. (1108) (149, 319, 328, 329, 1269, 1648, 

1776) 

"E: In the EIS and Plan, the term riparian area is used instead of the 

term SMZ. The timber Standards and Guidelines require the use of logging 

equipxent that will "ize soil disturbance, canpaction and their impacts. 

These areas are classified as Regulation Class 111 (the Glossary in the EIS 

defines regulation classes). Regulation CLass I11 prescribes cutting only 

single trees and/or snall groups of trees, primarily to maintain the vigor of 

the stands. In other words, this mld be for disease or insect control. 

The riparian Standards and Guidelines specify the max" amunt of soil 

disturbance allowed and limit the amunt of tree remwal by -ring the 

prevention of adverse changes in water temperature. Riparian area acres are 

mt included in the timber base. 

CCWlDPR Concerned with potential losses of genetic diversity. Regulated 

forests will be revegetated with nursery stock. Selected genotypes will be 

planted over large expanses of land. Can we citizens be assured that this 

nursery stock is providing the necessary diversity to cope with future 

charges and overcare natural disasters such as insect infestations? Acid 

rain and inmigration of new forest pests are serious perturbations with which 

our forests will need to cope. This question mt be answered, but it is 

obvious that the pmped regulated Forest will mt be able to cope as well 

as a natural one. Are we planting uniform low diversity gene pools that 

prduce fast grming, disease resistant trees which do not have other 

imp3rtant kraits? (1108) 

"E: only 75,233 acres out of a psible 173,200 acres of land that are 

capable of and suitable for carmercial timber proctUction will be managed for 

timber. Of the 173,200 acre potential timber base on the Inyo, 62,500 acres 

have been deducted because they are wildmess or Research Natural Areas; 

233 
41,500 acles are assigned to other uses such as riparian and recreation 

areas. There are an a&iitimal326,4WJ acres of "nercial timberland that 

27,900 acres that are on steep slopes that cauld not be regenerated. 

A wide gemtic base is obtained in the seeds sown for refolestation through 

fram many stands within each elevatimal zone that are far enough apart to 

seeds are also collected fran the 

f- MtLEally pollhat& CC%leS. The 

have been juagea as not capable of graviq cxm- volumes of timber and 

the qional seed collectirag policy. This policy requires obtahhg seed 

pment cxcss pollination between stands. 

upper *thirds of the crown to prevent self pollination. All seedlings 

Inyo has no ClGiled trees (.trees having the same genes). 

plated on the Inyo National Fk 

m: Sawtimber fm the Inyo has been in high denand. All the 

Sawtunber offered for sale has sold, rn sales have been tumed back, and 

there is relatively little uncut volume under contract (Plan 111-33). In 

light of that situation, your stat-t that "...there are no local 

savmills...that rely on Forest timber Outputs for ecOnanic stability" is 

incredible. (1432) (1869, 2179, 2800) 

m: This has been c!.hayed to read: "Sawmills in Ga" 'lle, Nevada 

and Loyaltnn, California dew upon logs frun the Inyo National Forest. The 

sdll in Inyokm, CalifoIllia has also purchased Forest timber during the 

past ten years. There are, hawwer, no local camnnrities that rely on Forest 

timber outputs for e"ic stability." 

cCW4EWT: prescriptiOn #10 - High Level Timber Management. Given that a 

large number of new roads are created by a timber operation, I recormend that 

the final document include the stipulation that all unneeded roads be 

Dhvsicallv _- obliterated after loooina occu~s. This should became a 

stiplatii cm a~ l0ggi.q agre&ntG with cam\ercial timber canpanies. 

(1433) (484, 1648, 2190) 

RESPONSE: 

planning period. 

Ab new road constn~ction for timber harvesting is scheduled in the 

CUMDll': Altkmgh timber managemmt is not a major use on the Inyo, it is 

aneofthenT2stc3xmnll 'ally positive. Timber proaUction contributes 34% of 

the 25% county receipts on only 6% of the Inyo's land base. (469) (2179) 

-E: The 25 percent of timber receipts returned to the counties for 

schools and roads was used in calCulat3-g the PNV for each alternative. 

m: Socio-e"ic factors are not bing taken into account in the 

planning process. With 30% of the Irqo National Forest in wilderness, the 

uses which fall under wildemess such as recreation and aesthetics are mre 

than adequately covered. It is time to take a hard look at the consequences 

of locking mm timberland away into wildemess areas. Benefits of timber 

234 
management include wood supply for the wood +cts industry which creates 

jobs which is gccd for local businesses. (464) 

-: The Plan was designed to meet current demand and to have a 

pitive, rather than negative, impact on local ecormnies. 

CXM": The pinyon-juniper area sharld not be "managed" at all but simply 

prsemed. (1083) (295) 

m: 

these species is planned for timber management. 

cut for fuelwood. 

encroached to enhance and impnxre range and wildlife habitats. 

Pinyon-juniper is not included in -the timber base. No cutting of 

Dead and downed wood may be 

Pinyon-juniper may be thinned out in areas where they have 

CXM": Reduce forest harvesw. opp3se timber harvest West Of U.S. 395. 

With high visual and recreational values west of the highway, proposals for 

intensive timber management are inappropriate. If this area is included in 

the cut, then only uneven-aged managment or selective cutting should be 

allowed. (125, 1108) (3, 5, 6, 33, 59, 67, 77, 88, 97, 116, 117, 119, 123, 

124, 149, 181, 223, 231, 293, 298, 300, 345, 377, 381, 400, 428, 430, 438, 

466, 481, 498, 914, 933, 950, 952, 1025, 1032, 1099, 1183, 1188, 1191, 1202, 

1218. 1230. 1236. 1253. 1269. 1277. 1295. 1317. 1332. 1333. 1348. 1372. 1388. 

1401 

1631, 

1744, 

1868, 

2059, 

1532, 

1411; 

1534, 

1632, 

1776, 

1889, 

2115, 

~~ 

1424; 

1543, 

1638, 

1777, 

1891, 

2120, 

1430; 

1545, 

1648, 

1790, 

1907, 

2123, 

1431: 

1546; 

1649, 

1795, 

1920, 

2142, 

1451; 

1548, 

1650, 

1798, 

1930, 

2147, 

~~I 

1485, 

1565, 

1652, 

1816, 

1931, 

2170, 

1487; 

1566, 

1663, 

1836, 

1936, 

2177, 

1496: ~ ~, 

1576, 

1675, 

1842, 

1938, 

2185, 

1498; 

1608, 

1682, 

1844, 

1980, 

2190, 

1517; 

1610, 

1690, 

1858, 

1982, 

2194, 

1521; 

1613, 

1712, 

1860, 

2007, 

2195, 

1522; 

1630, 

1714, 

1864, 

2035, 

2209, 

2210, 2211, 2218) 

RESFQNSE: The Allowable Sale Quantity (?GQ) has been reduced m the Final 

Plan. Timher west of U.S. 395 will be managed under the uneven-aged 

management system; ha"g ' in the red fir s'mab has been deleted for the 

plauning period. 

CXM": I object to the law fees the Forest Service charges the timber 

Oanpanies. The Forest Service spnds more to maintain these forest areas 

than is collected in fees. (1191) (91, 1430, 1871, 1964, 2037, 2054) 

RESFONSE: This Forest collects approximately $l,ooO,ooO per year in tunber 

receipts and spends appraXimately $800,000 per year to manage the timber. 

Costs include reforestation, timber stand improvement, range and wildlife 

habitat imprommnt and timber sale preparation and aC6ninistration. 

-: The munt of wood allawed to be cut on the Inyo, in my opinion, is 

not a sustained yield. I oppose the use of herbicides on tree plantations 

and mld like to see mre labor intensive work utilized rather than the USDA 

becane an offshoot of major chemical ccmpanies. (1571) 

235 
m: The Inyo, according to invenw data, is cuttiq substantially 

belaw the maxi" "d yield volume. The Inyo does not use herbicides 

for vegetative manag-t. 

CCiwmT: As stated on DEIS 111-91, "The Inyo is not a significant 

conixitnbr to the Regional timber target thus departure muld not 

significantly affect achievesent of these taryets", and "...no local 

departure would have M local e"ic effect." It is my feeling that if the 

abme are the ccu-n3iticns on the Forest, then it would be reasonable and 

practical for the Forest to be withdrawn, mxe or less mnpletely, fran RFA 

Regional assessnent. -, dtims of high elevation (canbind 

aridity, high Oosts of site preparation, plan- and pest cxmkul), would 

seem to point to a phase-out option if we conpare the relatively meager 

output of the Forest to the damage to other resources such as loss of 

habitat, scenic and "ational 'ties, soil erosion and wildlife. 

(1586) (2115) 

RESRBSE: The Inyo did not meet the criterion of supplying mgh timber to 

supprt a 1- mill to require a departure alternative. Mills in adjacent 

tans do de@ upon Inyo timber to fill out their log supply. Site 

preparatim, planting and pest ccoltrol costs are among the lowest in the 

Pacific southwest Region. The Managment DireCtian in this Plan alq with 

evenenhancaotherresouroes. 

cxmnmities are demt on the supply of timber from the Inyo (so) 

mitigating measures in project envirnnmen tal assessments realm? impacts and 

U3": 

and wholesale cutting of timber sbould not be alluded. (1587) (381) 

RFSPCBVSE: The objective of harvestiq trees in timber management is to 

increase vigor, health and growth of the timber resource. 

Timber cutting should be allowed only to maintain a healthy forest 

U3": Management Area #7 - Upper Owens River. Strcmgly encourage 

decreasing timber harvest in this area, especially in viewshed of campgrounds 

and highway. (1616) (278, 1638, 2048, 2170) 

RES-E: Areas adjacent 

to campgrounds and U.S. 395 are in retention areas and thus are not included 

in the timter base. The red fir stratum has been deleted fm timber 

managmat for this planning pericd and uneven-agd manag-t will be 

employed west of U.S. 395. 

Visual qualities must be met on each timber sale. 

Cm": In the Timber APE, you say "On the Inyo, 80% of normal stmkirig is 

the desired stmking level for regenerated stands". Is this 80% of 29.4% or 

80% of 100%- stocking? In you? yield tables, you 

assume 85% stmking: is this 85% of 29.4% or 85% of loo$ (or 200 or 680 

*/acre respectively)? It makes a big difference. (1634) 

What is '"mal &"'? 

236 
RESPONSE: "al yield, sanetimes referred to as maximum yield, is the 

volume per acre or basal area at a given age and site class where mortality 

starts because of OvefStOcking . It is the maxi" volume the site is capable 

of sustairuq. The 85% st"g would be 85% of the nom1 stocking. 

Cl"t?r: Plan 111-33. Regardirg your statement "As both the market and 

regeneration su-s have improved, red fir harvest has beccrne more 

desirable. One Forest Service employee in timber recently said to me "Right 

nm there is not much demand for "true fir" due to amptition with the 

Canadian wood prcd~~cts market and also because red fir is not considered to 

be gd structwal (sawlog) material. (1634) 

RESPONSE: The timber market for all species fluctuates. True fir is 

utilized as dimensional wood, plywoOa and various pressed woods, and paper 

production. No harvest of red fir is scheduled for the planniq period. 

Cl"t?r: Regarding prescribing "Silvicultural methods. ..that would enhance 

the health and vigor of the Forest...", please define which silvicultural 

methcds you intd to im@ement in addition to remwing hazard trees in 

wncentrated recreation areas. Do you mean thmgs such as the Deadman Timber 

Sale adjacent to the Deadnan campgrounds? (1634) 

RESPONSE: The silvicultural method would be decided for site-specific areas 

with a project e"wmtal analyses. Prescription #12 would apply only 

within the boundaries of concentrated recreation areas such as the Deadman 

camwround. 

a": I thought the requirawnt for long-term sustained yield was an 

ongoing thing. I am confused by this statement. (1634) 

RESPONSE: Long-term sustained yield is an ongoing thug and the Forest is 

required by law to manage the timber resource to ensure this. The ASQ is 

belw the long-term sustained yield capability of the Forest. 

m: 

in the White and Inyo Mountains. 

by special interests. (1685) 

RESPONSE: No timber harvest is planned and cattle g-raziq has been reduced. 

A substantial portion of these mtains is recamended for wilderness 

designatLon in the Final Plan. 

I oppose increases in timber harvest and cattle grazing, espcially 

This beautiful area should not be spoiled 

-: 30%. r-al of trees on slopes in excess of 25% should not be 

pnnikted; but, if this type of restriction is to be applied, there should be 

sone discussion on how it will be enforced and with whzt funding. (1740) 

RESPONSE: There is no harvest scheduled for timber on slopes greater 

30% unless econDRic ~ticms change. Timber sale contracts include 

237 

than 
TIMBER 

CUWmW: I totally disagres with the application of your High Level Timber 

Managgnent "Aption #lo. Why mt manage the timber west of U.S. 395 and 

even a mile or two east of U.S. 395 for existing and future -ticmil 

potential? Establish lcqer rotaticms, athpt to maintain the older trees 

or at least let the mer trees grow up to be veterans. Massive clearcuts, 

80 year rotaticms and tree farm are for the mre pxductive timber forests 

such as you find in oregcn and w- , not the dry arid areas of the 

Eastern Sierra. (1920) (214, 430, 466, 481, 1608, 1891) 

REspoNsE: Uneven-aged management will be employed west of US. 395. The 

rotation ages have been extended. Clearcuts are limited to 5 acres west and 

20 acres east of U.S. 395. Even-aged management is veq effective for 

"I yields on the east side of the Sierra and prescripticm #10 is the 

appropriate prescripticm for these lands where timber values are not 

midden by remeaticm values. 

m: Plantirig new .trees in IOWS isn't vay forest-y, and until they have 

gram, the wildlife in the forest will sinply die. The new planted forest 

will also die witbut wildlife to keep the total ecology going. (1995) 

RESPONSE: The TOW effect is reduced after pre-camercial thinning. The 

clearings are snall, usually less than 10 acres, and are by mature 

forest. There is adquate cover for wildlife. In adcXtion, the openings 

provide different habitat conditions to benefit additional wildlife species. 

CCM": Timber supply in California is emxging as a critical problem of 

the Forest plannirg process. mst people feel that the cantcibutian of the 

Inyo is insignificant to the overall supply of California. I believe this 

simply is not be. As massive consumers of lumber, we as a society need a 

steady supply of this renewable T~SOUTCB long into the future. Not rip and 

run, but professionally managed, ncm-declimhg, even flm. Not a hundred 

percent even-aged management, but site-specific forestry. (1845) 

"E: Establishing a regulated forest to meet long-term sustained yield 

on all available and suitable timberland was one of management's concerns 

under the Issues and Cancerns Section in the DEIS. Long-term sustained yield 

was also a timber policy requirement in formulating the alternatives. Site 

specific timber management is described in the Prescriptions and Managemnt 

Areas using both uneven and even-aged managemnt. 

CUWmW: Regenerate past logged areas to be used primarily for fuel- for 

local consumption. (345) (318, 380, 399, 447, 448, 1483, 1484, 1567, 2172, 

2173, 2174) 

238 
m: pre-carmercial thimiq, slash utilization and snall loagepole 

sales currently adequately supply the demand for fuelwood. A large amunt of 

thehaeased demand for fuel- in the future will cone frun comnercial 

m: 

and ecological habitat. 

ecornnic bias impxed by timber and develapuent interests. (1445) 

RESPONSE: The "mental impacts of each prowed timber sale are 

analyzed by an interdisciplinary team prior to identifying a preferred 

alternative. A soil scientist is included on each team. Any practice that 

muld have a negative inpact on the soil is mitigated to reduca or prevent 

damage. The Standards and Guidelines relating to soils further assure the 

protwtion of the soil resource. 

Current Forest Service practices are destxying the forest topsoil 

It is time for true long-range planniq free of the 

CCMMnur: I deplore the push for mre profits frun timber and mat prduction 

on the part of private firms which should have less power and decision input 

on the fate of OUT public lands. (1447) 

RESWNSE: The National Forest Managenient Act requires that the Forest 

ccazsider all public input. private finns, both profit and m-profit, are 

one segment of the public. 

m: Allow the Forest to regenerate naturally. (1451) 

RESFONSE: Natural regeneration on the Inyo is usually long-term and 

unpredictable resulting in unnecessary lost growth. Artificial regeneration 

(planting) has praved to be very successful in terms of both suzvival and 

growth. 

CfXmRtC: Provide true stewardship in the spirit of "sustainable forestry" by 

establishing a system of stewardship frun landed foresters who are paid for 

board feet grawn rather than board feet cut, who live on and oversee and 

enhance the diversity of the Forest eoosystem for which they claim 

responsibility. (1451) 

RESFQNSE: Timber growth is the primary objective of timber management. 

Timber harvest is only one to01 of many used in siliviculture to increase 

timber growth. 

m: Plan IV-13. Reforestation should be mixed species. (1431) 

RFSWNSE: Species cciqmsitionis a decision the silviculturist must make for 

each stand regenerated. The plicy on the Inyo is to reforest with the 

climax species that originally existed. Not all sites on the Inyo will 

support mixed &fer species. Wt of the stands on the Inyo are naturally 

ccnipsed of single conifer species. 

239 
cc"r: The .hyo areas nrxt susceptible to new or increased motorized use 

resulting fran timber road access are the Wed forested lands east of San 

~oaquh Riage and Wmache Area of the Kern Plateau. (2178) 

REspaBvsE: There is no road wrwkuction scheduled for timber harvest access 

during the planning pericd. 

at"!: Reasans for use of canditicmal "would" in DEIS IV-28. Has suitable 

timberland declined by 65% since 1982? Is the greatest impact in the Jeffrey 

pine forest? (2178) 

-E: This stat-t in the Draft EIS is misleading and has been 

corrected. Since 

rotatian ages have been extended and ASQ lowered, this figure is 

subtantially reduced. In addition, it only applies to those acres managed 

for carmercial timber prcduction. During the planning perid, Jeffrey pine, 

lodgepole pine and mixed conifer stands are scheduled for hwest. 

It was a prediction of timber wnditions after 50 years. 

cc"r: need (DEE 111-33) to examine the size of the mial timber 

base and the projectea yield is a Prerequisite to the Forest Plan and DEIS. 

IS study under way? Costs, -letion date? (2178) 

-E: This was done prior to the publication of the Draft EIS and Plan. 

m: We oppse lcgging and road building in previously untouched, 

mded areas and wilderness areas which cwntain significant trout 

-, unless the area is subject to an approved fishery managmt 

plan. These activities are certainly not justified when timber revenues and 

lccal demand ate extremely low. society is mt realizing a net benefit fmn 

this contin- dest~ction of intact forest. The inaus.try benefits at the 

expense of the forest ecosystem and society. (2183) (1952) 

RESPONSE: There is no road wnstruction or timber rnanag'n;ent planned in 

mded areas. 

OXf4ENT: An allowable harvest of 11.4 WF needs to be maintained. The 

current timber harvest level of 11.4 WF is far below the annual growth on 

the Inyu Forest. Wx'c other benefits and uses, except wilderness, are 

mtible with timber prcductim. All of the Forest should be intensively 

managed for timber. (257, 1647) (469) 

W2SFQNSE: The FSQ has been reduced because of overriding recreation values 

in the i%nmth/June area. Pure stands of red fir have been rerrvxred fmn the 

suitable timber base: however, 14,154 acres of lands with slop greater than 

30% could be harvested if econcmic conditions change. 

240 
TIMBER MANAGEMENT 

m: We are very concerned with the proposed decrease in allowable 

annual harvest on your forest. Despite a heavy demand for timber on the Inyo 

and projections for -eased demands for forest products, there is a shift 

away fm timber management. We have been a purchaser of Inyo timber for 

several years and have cure to rely on your forest as a depenaable soucce of 

timber. The Inyo is not our only sou~ce, but total timber supply is an 

aggregate of several partial sources, each critical in maintaining the 

total. The bidding for the two sales we currently have under contract 

reflects the demand for, and the value of, the tlmber resource on the Inyo 

Forest. The timber program IS a mey mkhg proposition on the Inyo, and 

increasq it will increase retums to the U.S. Treasury. (1899) (468) 

RESFQNSE: The Plan took nto account the need for a continuirg steady supply 

of timber fm the Inyo to meet current demand. The timber program on the 

Inyo is cost effective; however, in the M"th/June area recreation values 

override the timber values. If e"ic or social conditions change, the 

Plan can be amended. 

m: One employee directly involved in the wood proaucts industry can 

generate 3 to 5 jobs in industzies providiq services and products to the 

timber industry. The possible loss of jobs in other industries such as 

transportakon, tire distribution, petsoleum pmcts, machme mps, and 

others must be taken into account. The pposed Plan has not adequately 

addressed how these businesses will be affected. We have spent $7.5 million 

dollars sin- 1976 on capital improvements at our Loyalton Mill. We have 

made a dt"t to the camunity and would like to stay in business and 

remain a stable part of the eastem California camuruty. We feel the U.S. 

Forest Service should make the same dt"t to ensure that a viable timber 

industry will be able to continue to operate here. (1899) 

SFQNSE: The Final Plan is proping a balancing of needs for both timber 

and recreation opportunities. There will be continued supply of wood 

prcducts fm the Inyo, both sawtimber and fuelwood, while providing for 

recreation opportunities that are unique in the Region. Utilization of both 

resources pmdes jobs and e"ic benefits to local e"ies. 

cXMEt?R DEIS 11-156, Figure 11-29. This figure is a s"aq of acreage 

allocations by prescription for the previously discussed alternatives. 

However, in this sumnary there are acreage discrepancies given in the 

Prescription #10 - High Level Timber Management and between Figure B-10, DEIS 

14.ppendices B-55 which is titled Constraints Imposed on Altematives 

Considered m Detail. This figure also shms CAS timber management lands, 

but the acreage allocations are different fran those shown in Figure 11-29 of 

the DEIS. As an example, Figure 11-29 of the DEIS states under the Freferred 

Alternative that 86.7 M acres are available for high level timber management, 

but Figure B-10 of the DEIS Fppendixes state that timber manag-t lands 

include only 69.2 M acres. The other alternatives also vary in acreages as 

stated in these figures. I understand that various constraints such as 

W's, MIR's and others may reduce the actual acres used for timber 

managmt; however, the way the acreage allocations are presented appears 

241 
incarred and needs to be clarified between the &aft Plan, DES and DEIS 

Appedixes. (2800) 

m: Theameages in Figure 11-29 of the DEIS shmed gross acreages 

while those in Figure B-10, page B-55 of the DEIS Appmdixes showed net 

acreages with such things as Sand Flats taken out. Figures have been changed 

to reflect Final. Plan allmaticas. 

m: Plan C-7, F3.W C-2 (Land ClaSSifiCation for Timber). Lh 7 

states that 110.7 M sores are CAS for timber managment. Hawever, Figure 

11-29 of the DEIS states under the RPA Wtemative that 119.8 M acres are 

available for timber manag-t. How can this be when only 110.7 M acres are 

CAS? Further clarification is needed here. Line 10 of Figure C-2 also 

states that total suitable forested land equals 69.2 M acres which 

carmborates the Preferred Alternative's acreage allocation for timber 

management in the DEIS Appndixes Figure B-10, but not the allocation as 

stated in Figura 11-29 of the DEIS. (2800) 

m: Figure 11-29 is gross acres which include non-rxnnmxial land 

while all other figures are net aczes. 

CmNmW: The Forest Service should mtjnue its practice of --the-- 

lcggixg. In areas where over-the-snow lcggixg conflicts with winter 

reu-eation, timber lx"g ' should be subordinate to that recreation. 

(1891) (469, 1099) 

RESPONSE: Standards and Guidelines require that lcggers prwide access to 

designated trails bisected by plowed haul rcads. Site specific --the-- 

lcgging and winter sport conflicts are mitigated in individual ti" sale 

e"mtal assessnents. The public has the opprtunity to complent on each 

sale during these assessnents. In addition, the Forest Sdce requires 

interdisciplinary input including recreation in project evaluation. 

aravIENT: Plan 111-33, Timber. Please add to end of the third paragraph: 

"There is also a need to consider setting aside portions of the red fir and 

Jeffrey forests between Mamnoth and June Lake as a special interest area or 

for passive recreational and interpretive pwpase under the auspices of a 

Naticnal Recreation ma designation. There are no local sawmills or 

-ties that rely on forest timber outputs for ewnanic stability in "0 

county." (1638) 

RESPONSE: Because of high recreaticm values in the Mamnoth/June area, the 

red fir stratsun has been deleted fm timber managaent for this p1annj.q 

period. Remaining timber west of U.S. 395 will he managed under the 

uneven-aged system to lessen visual -acts while at the same time pwiding 

a flow of timber prcxiucts to local mills and ccmnuru 'ties. While there are ~3 

cammities totally dependent on Inyo timber for ecoMmic stability, there 

are individuals wbse livelihDod de- on local forest prcducts. 

242 
TIMBER 

m: Unconvjnced that the Inyo can sustain the timber yields postulated 

in the Plan. It relies not just on areas that have been logged in the past, 

but on large acreages of virgin red fir. After 40 years or so of harvesting 

25 percent of the available red fir each decade, the loggers will have to 

return to the Jeffrey pine. At that point, based on the data provided, I 

doubt it will be psible to continue harvesting 9.8 million board feet 

annually. men asmning successful regeneration, which is questionable, the 

trees &"t seem to be there. This looks like forest mining, not sustamed 

yield. (1548) (1577) 

RISONSE: The allowable sale quantity is constrained to not exceed sustained 

yield or growth. Timber growth in the future will be impnned due to better 

stcckirg. Unstocked stands will be better stocked and stands will be 

thinned, yielding additional growth. Red fir will not be harvested during 

this plw period. At the end of the decade, the timber resource, along 

with all other resources on the Inyo, will be reevaluated. 

m: Would like a ccmprehensive analysis of all costs and consequences 

of even-aged management. Particularly concern& abut regeneration. To 

establish trees in an area that has been clearcut will require, I believe, 

intensive site preparation, planting, and, in many cases, weed, insect and 

rodent control. How 

do we I"? How do costs canpare with from timber sales? Is 

even-aged management on the Inyo cost-effective, or is It welfare logging? 

(1548) (979, 1431, 1562, 1585, 1638, 2160) 

RFSFCNSE: Even-aged management is mre cost-effective than uneven-aged 

management because of reduced haxvestirg, sale adninistration and access 

Costs and increased growth. The minimum bid rates for the timber to be 

clearcut must be high enough to finance the costs of reforestation. The Inyo 

is unique in that our costs of reforestation are among the lowest in the 

Pacific Southwest Region with high survival and growth rates. Costs of 

reforestation require vegetation managemnt (site preparation and release), 

seed collection, nursery and shipping costs, and planting. Insect and rodent 

control are possible. On the average, timber receipts on the Inyo exceed 

timber management costs. 

What are the unique conditions of the Eastern Sierra? 

03ME": The Inyo annual sale program is an important part of the ccmposite 

timber supply in the westem United States. The national demand for timber 

is projected to increase in the future. If current and future demands are to 

be met, all National Forests, includirg the Inyo, must c"Lt m to higher 

levels of allowable harvest and increase timber management intensities to 

increased proaUction to start graWing tamn's wood tcday. (458) (49) 

"E: The Inyo Forest's timber resou~ce is coordinated with other 

National Forests in Region 5 and the nation to ensure that local, regional 

and national demands for timber are met. The Plan provides for a continuing 

supply of wood proaUcts within the long-term sustained yield capabilities of 

the Forest. The Final Plan's ASQ is based on Current demand, but must 

incowrate other resource needs as well. If econanic conditions change, the 

Plan can be amended. 

243 
TIMBER 

Cf-”c: I have a few specific CQrmentS of where I disagree with the way the 

timber base is king reduced and om, in general, is tha ski areas. In the 

upper 0”s River, June Lake Loop, and Manmth Escarpnent, I think there‘s 

opprhmity for multiple use there. With the proper silvicultural 

prescriptians, ski areas and timber managmt could be cmptible. (458) 

RFSPONSE: Timber will be managed west of U.S. 395 under the uneven-aged 

managanent systen. Timber harvest is permitted under Prescription #14 - Fotential Alpine Ski Area. Lcgging is restricted under Prescription #13 - 

Alpine Ski Areas, =sting and Under Study, due mainly to meting KO 

requirements in mjmction with the runs. 

m: I am .troubled by your Plan to cxmstruct (reconstruct) 15 miles of 

mads for timber, while only plamiq for 12.5 miles of trails for people. I 

&n’t want to see trail ccolstruction in wilderness areas, but I also don’t 

want to see roads going in for timber purposes. I could not detennjne fm 

your Plan if Irryo Forest receives, for each timber sale, enough “ey to pay 

for putting the roads in, replant- the lcgged area oanpletely, and then 

obliteratiq the roads. I p”ie it does not, and until you insist on such 

a price for your timber, I would advocate no roads for logging purposes. (47) 

(117) 

-E: No new timber road construction is planned or needed for this 

planning parid. The a”t of -y received for timber must be at least 

emugh to cover necessary reforestation, road construction and 

reconstruction. 

CCWlWF: The Plan makes it unclear what type of timber managanent muld be 

permitted in Prescription #17 - Limited Access areas. I assme that these 

areas would have no regulated harvest activity. They shouldn‘t. (47) 

“E: Areas under Managemnt Prescription #17 - Semi-primitive Dispersed 

Recreation, are not included in the timber base. High intensity timber 

managmt will not be practiced under this prescription. 

CXIWENF: Managanent Areas #5 and #7. Strongly -wage decreasing timber 

harvf?stiq in this area, especially near Research Natural Areas and in 

viewshed of campgrounds and highway. (129) (129, 2170) 

“E: The Visual Quality Objective for areas adjacent to campgrounds and 

U.S. 395 is Retention which limits timber harvest to Regulation Class I1 and 

111. Indiana Sdt and Sentinel Meadow Research Natural Areas do not 

warrant buffer strips around thm because of their large size. 

Cf-”c: The FORPLAN rrodel used to derive acceptable timber harvest 

schedules is inamate and should not be used as a basis for your decision. 

Rather a deeper assesgnent of net annual growth should be undertaken to 

deter” the actual sustainable production level of the Forest. Further, 

the allowable harvest anrnmt should vary annually depsnding on the estimated 

244 
TIMBER 

net growth for the preceding year. The harvest levels should be lowered to 

no mre that 8.8 WF until the study is cmpleted and never allowed to 

exceed a predetennhsd level, regardless of growth and demand. (1451) 

RESPONSE: The FORPLAN model 

incowrates cucrent inventoq data and is the best tool we have at the 

present time for calculating ASQ to ensure that harvesting does not exceed 

growth and that the long-term sustained yield requirement 1s met. 

Yearly sampling is too costly and impractical. 

CC”?: hrom a recreational perspective, the blue paint dots on every tree 

over abut a foot and a half in diameter are visually dqrading. It seems 

like every time I go out skiing in any Jeffrey pine forest on the Inyo, I’m 

surraunded by blue and red paint dots and shocking pink flagging tape. I 

wouldn‘t mind it ~3w and then but certainly it seems: as though every area 

with suitable 4y3w for nodc skiing is also a timber sale. (278) 

IESFUNSE: So that the Forest Service can retain adequate control over 

logging operations, mt cutting prescriptions reqLure each tree to be marked 

in order to achieve the objectives outlmed in the environmental assessment. 

Nordic skiing is available in many areas outside active and pmposed timber 

sales. 

m: Frequently in the Caocuments you mention that natural reseeding of 

areas in the past has not often worked because only mferior trees were left 

as seed trees. Why can’t you plant seedlings in understocked stands instead? (278) 

RESFQNSE: Seedlings are planted in undf?~~tccked stands on all timber sales. 

Lack of sumner rains and cyclical seed prcduction are the reasons for lack of 

na-hual regeneration. 

The given solution is always to do a regenerative cut. 

m: After examining the report of timber sales for the Inyo for the 

last several years, it appears red fir may have a negative value on the 

Inyo. Are red fir values used to canpute PNV higher than actual stLnnpage 

values? As the timber harvest shifts fran mature Jeffrey pine to red fir, 

aren‘t sales likely to bring in significantly less dollars? Are timber yield 

tables realistic, especially the 4th and 5th decade? The DEIS IV-123 

indicates all overstory will be rentxed by the 4th and 5th decade fran second 

growth. 

At a ”I, I would like to see the areas in the timber base west of U.S. 

395 and north of Glass Mnmtain remved fm the timber base. I think the 

best use of these trees is for wildlife and recreation. The trees north of 

Glass Mx” are at the limits of their range in an area of poor and thin 

volcanic soils, steep slops, and possible poor reproductive potential. The 

distance fm U.S. 395 makes their stmipage price low because of the long 

haulage and high SIMW removal wsts. Rather than use these trees for their 

naninal ILUIIIXC value, I think they would be better used for wildlife and 

recreation &es. I propose anitting fran the tunber base the drainages east 

of Dexter, Wet, Taylor, Md;ee and the Sawmill Meadow area. For similar 

245 
TIMBER 

and their high scenic value, I would Suggest anitting the areas north 

of Reversed Peak and the islands of high level timber managanent just south 

of the Moas0 Basin National Forest Scenic Area in the Cbrn Craters area just 

east of U.S. 395. (912, 1577) (1097) 

m: The 

camnercial timber base is dependent upan these factors: site dtions, 

access, and lcggirg needs. If sales are sold in the areas mentioned, it 

indicates that loggers can harvest them ecomIlically. All sales on the Inyo 

have been sold. In addition, uneven-aged managmt will be mployed west of 

U.S. 395 because of the high recreation values in this area. Visual Quality 

objectives and Forest-wide StandKds and Guidelines must be satisfied on all 

timber sales. Additional stipulaticns to protect and enhance all other 

resources are determined in site specific "vatal assesgnents for 

individual timber sales amducted by an interdisciplinary team with public 

Only 4% of the Inyo is being managed for timber pmh35" 

inplt. 

aM4l9lF: Plan IV-99, Timber. What do yOU man @? "Where practical"? What 

cmstitutes "practical"? (1634) 

-: This sentence has been rewritten to read: "Utilization of 

existing mads has priority over new road construction to "ize inpacts on 

wildlife. " 

CXXM3W.: Plan IV-102. where is the "unusually pure stand of Jeffrey pine"? 

(1634) 

=POISE: 

this species. 

The majority of the Jeffrey pine on the Inyo is in pure stands of 

The word "unually" has been deleted from the Final Plan. 

m: DEIS 11-67, Timber. Why is them no timber stand iniprovmt in 

the fourth and fifth decades? Will e"g ' have been improved? (1634) 

=POISE: 

and rxme will be needed during these two decades. 

All the necessary pre-camwcial thhning will have been ccmpleted 

CXMtWT.: Timber is an inappropriate ccrrmodl 'ty to harvest from the Inyo and 

the value of the available timber is minute "pared to the natural values of 

the .trees. Recreational demands, wildlife needs, and the need for clear, 

clean runoff should preclude any timber hamest from the Inyo. (1759) 

RESFONS: The Inyo is a National Forest managed for multiple uses. The 

timber resource is managed in conjunction with all 0th- resources and has 

been precluded from managenat on wer 1,800,ooO acres (96%) of the Forest 

because of the overriding values of other resoucces. 

a3"T: 

be reduced to acccmnodate other resource values and that oms should be 

I applaud the Plan's recognition that the timber base may need to 

246 
limited to 20 acres because of the highly valued visual quality of the Forest 

ansidered. (1795) 

RESPONSE: Large Openings would be the result of past logging practices or 

fires. 

(DEIS 111-94). I then CpeStiOrl wt'ly Openings Up to 60 acres Wld be 

CCWGTW: Timber activities should be restricted to salvage, f- sales 

and hazard tree remval in recreational areas. Is the Forest Service 

pmcting future yield using asamptiom -such as allowable cut effect, 

superior genetic stock, use of extensive and intensive silvicultural 

practices? These assumptions have neither bom the test of time and/or will 

prove to be eccormically unfeasible by rot being cost-effective or due to the 

lack of apprapriated funds. The Forest Service has little experience with 

red fir, xwne of it god. Satellite photos taken up and dayn the Sierra will 

show for decades the mistakes made during the harvest in the 1970's. (1862) 

RESPONSE: Timber activities are limited in recreation areas to enhance 

recreation quality. Refer to Manag-t Prescriptions #12 - concentrated 

Recreation Area: #13 - Alpine Ski Areas, Existing and Under Study: #15 - 

Develop3 Recreation Site: #16 - Dispersed Recreation and #17 - 

Semi-primitive Dispersed Recreation. 

Predicted future yields are based on proven data derived fran similar timber 

sites in California employing current imprwed managenat procedures. These 

would include more appropriate growing stock and imprwed site preparation 

and planting techniques. heabwnts must be mst-effective and are pad out 

of tlmber receipts. 

m: I have yet to see conflicts with recreation and timber management. 

Recreation is a major resource on the Inyo. The selection mark plicies and 

logging over sncw have little visual effects and have enhanced opportunities 

in the case of mrdic skiing. (1869) 

RESPONSE: The Managenmt Prescriptions in recreation areas provide for 

limited timber harvest to enhance the recreation experience. 

COMMENT: 

growth of new forest each year. (1927) 

RESPONSE: The Allowable Sale mankty (7.2 WF) is based on the projected 

growth of the suitable timber base and is substantially below the long-term 

sustained yield capability of the Forest (26.6 NF). 

The -all rate of timber harvest should be clearly well below the 

COMMENT: Very long hauls to mills make it even mre unprofitable. (1977) 

RESPONSE: The appraised rates which dictate the lowest acceptable bid for 

National Forest timber have all costs fm stump to null deducted. This 

includes the cost of hauling the timber fm the tvnber sale to the mill. 

247 
TIMBER 

Loggers factor in their haul costs when they calculate whether a sale is 

ewrnnical for them to bid on. All sales put up on the Inyo have sold. 

CtX": California's harvesting of timberlands have provided us with many 

recreaticmal opprtunities such as a"W& and wildlife habitats. With 

the management of the Forest and the replanting of trees, there is 1l0w mre 

timberlands in growth than there was 100 years ago. The viccd industry 

provides over 100,ooO jobs that are directly related to the wwd product 

industry. (2125) 

RESFQNSE: Timber receipts pay for wildlife habitat jnpwmsnt. Timber 

managewnt increases timber stocking and growth. Timber-related jobs were 

taken into account in the ewrnnic analysis. 

cn+4": The timber industry has &am a lot of gccd for the forest land, 

Canplewnting and enhancing by planting of trees, not to mentian the money 

that the camties receive. and maintain the 

county koa&. The many jobs provided by the timber indusizy rank it as one 

of the tap agricultural proaucerS in California. (2126) 

RESPONSE: Timber receipts pay for the majority of the reforestation and 

timber stand inpxmmnt on the Inyo. The twenty-five percent of timber 

receipts returned to the -ties for schools and roads is included in the 

ecoxmic analysis in Chapter I1 of the EIS. 

This goes to help OUT schools 

cn+4": Lmbr is abundant and "mtarily down. (2126) 

"E: 

fluctuates daily. 

The value of 1- is deet upn its supply and demand which 

m: It bothers me that you are proposing a 110zd.i~ ski area in the 

Deadman Creek area which, for all practical -es, will prohibit logging 

there. This area is sane of the best timberland on your Forest, and I feel 

it should be managed for its timber prcduction. (2184) 

RESFCNSE: With the emplayment of uneven-aged management west of U.S. 395, 

Prescription #16 will have M additianal impacts on timber management. The 

laryest timber impact is the exclusion of the red fir stratm fran timber 

management. Prescription #16 has been retitled and mitten. It is titled 

"Dispersed Recreation" and 110 highly developd 110rdic facility is propxed 

for the area. 

CtX": Many people are too naive to realize that logging is a valuable 

form of indushy. They see an area just logged and react by trying to stop 

it. If they did, they 

muld see that Special interest groups fran 

the cities are putting a lot of pressme on you to stop logging, wnpletely. 

!Chey never look at an area logged 5 or 10 years ago. 

are a renewable resource. 

I sincerely hope you don't cave in to the pressure. (2212) 

248 
TIMBER 

RESPONSE: The ASQ has been reduced because of Werridicg recreation values 

in the Ma”th/June area. The Inyo, as a National Forest, manages all 

resources and the Plan is designed to provide both market and mn-market 

benefits. A consistent supply of wood products is sch&led to meet local 

demand for timber. 

commr: Past harvests have been sham to be ecananically marginal at best. 

( 140 ) 

RESFQNSE: The eoormnic analysis in 

data and shows that timber harvestmg on the Inyo is eco-cally sound. 

I1 of the EIS was based on 1982 

CXMMIWT: Therearemajorsho- ’ s in the Affected Environment discussion 

(DEIS 90-98) which make it extremely difficult for the public to judge 

whether the size of the timber base identified is appropriate and/or whether 

lands are capable of pmduciq timber at a sustained yield at the volume 

chosen in the Preferred Alternative. For example, there are no yield tables 

which would spell out the volume of timber regenerating lands are expected to 

produce; nuhere is % volume of the Forest inventory given in relation to 

status, that is % mature, % in --mature, % in second grswth, or % Forest 

undexstccked; nowhere is % of acreage with respect to years frcm rutation 

(harvestable) given; nowhere are stcckirg standards per site class or 

thinnhg specifications given: and cubic volume and bard feet are used 

interchaqably (with a conversion factor of 6.5) without regard to the 

discrepancy between munt of board feet obtainable fran old grawth (mre) 

vs. second growth (less). (2170) (1577) 

RFSPONSE: The above inventory material is available at the Supemisor’s 

Office in Bishop, California. Including this material in the EIS would make 

it too ponaerouS and mive to print. Washingtcol Office direction is to 

use cubic foot as the standard volume measure. The relationship between 

diameters and cubic foot volume is built into the yield tables in the FORPLAN 

model. 

CCW4lWE Gn DEIS 111-93, the Forest Semice misleadirgly points out that 

many existing stands of pine on the Forest are “mature to ovennature“. Wle 

this may be true of the poorly stocked mOaerately sized (UP) ldgeple pine 

(Figure 111-23) included in the timber base (which has m cunnercia1 value, 

only fuelwood value), only 10,058 acres of Jeffrey pine out of 70,488 acres 

in the timber base have a large crown diameter (P4P, P4S). This is only 14% 

of the timber base left in the old growth Jeffrey pine and is poor to 

sparsely stocked, mtly already entered stands. The m“J Jeffrey pine 

in the timber base of 37,042 acres are of anall diameter in the poor to 

sparsely stocked stands (52.6%); 23,368 acres are in well-stocked stands 

(33%) and half of these have scme larger overstory. Overall, it would 

appear...that abut 67% of the Jeffrey pine forest is understncked, 75% 

including the lodgepole forest in the timber base. All these numbrs cane 

fm DEIS 111-95. (2170) (1577) 

249 
RESPOEGE: Crown diameter and cram closure described in the strata 

description on Page 111-95 of the DEIS dD mt necessarily equate to age and 

sixcking. This is an easy way of classifyhg strata fran aerial photos, but 

it canmt inventoory age classes. That is dcole by silviculturists during 

field review. Within the strata are many individual stands in age, 

stocking and vigor. The strata descriptions am measures of crown closure 

my and dD not man that a stand is well or poorly stocked. This has keen 

clarified in the Final EIS. 

C"l!: Even if the younger age classes of Jeffrey pine rod regenerating 

with sufficient stocking were ac"g ' volume at the nost optimistic rates, 

with half again as much volume cantributeed fran the acreage of -1 dimter 

poor to sparsely stccked Jeffrey pine stands, all this acreage may still fall 

far short of prcducing the projected volume of 9.8 million bwrd feet. M~ch 

of this vo1m may have to be harvested before achieving the required 95% 

culmination of mean mual increment. Instead, the rodel predicts (DEIS 

11-177) that only 6,000 acres would be hanrested by clearcut in the fifth 

decade with heavy thinning on 16,800 acres. This is hay the del gets 

around the harvest at the 95% UWL requirement by switching to a massive 

thinning program. Note hm the projection of the current program would 

require at least 29,000 acres of thhmirg in the fifth decade. This is 

forest mining, not forestry! In addition to the abave problems, the timber 

program as ~oposed assumes the success of regeneration by clm~ and 

intensive site preparation and planting. It is already )nmwn that the volume 

desired has not hen produced by natural regeneration. Data on regeneration 

success of intensive timber managenent on this forest is gatherea fron only a 

few rather recently planted plantations. Potential problems of intensive 

managemnt on the massive Scale proped are not discussed in the DEIS. Sane 

of these problems include losses due to the poor misture-holding capcity of 

the soils, losses to lethal soil temperatures, increases in insect 

infestations and preaatioIl by "ais, soil erosion and nutrient loss, and 

canp&.ition with grasses in wet years. All of these problems will make the 

cost of regeneration much higher and potentially mt cost efficient. In 

addition, costs of reforestation are not bmken down. For example, 

additional. costs of replantjng failed sites, shade cards vexzr protection, 

gopher baiting, Indlanl 'cal or hand scalping, and herbicide release are not 

balanced in the DEIS with the value of the timber. (2170) (1097, 1577) 

RESPONSE: Table 8 in EIS z\ppendur ' B lists the rotation age of thinned and 

unthinned stands. The glossary defines rotation age (at least 95 percent 

culmination of mean annual inmment) to be the 1ergtl-1 of time between the 

formation or regeneration of a tree stand and its FINAL cutting. Table 8 

shows the rotation age for Jeffrey pine to be 70 years for an unthinned stand 

and 80 years for a thinned stand. Ccmmxial thinning is a valid and 

successful silvicultural tool to increase growth and vigor of a timber stand 

which increases its rotation age. It is not forest mining which is removal 

of timber resulting in little to no chance of regeneration or reduced 

growth. The rotation age for Jeffrey pine has been increased to 140 years 

(with thbnirg) in the Final Plan, not because it is mre appropriate 

silviculturally, but because the public would prefer to have stands of larger 

.trees in the ccmnercial timber base. 

250 
The Irryo has a gad track record during the past 5 years of successful 

Jeffrey pine, la?gepole pine and red fir plantations. The €cc"ic analysis 

includes all the casts of intensive timber regeneration such as shade cards, 

vexar tubes, etc. The abwe costs will be paid out of timber receipts. 

cx"l!: A Forest for wildlife and recreation or a Forest for indusixy? 

=so, what abut the adverse effects of widespread use of slxyd" ' e bait on 

wildlife, the hazards of herbicide spraying and the damage to the long-term 

fertility of forest soils from disturbance and canpaction by txactor site 

preparation and release? If the Forest Service takes such care to tractor 

log in the winter to avoid soil disturbance, what about the thousands of 

acres of soil disturbance that will result fmm site preparation for 

planting? How will clearing for planting affect wildlife forage such as 

bitterbrush? See the timber section of the Affeded hvircavnent (DEIS 

111-90-98) as well as the Consequences discussion (DEE IV-4, Fxmnu 'CS; DEIS 

IV-26, Soils; DEIS IV-163, Wildlife), and the enphasis in the Irretrievable 

Ccrrmitments section (DEE IV-179). The balm Of this industr ialization of 

forest ecosystems has not been accurately weighed against the higk 

hq-term scenic and recreational values of these areas. These impacts must 

be reevaluated III DEIS IV-91 and DEIS IV-127. Evm the California Board of 

Forestry torments on these documents recOgnizes the linutaticms of Jeffrey 

pine regeneration in this forest and pmposes all-age management. The 

obvious conclusion is that Prescription #10 - High Level Timber Management 

has no place in this Forest Plan. Unless substantial modifications of the 

alxlve cited sections of the DEIS and Plan are made as suggested, these 

documents are in clear violation of numerous sections and regulations under 

NFMA and the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, notably those that address the 

timber, soils, and wildlife resources as well as diversity and recreation. 

(2170) 

RI5ZCW.E: Adverse effects of tractor site preparation to soils were 

described on page IV-140 of the DEIS. Effects are mitigated under the 

watershed section of Standards and Guidelines of the Plan. Effects of timber 

managexent on wildlife habitat, econtmics and recreation are also described 

in their respective sections in the mvimnmntal Consequences section of the 

EIS and mitigated in the Plan under Standards and Guidelines, Management 

Prescriptions and Management Area Direction. 

COEIIMENI: Preferred Alternative, Timber (DEIS 11-61]. Wfy to include IIO 

timber output manag-t for existing or potential concen.bsated recreation 

areas, wild and scenic river areas (within 1/4 mipe of banks), developed or 

prospective dawnhill ski areas, lands suitable for primitive or 

semi-primitive recreation and deer migration routes and other critical 

wildlife habitat. Develop a Forest-wide policy for personal and camercial 

thristmas tree cutting to reduce resource damage and theft. (2170) 

RESPONSE: Prescription #12 - concentrated Recreation Area requires that 

timber managment must maintain or enhance recreation and other resource 

values. Prescription #13 - Alpine Ski Areas, Esusting or under Study 

requires that timber stands be maintained only for their health and vigor. 

Prescription #14 - Potential Alpine Ski Area requires maintenance of the 

251 
stands to meet recreation and othw resource needs in base facility and lift 

areas, reduced clearcuts, and other silvicultural treabwnts to benefit 

recreation and other resource needs. 

The entire area west of U.S. 395 will have reduced timber management wluch 

will benefit primitive or semi-primitive recreation. Prescription #17 - 

Semi-primitive Recreation specifies that timber be managed to not inpair 

recreation, wildlife and watershed resource values. The Forest-wide 

Standards and Guidelines have adequate requirements that timber must meet to 

protect and enhance deer migration midors and other critical wildlife 

habitats. The present Forest Christmas tree policy allows only for closely 

supervised carmercial Christmas tree sales. The public is not allowed to cut 

their own .trees. 

m: Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Timber. mfy #7 to 

include "prohibit timber harvest in a 1oO-fwt wide buffer strip alq each 

side of watercourses. 'I. Due to the scarcity and impzutance of riparian areas 

in the forest, rn timber should be harvested in these areas. Delete fm 

#9 : "taking effects an ORV opprhmities into account when doing so". 

Despite 03RVA's claim that ORVers are an "endangered species", it's obvious 

that wildlife habitat protection is of greater importance than ORV 

opportunities. 

(2170) (2190) 

prohibit logging qripnent in riparian areas and wet meadows. 

"SE: The term riparian area is defined as 100 feet on each side of 

PererJlal or intermittent stream channels. The Plan pmscxikes hamesting 

timber III accordance with Regulation Class 111. This prescription allm 

mal of only single trees or anall groups of trees. This is to maintain 

the health and vigor of the trees while protectirg the water quality, soils 

and vegetation in these very sensitive areas. Standards and Guidelines under 

riparian areas and water&& adequately protect meadows. aotection of 

wildlife habitat takes precdence over OW use of roads. 

CXWETl': S- the Inyo Forest is ahittedly unable to meet national timber 

targets, it 1s shortsighted to propse continued high volm cutting of 

trees. Figures and tables included in the Plan and DEIS are misleading and 

ccnfusing. In reality, the Forest had been vastly overcut mnsidering the 

slow M~WCZ~~ regeneration rate, spotty seedling sunrival, and lengthy 

rotation rate. There is rn econcmic justificatmn for the projected sale of 

red fir over the next five decades midering its "negative value" as 

lumber. Red fir has greater value as an una" Eastern Sierra climax-stage 

forest with ou- ' scenic qualities. It is also not renewable in a 

practical sense becam it has taken up to 600 years to develop the present 

stand with its canplex biological diversity. It has psibly been in 

existence only since the last volcanic event in the mth area. 

widering the quality of red fir CcastitUtes only 13% of the total Inyo NF 

land base, it should be managed as a unique emsystem providing critical 

habitat for n"us old growth dependent species such as goshawks, spottea 

owls and 3-toed %&peckers. The Forest needs to develop a list of indicator 

species for old growth; sensible planniq c-t proceed withut that 

krxm1-e. (2210) 

252 
RFSPQNSE: This Forest harvesw substantially less than projected grawth. 

colllfer seedlirg survival is high. No timber management will Q~CUT m the 

red fir strata this decade. The Plan's old-growth cauponent has been 

reviewed and reccmnended by professional wildlife biologists. Gashawks are 

the old-growth indicator species on the Inyo. There are no lamwn spotted 

owls on the Forest. 

m: We do not concur 

that this is the best prescription for the several hundred acres so 

designated north of Reversed Peak and south of the Aeolian Butte, Mcoao 

Craters and sm"g ' Devil's punchbowl. Given the high scenic, geologic, 

wildlife and recreational values on these areas, we recormend a "limited 

access" designation, with emphasis on wildlife and dispersed recreation. 

Grwmed trail and dispersed dc skiing are especially popular at the south 

end of the Craters; intensive timber management is not cmpatible with this 

hctivity. (1617) 

"E: Uneven-aged timber "gement will be employed west of U.S. 395. 

The above mtid areas are roaded and do not qualify for Prescription 

#17. In the Final Plan, timber management to the west of U.S. 395 has been 

linuted to uneven-aged management due to the high recreation values. 

Mitigating measures for recreation values will be dealt with east of U.S. 395 

in the site specific environmental analyses for the individual timber sales. 

Prescription #10 - High Level Timber Management. 

OZMlWl': Visual resources (DEIS 11-61). change wording to read "timber 

management mst meet or exceed the visual quality objectives of retention in 

potential concentrated and dispersed recreation areas: timber management 

0pni.q~ should be limited to 5 acres or less." (1617) 

RESPQNSE: The Standards and Guidelines in the DEIS were developd by 

landscape architects and recreaticol specialists. Potential dispersed 

recreation areas include the entire Forest. openings of 20 acres or less can 

be implemented only when the VQOS can be met. Opmiqs west of U.S. 395 will 

be limited to 5 acres. 

m: "he proposed nordic ski area occupies the most prcductive 

timberland on the Forest yet timber managmat will be virtually excluded 

here. The Prescription should be ndified to accormJdate dual tmhr and 

recreational use of this area. (2048) (1013, 2171) 

RESPONSE: Prescription #16 has been charged to "Dispersed Recreation" and 

timber will be managed under the uneven-aged system. The intent is to manage 

the area for both timber and recreation. 

Cct"E We feel that the amticmil 2,389 acres alq Level I ma& and 

trails should be managed with a timber emphasis. (2179) 

RFSFCNSE: 

due to their scenic values. 

Visual strips will continue to be managed under the present VSgs 

253 
TIMBER 

m: We believe that manag-t for "aticm potential need not be an 

either/or situaticm, and that timber managanent can, in many instances .be 

used to enhance the recreaticn resources. (2179) 

m: Management Prescriptions #12 - Ccmcentrat€ii Rew~etion area: #14 - 

potential Alpine Ski Area: #15 - DevelOpea Remeaticm Site and #16 - 

Dispersed Recreatiool all provide for timber manag-t practices. 

m: 

recreation. On the Preferred Manag-t Prescripticsl Map, CSV recreation or 

-lay activity areas are not recognized as an? Mlrdic and alpine skikg 

recreation. Smzkey Bear Flats is listed as timber management whereas our 

5-year amnercial -bile operation at snokey Bear Flats is not noted at 

all. Request that the map reflect OSV recreation. Request a formal 

agreement for nultiple-use be prem for each permittee and that plowed 

roads for lwgging activities be either restricted to certain ncol-peak & 

mths or carefully mitigated with current users. (1104) 

-E: Refer to the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for timber. 

There is one that specifically requires timber sale amtracts to make 

pruvision for access ams timber haul roads for officially designated 

nordic and su3wrobile trails. Site specific ewi"tal analyses will 

evaluate ocolflicts with OSV recreation for individual timber sales. The 

public has an opportunity to participate in these analyses. 

The Plan does not address the impact timber mgement has upcol osv 

m: Lands with steepness over 30% am3 less than 60% were withdrawn 

which involved nearly 21,000 acres. These lands were withdrawn because of 

potential erosion and the expense of harvest. Onputer runs on the 30%-60% 

category showed deficit sales regardless of the species logged. However, we 

noted that the 30%-60% category was probably too broad to analyze loggirg 

costs. Very psibly sone lands, especially in Jeffrey pine in the lower 

ranges of this slope category, muld be lcgged exmanically and safely fran 

an e"mmtal standpoint. An analysis should be run on the lower 

categories, especially fran 30%-45%. Much of the timberland in the Inyo was 

said to OCCUT on &ate slopes, so it is possible that a significant 

percentage of the 21,000 acres in the 30%-60% category would cccur in the 

reaches below 45%. (49) (181) 

RESFONSE: In the Final Plan, 14,154 acres of land on slops abwe 30% have 

been included as a separate wnp3nent of the suitable land base. It is mt 

included in the harvest program for the first decade, but could be 

incorporated if econanic conditicns change and it becanes eooncmical to log 

on these slopes. 

tX"r: and in the "he Meadows area was withdrawn and amounted to 

4,500 acres. We diswvered that this area was bekg proposed for limited 

vehicular access by four-wheel drivers, horses, and hikers. The reason for 

this propal was due to a decision made by the Regional Forester after 

Koposals were made years ago to use the area for gathenna1 devel-t. A 

coalition of various users of the "Ae area and Tulare County Supervisors 

254 
opposed entry by the geothermal developers. Hawever, we felt that use of the 

area for timber harvest was quite another matter. Entty roads for timber 

harvest could be blocked off after use and other mads put to bed. The 

result is that 1 to 1.5 MYBF per year could be added to the allowable harvest 

on the ores st by using the Mcolache area as well as providing protection and 

managenent of the biological base in this timberland area. (49) (201, 2179) 

RFSETNSE: 

Forester because of its unique qualities. 

The area has been excluded fran timber harvesting by the Regional 

a3Mi": Lands for developd recreation and potential ski areas were 

withdram and atTDunted to 4,000 acres. We found that the Inyo was missing an 

opprtunity to use these lands for sustained yield timber harvest through 

uneven-aged managenent techniques. Further, these areas were especially 

valuable in dmnstrating timber harvest techniques and use of the forest 

resources to the millions of visitors who use canpq-0- and ski areas on 

the Irryo. (49) 

RESPONSE: Potential ski areas will be managed under uneven-aged management. 

The visual value of the .trees in developd recreation areas is of mre value 

than their value as timber. 

CCEIMENT: The cost-effective requirements for high level timber management 

should also apply to moderate or mdified timber management. (See DEIS 

11-61). (2190) (1433, 1638) 

-E: The objective of uneven-aged timber managemat is to enhance or 

ccmplement other resowces such as recreation. Because the objective is not 

econaRic returns, cost effectiveness is not a requirenent. 

CCM": Manag-t Area #7 - upper Chens River. Please change the high 

level timber management designation on both sides of U.S. 395 to modified 

timber management. Also change the high level timber management designation 

near the White Wing Work Center to a nordic ski area designation. (1638) 

RESPONSE: High Level Timber Managmt - Prescription #lo on the west side 

of U.S. 395 has been charged to Prescription #9, Uneven-aged Timber 

Managerent. prescription #16 has been changed to "Dispersed Recreation" to 

provide a broader range of recreation opportunities. 

aKHR4T.: Many Eastem Sierra ecosystems are unique canpared with west side 

ecosystems due to a radically different climatic regime. Scme of the forests 

may themselves be relics fm previously wetter periods. Also, the forests 

themselves may serve imprtantly in regulating local climatic conditions. 

This ecosystem should be mentioned on DEIS S-19, and discussed on DEIS 

111-21-22. The Jeffrey pine stand is equally &que as the largest 

contiguous stand of pure Jeffrey pine in the world. (1097) 

255 
m: 

"The Inyo has the largest contiguns Jeffrey pine forest in the world." 

The conifer grad& projections for this Plan are based on lower site classes 

reflecting the east side ecosystems. Forest rrodifications prescribed in this 

plan should mt be to the extent to &fy weather patterns. 

The word contiguous has been inserted in the FEIS sumnary to read: 

aM.5": Measures should be taken in the Forest Plan to conserve the red fir 

in Managemnt Area #8 and the Jeffrey pine in Managemat Area #7 as 

functional large scale ecosystems. The Preferred Alternative would not do so 

in that the old growth red fir forest referred to would be substantially cut 

in 3 decades and m old growth will remain in the Jeffrey pine stand in 

question after 3 decades (DEIS IV-123). (1097) (117, 1577, 1664) 

"E: The red fir stratum will not be managed this decade for timber. 

An area equal to at least ten percent of the Jeffrey pine eatum in the 

suitable timber base all be "aged for old growth. 

m: Them is an "us recxeational/visual value of natural old 

grad& stands that is la- in plantations. (1097) 

RESPQNSE: 

and sham of plantations are designed to meet visual quality objectives. 

The intention is to "ize izee growth in plantations. The size 

m: General impression on timber "agesent fm the Plan is that the 

Jeffrey pine has been miananaged in the past such that the rate of cut has 

been in excess of sustained yield: the remedy to that is to cut an 

ecologically very precious, but eccomnically negative valued, red fir forest: 

and values related to timber entered into the linear p"hg ccinputer 

analysis were generated to make this psible rather than beirg accurate 

values. If this is true, there is an obvious need to make a ocmplete 

reevaluaticm of timber frun an objective standpint. (1097) 

"E: The cut has not been in excess of sustained yield of the timber 

base. Red fir stratum will not be entered during this p1annk-g period, so m 

red fir data was incorp3rated in the final FORPLAN runs. 

CXWll3W: Restricting the flow of timber fm the National Forests will have 

a negative effect on the social and eccomnic stability of rural "mities 

and the MtiOII in general. (1791) 

"E: The lccal econcmic effects of various timber flows fm the Inyo 

are reflected in the ecxnnlic analyses. 

-: All timber offered for sale in 

the last decade has sold, and recently, bid prices for timber have been three 

to four times greater than advertised rates. (1791) 

Inyo timber is in veq high demand. 

256 
TIMBER MANAGEMENT 

RESWNSE: The EIS and Plan have been charged to reflect this. 

CCPIMENT: Opposed to anytlmber sales subsidies. (2154) 

RESFQNSE: The Forest Service does not subsidize timber sales. Most of the 

Inyo timber sales are sold at prices much hgher than the appraised rates. 

m: Intensive management of timber prcduction should not be a goal on 

the Inyo which is marginal in terms of timber prcduction, bth biologically 

and econcsnically. ?uxmrding to the DEIS S-16, "...timber benefits...at most 

provide less than three percent of the total forest PNV". Due to the 'I.. .low 

relative value of timber on the Inyo National Forest...", the high costs 

associated mth management of tree plantations, fm suppression of ccmpeting 

vegetation to pest management to intensive fire suppression, c-t be 

justified even ecommically. It is not clear why the adoption of 

clearcutting, or other even-aged stand prcduction measures is even being 

eat&. (1631) 

RESFQNSE: The Inyo sells timber averaging $1,000,000 per year at an annual 

cost to the Government of $800,000. The "relative value" is cauparmg 

FORPLAN recreation and timber values. Recreation values in FURPLAN are 

willingness-to-pay values: timber values are market values. The section has 

been rewritten for clarification. 

The XQ has been reduced because of high recreation values in specific 

areas. Tlmber manag-t in the portion of the Forest still under high 

timber management will be managed under even-aged manag-t &e to the fact 

that this managwent regime is the mt ec"uca1 and produces maxi" 

yields on the Inyo. 

a%"l': FURPLAN data on rate of regrayth relies on studies on Pacific 

Northwest Forests under dissimilar clmatological clrcwlstances. Natural 

regeneration on the Inyo is limited by the climate (DEIS IV-120) which is not 

amenable to manag-t. Where has it been Shawn that the shift to even-aged 

stands will prcduce better results than the clearcut plot east of U.S. 395 on 

the west-facing slope overlooking SmAey Bear Flat? The growth rate is slow, 

the anall Jeffrey pine trees seem to be in poor condition, and the whole area 

appears to be struggling biologically. About three miles due north of Big 

Springs 1s another cleat area where the trees are even smaller. (1631) 

RESFQNSE: The yield tables used in FUWL?+N were based on California stands 

with sinular macro-climates. There are many examples of successful 

plantations on the Inyo. 

m: Flylng over the Sierra recently, one of us noticed many 

unsuccessfully regenerated patches of logged-ovex forest on the west side. 

We would also draw attention to the area east of Mono maters, where logging 

fm Mcolo Mills first occurred about 100 years ago. Natural regrowth has 

prcduced an understaked condition even after so long. Overestimating the 

257 
regenerative capacity of the Inyo could lead to a &pleted forest for future 

m: mst of the lcgged- portion of Mor0 Mills is oversMed. 

generations. (1631) 

These stands have mt been managed and were not Plant&. 

c€"rr: 

examples of 

Past 

llDmculm 

management 

"matchstick 

p?"a 

forests" 

Crl the Inyo 

where 

have 

SMll 

proaucea 

seedlings 

- 

were 

apparently "released" by the renuval of larger WerStoIy trees, lea- to 

the prcductim of overcrowded, unhealthy stands. ThiNdlg of SQne of these 

in recent years through fuel- t"pd&g has hpmved the sibation 

sunswhat. In an attqt to imrease the density of the stands, past 

management has sacrificed diversity and quality. "An increased -is on 

regeneration harvest in suitable timber would result in tinker plantatias 

requiring intensive and well planned fire ptestion" (DEIS IV-70). This 

replacement of the ~Wal functicning of ecasystas with artificial 

managmat is expensive and of questionable wisdan. The managmat of the 

forest shDuld allow the natural ecosyStem functions to operate as much as 

possible. To do otherwise is to court failure. The most imprtant disease 

organism, annosus root disease, has in fact been encouraged by 

over-management of fire (excessive suplnession) in YoSemite. (1631) 

RESPONSE: The majority of the Inyo is ompsed of single species timber 

stands. Fanes an" is taken into amt in the Inyo yield tables. 

CUWD?J?: Agz-ee that any timber harvest on the Forest must meet the standard 

on non-declining yield, but are CCBlcemed that the actual cutting rate is 

exceeding that standard. Figure C-7 on Plan C-11 lists the rotation age for 

Jeffrey pine as be- 75 years. ?+ssmhg that mans a site is able to be 

harvested every 75 years, our pesonal experience indicates that the Jeffrey pine are being hanrested much faster than that. We have 29 Paradora Wth 

study sites through& the Jeffrey pine forest between Mammth Lakes and June 

Lakes, both east and west of U.S. 395, mostly in Management Area #7. These 

sites were chosen in 1980 without regard to timbsr sale area boundaries or 

any other aspect of timber managmt. Between 1980 and 1986, inclusive, 7 

of the 29 sites have been seriously altered by mal of the large trees 

(selective harvest). One site, which was a fuelwood gathering site in 1980 

after carmercial mal of the largest trees, was marked as a timber sale 

area again in 1986. This rate, 20-25% harvest within seven years, equates to 

a rotation rate of between 28-35 years. This will not prcduce a sustained 

yield. Even the selection of 75 years as a rotation age for Jeffrey pine is 

questimable. Where are the studies that indicate the regrawth potential on 

different soils/areas on the Inyo? Our awn tree-ring analysis of trees 

thinned by Forest Service personnel and made available to the public for 

fuelwxd harvest do not supprt that .trees of 14-16" diameter will be 

prcduced in 75 years. In our study, the 9-12" diameter sections taken at 4 

1/2 feet abwe ground show an approximate age of 75 years. (1631) 

RESPONSE: Rotation age is the "nn age at which the tree is harvested. 

It is not the time between entries as suggested. Projected growth is for 

intensely managed stands. The rotation age for Jeffrey pine has been 

258 
TIMBER 

extend& to 140 years. Entries into stands are not made just to produce 

volume; they are &ne to salvage rmrtality, impove the health and vigor of 

thestandsbyremsvlng ’ diseased trees. release anpetition and for many other 

silvicultural rem. Each sale is site specific. Dependkg on species 

“psition, stands entd every 20 years pcoauCe healthier, more vigorous 

trees with increased grauth. 

CCtm”: If the Forest Service takes such care to tractor log in the winter 

cm 9y3w to amid soil and archaeological disturbance, what abut the 

thousands of acres of disturbance that will result fran site preparation for 

planting? Hcw will cleaing for planting affect wildlife forage such as 

biizk&msh? What about the dramatic decline in visual Wality and 

diminishxent of recreatimal experience in these Forest plantations? 

Intensive timber managenent and recreational developnent are expected to 

co-exist in Upper Ilea- and Dry Creek areas. The DEIS fails to adequately 

discuss the above wncems and impacts in the AffectedEnviroranent for timber 

(I11 90-98) a~ well as in the tal Consequences ca” to all 

Alternatives (Pest Management IV-66, Recreation IV-90, Timber IV-119, Visual 

Quality IV-135, Soils IV-144, Sensitive Plants IV-114, Wildlife IV-163, 

cultural Resources IV-20, Mule Deer IV-168 and Irretrievable Cami.hnents 

IV-179). (1577) 

RJSPGSE: Timber west of U.S. 395 has been rem;nred frun the high level 

timber manag-t prescripticol to reduce impacts on recreation users in the 

area. Plantations will be located east of U.S. 395 where there is not heavy 

recreation use. All timber sales are evaluated in site specific project 

analyses by an interdisciplinary team oanposed of all relevant resource 

specialists. They consider sale layout, harvest methods, necessary 

mitigating “res, site preparation mthcds and reqeneration requirements 

that will protect and/or enhance other resources including visual, wildlife, 

recreation, soil and water. Integrated pest management is also analyzed for 

each timber sale on a site-specific basis. The preferred treatment nust meet 

the requirements set forth in the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines and 

Manag-t Prescriptions. Tractor site preparation can be prescribed to 

protect soils and reduce impacts on other resouas. 

m: There are serious questions ccolcermng ‘ the Forest Service ewrtmic 

analysis of timber values on this Forest. I request a reevaluation of these 

figures in FOReLAN and the Benchmark analysis as well as the consequences of 

the DEIS on ecortmics IV-4, with a cxmplete itemization of the values chosen 

and how they were determined. For example, wildlife values were based alrnost 

entirely on deer hunting user days. Redo, assignirq values to wildlife 

diversiQ and evaluating losses due to liquidation of old-growth. (1577) 

RESPQNSE: E”cs is only one of the criteria used in decidxg the 

preferred Alternative. W~ce .trends used were those most cutrent and 

relevant to the Inyo; the 4% discxnmt rate is the standard real rate which 

does not include inflation or risk which is scmething thamtry must 

consider. All data is available for public review at the Supervisor‘s 

O€f ice. 

259 
TIMBER MANAGEMENT 

CnMWl!: The statement "meet the long-term sustained yield requirements of 

wood prcducts by the end of the p1anrrh-g horizon (50 years)" indicates that 

it will take at least 50 years to recover fm "departure" fm sustained 

yield requirements. The mandate is to meet sustained yield requirements in 

the present and to insure that standards are to be met in perpetuity. (NFMA 

219.2, 219.16, NFMA Sec. 11, Sec. 6). The DEIS fails to identify this 

deficiency and the Plan must remedy it. (1577) (89) 

RESPONSE: There has been no dew on the Inyo. The Inyo has been 

managed below the long-term Sustained yield capacity of the Forest, which is 

26.6 WF, with no deficiency. The statewnt is misleading and has been 

deleted. It was intended to mean an appropriate mix of vmA proaucts and did 

not relate to volume. 

CnMWl!: Timber areas where critical wildlife habitat exists need a mxlified 

harvest program. All of these areas need to be identified for future 

plardq efforts. (DEIS 11-130) (2190) 

RESPONSE: DEIS 11-130 describes the AMB alternative, not the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Cf3"Z: Gene Liken's and F. Herbert Fmmann's canparative studies of an 

intact versus clearcut wniferous watershed have demmstrated the large 

losses of nutrient fm an ecosystem after clearcutting. This nutrient loss 

damages the capability of the ewsystm to support regrowth. The effect on 

water quality not only of visible sediment but of dissolved nutrients mt be 

amsidered. Euthaphication of downstream riparian areas and effects on 

dawnstream fisheries are not discussed in the DEIS which consistently 

maintains that sediment is the only water quality issue of the Forest (DEIS 

111-109, 111-111). (1631) 

-E: The interdisciplinary team evaluation of specific projects and 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for riparian areas and water should 

adequately protect water quality. 

a3E1MENT: It 

is the laryest contiguous stand of pure Jeffrey pine in the world (DEIS 

S-19). This Jeffrey stand should be discussed in the DEIS under "diversity" 

and "timber" (111-21 and 111-90-98, respectively). (2170) 

RESEWSE: This secti,on discusses Issues, G"s and Opportunities. 

Discussion of the stands does not belong here. 

The Jeffrey pine stand in Managemnt Area #7 is equally unique. 

a3E1MENT: It is my hop that our National Forests provide multiple use and 

sustained yield far into the future with a stronger enphasis on mn-timber 

uses. (180) 

RESFGNSE: 

Yield Act of 1960 with regard for all resources. 

The National Forests are managed under the Multiple Use-Sustained 

As each Forest is unique, 

260 
TIMBER MANAGEMENT 

with dLfferent resources, users and demands placed on it, each has a 

different managemnt plan that IS designed to acccmMdate its users *le 

protecting and utilizing its resources. There is mre emphasis being placed 

on ran-timber resoucces because of the public's concerns and ccrments during 

this Planning process. 

O"l': You state: "Since all the timber offered for sale on the Forest 

has been sold, it can be asd that supply has not exceeded demand". You 

fa1 to mtion the current glut on the timber market. (1634) 

REsEaisE: Timber demand fluctuates and varies with location. Timber fm 

the Inyo is currently in demand resulting in high prices received by the 

Gavernment . 

CXXNEW: Recent studies by Dr. Michael Barbour in the Deparhnent of Botany 

at the University of California, Davis show that red fir forests were 

established in California under a mister reghe than exists today. Tkey can 

regenerate under their own shade but if you log than it is unllkely they will 

be able to reestablish. (71) 

RESPONSE: Red fir appears to artificially regenerate better with all 

clearcuts or shelterwood cuts. 

CXXNEW: Sanitation remval by anall loggers is the only way to harvest 

timber on the Inyo Forest. (1516) 

RESPONSE: The Preferred Alternative has been modified to reduce proaUction 

logging west of U.S. 395. It will be managed under the uneven-aged regime 

with openings less than 5 acres. 

CC@PEWE Regaz-ding your statement "Regeneration successes have improved", 

hay can you call 32% and 48% success rates on two plantations successful? If 

680 red fir seedlings/acre equals 100% success, then, according to my sqle 

calculations, a 32% success rate implies 217.6 trees/acre. The Mm for red 

fir (in order to consider an area regenerable within five years of harvest) 

is 200 txees/acre, or 29.4%. I would call these plantations margmally 

successful. Apparently, the Forest is m having problems with gophers in 

the red fir plantations. 

RESPONSE: The trees/acre necessary to declare a stand regenerated is site 

specific; it varies. Gophers can destroy a plantation if not contzulled. 

Red fir will not be harvested or plantd during this planning period. 

How will this affect success rates? (1634) 

CXXNEW: Regeneration cuttlng in red fir should proceed at a slow rate until 

regeneration methods are proven successful on the Inyo. Regeneration of red 

fir is still in an experimental stage. Data fm other Forests such as the 

Shasta-Trinity ca"t be applied to the unique set of climatic conditions 

that exist in the Eastem Sierra. (1634) 

261 
TIMBER 

m: The red fir stratum will mt be lcgged durjng this planning 

perioa, so artificial regeneraticn of this species will mt be studied during 

this planning pericd. The studies used for canparism with Inyo National 

Forest reSOUcCeS are fran other Forests with Similar xeric Corditions. 

Artificial regeneration on the Inyo Farest has been successful in the past. 

Cm": If you harvest 25% of red fir per decade, then in 40 years there 

will be m mre old growth red fir. How is this in keep- with the 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for diversity? Will the 5.4 of older 

serial stages all c~ne fran exidzing wilderness? (1634) (59, 1522, 1532, 

1630, 1649, 1650, 2179) 

RESFCNSE: The description of old growth on the Forest was misleading in the 

Draft. It has been rewritten. See chapter N, Wildlife, in the =IS. 

Wildlife biologists estimated that 10% of the "nercial timber base (lands 

capable of g-rcwiq camxcial quantities of timber) was needed to meet old 

growth habitat diversity rqdxemnts. Of this, 

only 110,701 acres was actually go- to be managed for timber production; 

the suitable timber base has been reduced to 75,233 acres in the Plan. The 

remainder would be in the unsuitable base for various reasons such as visual 

c"s or slopes. After evaluating the spatial location of these areas on 

the Forest, it was determined that approximately 4.6% wMiLd need to cane fm 

the unsuitable base and 5.4% fran the suitable base. This appdtely 

18,000 acres would be managed on a rotaticn of 300 years. In addition to the 

remainder of the unsuitable base which would mt be harvested, 62,506 acres 

of timber lands have been withdrawn because of wilderness and RNA 

designations. So, of the total timber base on the Forest, 46% or 80,000 

acres mld be old growth (Chapter 111, FEIS). No red fir will be harvested 

duriq this planning period. 

This base is 173,207 acres. 

m: The red fir forest almg the Mammth earttquake road was 

selectively cut, yet a high percentage of logs were unuseable and left to 

rot. Sampling to determine the extent of heartwood fungus and other problems 

might have determined the potential for m-econanic timber harvest fmn this 

area, and should be incorporated into any timber managmt. Had these trees 

been left &anding, they wuld have reduced the present visual impact near 

the roadway. We are aware that the timber sale area was established before 

the road was built. (1631) 

RFSPONSE: The CUzTent policy is to leave obvious culls standing for 

wildlife. The utilization specifications allowed less cull when the abve 

area was logged than is presently allowed. 

CiMmW: We support the h-eferred Alternative in the proposed management and 

harvest of red fir areas on the Inyo. These areas mtain ovennature and 

mistletoe infested timber and, in order to prptect the biological base, 

plmed entry should be made over the next decade into these stands. 

Reforestation in the red fir type has not been shown to be a problem on the 

lnyo in the past using even-aged techniques, but uneven-aged managewnt in 

262 
TIMBER 

red fir should also be practiced in areas such as those designated visual, 

developed recreation and potential and exim ski areas. 

With limited successes in regenexation, it needs to be sham that timber 

harvest schedules are flexible enough to reduce the cut significantly if 

reg-atiun efforts do not assure canpliance with diversity guidelines. 

(49) (181) 

RES-E: The red fir strata will not be entared during this planning perid 

due to the high recreaticol values in the Ma”th/June area. Mixed stands 

including some red fir on the west side of U.S. 395 will be managed under the 

uneven-aged managment regime. The Plan will be amended if necessary to 

canply with diversity guidelines. 

m: The Inyo’s red fir ecosystems should be mentioned on DEIS S-19 and 

di-sed on DEIS 111-21,22. (2170) 6 

RESPCNSE: This ecosystem is not that unique in California. 

CCM4EXC Contrary to recent criticisn, current demand and lumber markets 

make the econanicS of harvest- red fir mre favorable than ever. (1790) 

“E: The present Net Value (M) of recreation is estimated to be 

Mgher than stmpage values. 

m: Writers of the Forest Plan did not even realize that there are two 

subspecies of red fir on the Inyo; literature on regeneration is for Shasta 

ssp. in a much wetter climate far frun this region. (1577) 

REME: Silviculture of the ttm varieties of red fir do not differ. The 

silvicultural practices applied on the Inyo for all species take site 

specific mi-limates into account. 

m: I would like to see more areas of phym opened, areas where there 

are fallen trees. Most of the areas we‘ve lcoked are so picked over and 

nonaccessible to those trees that are available, that it’s becanmg harder 

and harder to collect. (183) 

RESFQNSE: The resource cannot support the constmction and maintenance of 

the roads that muld be r-red. 

- 

COMMENT: Private cutthg for fuelwood &e”t cause anywhere near as much 

damage and should continue to be allwed. (914) 

RESPONSE: Personal use fuelwood cutthg is provided for under the Preferred 

Alternative. 

263 
TIMBER 

CCWm?l!: Need a Forest-wide Standard and Guideline for timber on what the 

Forest’s emphasis is on personal fuelwood gather-. (1099) 

RESPONSE: There is Managanent Area direction in the Final Plan regarding 

fuel& gathering on the Forest. The 1977 Interagency Motor Vehicle Use 

Plan, which will be upaated after canpletion of the Forest Plan, designates 

open and closed Iuads. 

m: 

into fire& 1- and sell it to the public. (348) 

RESPONSE: 

public for cutting and gathering. 

such snall material. 

Instead of piling slash and burning it, hire people to process it 

The areas piled and burned are areas previously opened up to the 

It would not be cost-efficient to process 

m: Your willingness to transfer wood proauction fran sawtimber to 

fire& is distw%irg. The two programs are distinct and separate except to 

the extent that fuel& may develop fran 1cggi.q residual. As long as there 

is such a strorgly develaped demand for sawtimber that shows signs of 

increasing in the near future, any deliberate transfer of sawtimber into the 

fire& prcgram is inappropriate. (1432) (2048) 

SPONSE: Sawlogs will not be sold as fuelwood in this p1amh-g period. 

There should be very little charge in fuelwood availability for this period. 

CCWm?l!: Mamnoth and its rapid grawth is rather alarming. I continue to 

fear that wntinued ~YCW’& will mtinue to impact the local resources. The 

need for firewood endangers wildlife habitat. (1333) 

RESPONSE: Fuel& is an impoaant resource to lccal eccomnies. Fuel& 

managmt direction is kcorprated in the Plan and utilization of the 

resource & meet the m (- i”gemnt RequirrmentS) for wildlife 

habitat diversity. 

.. 

COMMENP: I trust your agency will not hesitate to reduce the nmhr of wood 

permits you grant if the demand for wood becomes so heavy as to cause damage 

to the Forest. (1401) 

RESPONSE: 

mean that the nuher of permits would need to be controlled. 

Firewood cutting must mt damage other Forest resources. This may 

CCWm?l!: Cutting of live trees for firewood or Chrisbnas trees should be 

eliminated imnediately. (1471) 

RESPONSE: Rees are r-ed to thin stands that are to0 dense. This 

enhances the growth and vigor of residual trees. The remsved trees are used 

for fuelwood or as Christmas trees so that they can be canpletely utilized. 

264 
CXXm”: I feel that public fuelwood gathering should be restricted to the 

same area as ccmnercial timbering and that standmg snags be left standing 

for the wildlife (hairy wcdpcker and Williamson‘s sapsucker) that are 

dependent on their presence. I strongly ucge that no new roads are built to 

open up new areas to fuelwood cutting. (1579) 

RESPONSE: It is illegal to cut stan&q snags under present policy. No 

timber roads are scheduled to be constructed this planning period. 

CX”m.: wood gathering huld be prohibited in the White-Inyo Range, which 

is already sparsely vegetated and because of slow regeneration of 

pinyun-juniper woodland. (1634) 

RESFQNSE: wood gathering is restricted to dead and down ONLY. 

CG”r: Fuelwood cutting should receive priority whexe timber cutting is 

acceptable. (1974) 

RESFQNSE: The prm3uct that retums the mt a”t of mey to the U.S. 

Treasury will be sold. 

CXXm”: ~imiting woodcutting to above 8,000 feet is rather naive in pmyon 

forests. Eqxxting these people to top maps and be able to locate 

their psition, or have an accurate altimeter to consult 1s a joke. (1642) 

(2196) 

RESFQNSE: Unique landmarks will be used for reference. 

C€XMWl?: Timbering and firem gathering are having an intense impact on 

forest wildlife habitat and soil nutrient cycling. The mads necessary for 

timber operations, any road access on the Forest for developed recreation, 

ski operations, geothermal projects and other developnents accelerate and 

expand the range of fuelwood depredation. Forests reportedly are not talurg 

adequate measures to curb th~s depredation of snags and down logs, vital 

cavity nesting habitat for birds and snall anmals. (2178) (2160) 

“E: Access of any kind does pmvide opportunities for violations of 

fuelwood restrictions. Given the size of the Inyo and manpmer limitations, 

enfoxenent of these vlolatiom is a problem. 

CXXm”: Besides the impact on wildlife and forest nutrition cycles, 

fuelwood bumirg has a severe air quality impact. (2178) 

RESPONSE: 

mality District. 

twigs and branches and needles not utilized for fuelwood. 

Regulations for air quality are controlled by the Great Basm Air 

The large majority of nutrients are located in the snaller 

265 
ci"?r: The 

draft Plan and DEIS indicate in sum passages that slag cutting is illegal 

(DEIS IV-165). Other refe"es give the opposite message: "Dead and down 

wood is legally available to woodcuttars...". (DEIS 111-43) (2178) 

RESPONSE: They are standing dead trees. 

It is not legal to cut these. wood must be both dead and on the ground 

under what circumstances is taking slags and down wood legal? 

Snags are not dead and dmn wood. 

(dmn) to be utilized by woodcutters. 

ci"?r: Instead of allowing "vxcial and private parties to cut trees on 

their m, might arrangement be made by the Forest to cut trees under careful 

supervision and sell wood fran a central yard? (2178) 

RESPONSE: 

and permits. 

It is mre efficient and practical to cut fuelwood under contracts 

CCEMENI: Arrangements for providing "Technical expertise and leadership in 

the establishment of woodlots on private land". Has the Inyo Forest or other 

Forests experimented with this practice? There are provisions in RPA for the 

Forest Service to act in a lead agency role in prumting suitable forest 

practices on private land. (2178) 

RESPONSE: 

Bishop and Lone Pine. 

The Inyo Forest has provipd technical expertise to woodlots in 

CCWUBZC: I recollTLend a raise in fuelwood fees per cord to reflect 

envircounental and other costs. (2178) 

RESEONSE: Fees are reviewed annually. 

CCWUBZC: Studies of impacts of fuelwood gather- in pinyon-juniper should 

be prerequisite to canpletion of the Forest Plan and EIS. Costs and progress 

of this study and its ccmpletion date. (2178) 

RESPONSE: The impacts on other resources associated with fuelwood gathering 

are for the mst part on soils and water quality. Because of the relatively 

gentle terrain on the Inyo where timber hamesting takes place, there are 

opp3rtunities for off-road access to gather wood. The 1977 Interagency I%tor 

Vehicle Use Plan which will be upaated after ccmpletion of the Plan will 

evaluate these factors in determining which roads will be open on the 

Forest. Inipacts are degradation of soils and water. 

m: We feel that fuelwood is a necessary item for the residents of the 

area. Any reduction in timber 

management such as timber hanresting or pre-camwcial thinning muld 

severely reduce the already short supply. Pinp/jmiper areas east of Mono 

Lake may be substituted, for example, for the loss of lodgepole areas. (2017) 

(49, 181) 

They rely heavily on this resource for fuel. 

266 
TIMBER MANAGEMElrpp 

RESPONSE: Pre-cu”ercial thinning is a silvicultural treatmnt done to 

iqrwe the health and vigor of stands. Fuelwood is a by-product. 

Comnercial sales will be available de- up the condition of specific 

stands. Loagepole ateas “aged for timber proauction have not been reduced. 

CXM”: Use of -en-aged “agemnt, as suggested earlier, would also 

help increase firewood availability. (181) 

RESPONSE: Fuelwood availability is dependent up a”t of timber 

harvested, mt on the harvest regime. 

axw”: Ca”tion of p1amk-g with other forest landawners is essential 

to detennine if firewood quantities might be available on BLM or other 

clwnerships in order to keep fm creatirg a serious adverse ecoMlnic 

situation for the local canrmnities. (181) 

RESFONSE: Fuelwood availability frm adjacent landowners has been 

insignificant in the past. 

m: Cutting bristlecone pine, including fuelwood cutting, should be 

prohibited. (1664) 

RESFONSE: Cutting bristlecone pine for any reason is prohibited. 

CCWmV.: lmxlcutting of dead trees, down trees, for firewood gathering is 

okay. (2196) 

RESPONSE: The Plan does not change the present policy of cuttiq dead and 

dayn trees. Standing dead trees c-t be cut as they are beneficial to 

wildlife. 

CCMEtiT: Fuelwood gathering should be barred. (1900) 

RESPONSE: Fuelwood gathering is a valid use of the timber resource; it 

reduces dead fuels. The Forest wuld have to pay for fuels reduction with 

the absence of fuelwood gather-. 

CCMEtiT: Hardwoods, Plan IV-23. It sharld be added that harvest after a 

disaster or catastrophic event should only occuc after sufficient time has 

passed for resprouting to be evident and only dead wood should be harvested. 

( 1431 ) 

RESPONSE: In a fire salvage situation, a juclgment must be made on the 

chances of the tree *ing of secondary causes as a result of stress. Most 

hardwoods in this area will stunp sprout after harvest. 

267 
TIMBER MANAGEMENT 

ar"I!: Hadwxds, Plan IV-23. Oaks play an iqxrtant role for wildlife 

species. The only guideline for hanfkds is the protection fm wood 

gatherers. There is a need to protect these pocket areas fm dewimental 

grazing, inwmpatible recreational uses and developnent. Neither the Plan 

nor DEIS addresses hardwood manage#?nt by alternative. What envimmental 

considerations were given to hardwoods m each of the alternatives? (2190) 

RESPONSE: There are rm plans to harvest hardwoods. An envimmental 

analysis by an interdisciplinary team would be necessary prior to any 

propal which would impact the hanixcd resource. 

CCtWElW: The "um size requirement for old grci?th plots should be at 

least 100 acres. (1522) 

RESPQNSE: The size of the areas managed for old growth will be a 

site-specific determination. Factors such as terrain, adjacent vegetative 

wver, and wildlife habitat diversity needs will be taken into account in 

detexminhg both the size and lccatmn of the areas. 

CCW": 

should be maxinuzed. (91) 

RESPONSE: There are rm lamwn spotted ml territories. If any are found, 

they will be protect& as prescribed by Region 5 manag-t direction. 

All present spotted owl territories should be retained: old gravth 

m: In the mche area, protection must be given to the Kingfisher 

Riage old-growth forest. (1565) 

RESPONSE: No timber cutting is scheduled in the Monache area. 

-: protect all remainiq old-growth forests. At a mini", analyze an 

alternative that includes such protection. (1649) 

RESPONSE: The AMB Alternative emphasized wildlife and recreation which in 

 tun-^ de-emphasized timber managmt and thus "ized retention of old 

m. 

CCW": If you sell them off ~3w by clearcuttirg, you have no guarantee 

that in this climate any tree will ever grow again to the size of the present 

old growth for future generations of .tree lovers who have a right to ask that 

the National Forest spare these. (149) 

RESFCNSE: Rotation ages have been extauled to 140 years for Jeffrey pme, 

120 for lcdgeple and 160 for red fir because of public concern that trees 

managed for sawtimber production would be too mall to be visually 

desirable. Pure stands of red fir will not be harvested this planning 

period. 

268 
TIMEER MANAGEMENT 

C€"tF: All remaining old growth timber should be saved, especially the 

pondecosa pine in the White bbuntains. (277) (284) 

RJSPONSE: No timber cutting is planned in the white Mountains. 

CC"R I would suggest that all areas designated aeScription #10 in 

Managemat Area #5 be changed to Prescription #9 - Wfied Tlmber Management 

and that a "n of three older, OverStOry trees be left per acre. (278) 

RESPONSE: The portion of Management Area #5 west of U.S. 395 will be managed 

under uneven-aged managemat. Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for 

wildlife require that snags and leave areas be left for wildlife in tlmber 

harvests (Plan, chapter IV) . 

CC": I stxoqly recx"d that old grawth forest in the Inyo be 

preserved in a forest reserve. (978) 

RESFQSE: 

for timber mld result m reduced growth by retaming all old growth. 

This would not be in accordance with multiple use. Areas managed 

COW": 

in any one year. (996) 

RESFQSE: The Plan calls for allocation of a canpment of the suitable 

timber to manage for old growth. The renmnde ' r of the suitable timber base 

is managed to maintain or enhance the health and vigor of the forest while 

providing a contrnuing supply of wood proaucts. 

Logging should be linuted to remnral of less than 5% of old growth 

m: Wildlife diversity cons.traintS applied to provide old growth seral 

stages will limit timber management of 6,587 acres of capable, available, and 

suitable timberlands. The addxtional restriction sea unwarranted, since 

62,506 acres of capable and suitable lands, much of it m older seral stages, 

have already been presemed in wilderness and RNA areas. (2179) (1432) 

RESPONSE: 

the Forest. 

Th~s will provide for better spatial distribution of old growth on 

m: Reccmnendabons are that tlmber managment should f- on 

maintaining and generating sufficient growth for genetically viable 

populat" of species dependent on it via: A) 110 logging of red fir, 

including the south end of the Forest where the red fir is the Shasta 

subspecies: B) 110 logging in Roadless Areas 5053, 5054, 5047, and west of 

U.S. 395 (because of its large recreational value); C) maintaining or 

restoring old gravth in remaining Jeffrey pine areas such that overall at 

least 30% of it is present as recognized in the AMN Alterative as the mi" 

needed to conserve mn-ccmmb 'ty values: and D) 110 logging by managenent in 

Prescription #lo. (1097) (1577, 2170) 

269 
RESPCNSE: IGgghg in the mnacha and roadless areas is mt Planned. 

Retention of a viable genetic base will be realized fm the large area 

supparting timber outside the suitable land base and the p3licy of collecting 

seed fmn many trees. Vneven-aged managewnt will be employed west of U.S. 

395. Allocation of a canp3nent managed for old gmwth in the suitable base 

will be dcole with regard for spatial distribution to balance the needs of 

other resources. The acreage "aged under Prescription #10 has been 

reduced. 

KWBlVl': The potential problems of intensive timber manag-t on the 

massive scale pmpased in red fir and Jeffrey pine are nowfiere discussed in 

the DEIS including seedling losses due to the p3o-r misture h0ldi.q capacity 

of the soils; seedling losses due to lethal soil temperatures; increases in 

insect infestations and predation by "nals; soil erosion and nutrient loss; 

canpetition with grasses and shrubs: adverse effects of widespread use of 

stq&nine bait on wildlife; hazards of herbicide spray: and damage to the 

long-term fertility of soils fran disturbance and canpacticol by tractor site 

preparation. (1577) 

REspaNsE: The silviculturist makjng prescriptions on a stand of timber must 

analyze all mnppaents of bth micro-sites and macro-sites prior to 

prescribing any treatment. Past experience shows that successful 

reforestation is obtained on the Inyo with very little soil and nutrient loss 

or damage. Pest managenat will be in accordance with integrated pest 

management whereby all alternatives available will be analyzed. 

CXX+ENF: --aged siragle species silviculture is a long-term disaster if 

carried for mre than a very few cycles. My reason for this belief has to do 

with incxeasing acidification of the forest soils and water. (428) 

RESPQNSE: Conifer species harvested are regenerated with the same species. 

No TXXI-M~~~~ species are planted. 

CCWCWF.: Need a timber Forest-wide Standard and Guideline on emphasis use of 

uneven-aged manag-t in nontimber prescriptiom which psnnit tinker harvest 

to benefit daninant resource use. (1099) 

"E: Frescriptions for other than timber resource managenat set 

guidelines to manage timber to benefit daninant resource uses. Management 

Prescription #9 has been changed to uneven-aged manag-t. 

ax"r: I\ppendur ' J unsuccessfully tries to justify the use of even-aged 

manag-t instead of uneven-aged. Hawever, it is biased in its presentation 

in favor of the benefits of wen-aged and against the benefits of 

uneven-aged. It leaves out important scientific information. It is 

inadquate to justify the reliance on even-aged managemnt. (126) (232, 328, 

467, 1160, 1424, 1521, 1571, 1598, 1616, 1634, 1649, 1774, 1800, 1862, 1865, 

1933, 1975, 2061, 2136, 2170,) 

270 
Rl?SFfXSE: bven-aged managmerit will be implemented west of U.S. 395 

because it is appropriate given the the high recreation values of that area. 

Even-aged manag-t increases regeneration sunrival rates and is mre 

cost-effective for intensively-managed stands. 

CCM4ENF: We encourage the use of regulated uneven-aged managetent in areas 

wed for visual quality, rwxeatim areas, the Wmache area, and 

streamside zones in order to manage these areas and provide protection and 

maintenance of the biological base. (181) 

RFspoNsE: These areas will not be managed for regulated timber management 

due to the higher values of the 0th- resources. See each Managmat Area 

for specific tlmber managenent direction. 

m: The even-aged forest concept presented in the Plan never addresses 

any of the actual impacts to the enviroment and should. (Plan, Chapter IV, 

Manag-t Area #7 - upper Owens River) (430) 

mFONSE: The FEIS addresses the -all impacts to the envimment. 

Individual project envimmtal analyses will analyze the site specific 

envirormental impacts. 

CCM4ENF: This display indicates that there would be mre clearcutt3xg in the 

Preferred Alternative than in the (3EE Alternative. Why? Selection cutting 

"may be applied as appropriate, but is not part of programned harvest". Why 

isn't it part of the programned harvest as it is on most Forests? It is 

still cut and utilized for the same purpose as clearcut timber and should be 

counted as well. Surely, after 80 years of timber managetent using selection 

harvest methods, the Forest Service can find ways to program yields from such 

lands! It appears very doubtful to me that there is any need for 

clearcutting on Inyo National Forest. The benefits of clearcutting are 

miniscule in canparison to the other values of the Forest. (5) (1295) 

"E: The acres clearcut IJ-&? the CEE Alternative have mre volume of 

timber per acre than that of the Preferred Alternative. The areas that were 

scheduled for selection cutting were primarily managed for resources other 

than timber management: trees were nst cut for silvicultural reasons. 

Clearcutting results in incraased yields and is more cost-effective. 

CCPIMENT: Against clearcutting and use of herbicides. Inadequate 

cansideration has been given to the effects of clearcuttjng and herbicides 

upon riparian habitats and upn endwered species. Of particular concern is 

the use of aerial application of herbicides. The proped alternative's plan 

for clearcutting does rot give consideration for the long-term health of the 

Inyo. Clearcutting is the m3st econcmical way of harvesting timber in the 

short run: it is not ewncsnical in the long run. Inadequate consideration 

has been given to the effects of logging on the Forests' unstable mountainous 

soils. (74) (8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 21, 22, 44, 281, 933, 1434, 1435, 

1436, 1437, 1438, 1439, 1440, 1441, 1442, 1443, 1445,1446, 1447, 1448, 

271 
1449,1450, 1451, 1452, 1453, 1454, 1455, 1456, 1457, 1458, 1459, 1460, 1461, 

1462, 1463, 1843, 1865, 2170)) 

RFsFC"SE: Riparian areas, endangered species and soils are adequately 

ptected under the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines. 

m: Clearcutting west of U.S. 395, as proped, wuuld be particularly 

damaging to scenery. The views fran Mammth Mountain, Minaret Vista, San 

Joaquin Rime, and June Mountain down onto the Forest are magnificent. 

Patches of clearcut in the Forest are des- those views. (1650) (281, 

1248) 

RFSFC"SE: orzenings created by timber managmt west of U.S. 395 will not 

exceed five acres. 

CO": The reliance on herbicides should also be replaced by natural 

regeneration methods. (126) 

"E: The Plan ekes not rely on herbicides for artificial regeneration. 

The Inyo has used very little herbicides for timber managmt m the past. 

Natural regeneration has not p" to be a reliable of ensuring new 

growthontheIny0. 

am": concerned with the long-term effeds of regeneration or clearcut 

logging on species diversity, soil fertility and erosion and water quality. 

Over time, soil loss and lack of nutrient input could seriously decrease the 

growth supp3rting ability of forest soils. Clearcutting forests in the arid 

east side is not supported by adequate data presented in the DEIS or Plan. 

"ugh tests with red fir forests are alluded to, as well as the ability of 

Jeffrey pine and ldgeple pine to regenerate in open areas, 'chis seems 

hardly adequate. Clearcutting has proven effective in the productive forests 

of the Northwest, but little information is available for the east side. For 

this re-, we oppose clearcutting on the Inyo NatSr-FJ Forest until 

adequate information amceznirg the ability of east side forests to 

regenerate is damnstrated on the same types of soils as will be affected by 

hamest. (1108) (71, 1430) 

"E: Regeneration of all species of timber has proven successful on the 

Inyo. The red fir stratum nll not be managed for timber this planning 

pericd. Lqged areas are regenerated with the same species. Site-specific 

resource m- are addressed on the project level through the 

enviranmental analysis prccess. 

CO": Concerned about cleat harvesting on steep and arid slopes, and 

those with low prcductivity soils. Marginal areas do not reforest easily, 

and the resou~ce damage and expensive, long-term recovery perid may not be 

justified especially when cmparirg the costs of harvest, site preparation, 

and successful reforestabon with timber receipts. Request these areas be 

withdrawn frun regeneration cut manag-t. (1108) 

272 
RFSPONSE: The ability to regenerate, effects on other resources, costs and 

benefits are all taken into account prior to making a decision to clearcut 

any area. Timber receipts must be adjusted to cover the costs of reforesting 

logged areas. 

C@WENJ!: mst concemed about the fate of native herbaceous forest species 

that require cool, shaded forests, undisturbed soil, and decaying forest 

humus. Many herbaceous forest species probably c-t tolerate a continuous 

disturbance cycle with open campies, caiptition fran characteristics of 

clearcut forests. Loss of these forest species is a significant conbecause it nxiuces forest diversity and psibly creates rare species from 

those which are presently cc"n. The same may also be true for certain 

shrub species. What is the fate of these forest species? Will they someday 

becane rare enough to warrant classification as sensitive? (1108) 

RESPONSE: The timbered areas on the Inyo are denser rim than they were prior 

to Forest Sewice managanent &e to the exclusion of fire. Areas scheduled 

to be clearcut annually are a snall portion of the total forested area on the 

I-. 

m: The term "clearcutting" needs to be defined or sc" put in 

proper overall context with the tenn "even-aged managanent". Clearcutting of 

mature overstory while leaving the seed/sap ccmp3nent may actually resemble 

an overstory rerroval. It mll result in an even-aged effect. Visually, 

however, it is distinctly different fran so-called "bare ground 

Clearcutting. " (1432) 

"E: Overstory removal is visually different fran "bare ground 

clearcutting", but it is a form of even-aged managemnt XI that it results in 

a stand cxnipxed of trees of generally the same age. In many cases stands 

are two-storied; the overstory being the culls left fran harvests at the turn 

of the century. These mature trees need to be "ved ~3w to pmte the 

growth of the yourger cartponent of the stand. Clearcutting is just one fonn 

of even-aged managanent which is defined in the glossary. 

m: Any clearcutting that "has" to cccur should be done in relatively 

narrow bands. (1749) 

RESPONSE: The size and shap of clearcuts is depndent upon the VW, 

species, slope, aspect, soils, wildlife needs, etc. 

CXBM9lF: No clearcutting should be allowed in areas greater than 2 acres. 

Careful attention should be paid absolutely to avoid cutting near streams or 

on steep slopes which would create siltation and irreparable erosmn. (1434) 

( 952 ) 

RFS-E: 

and to r&ce harvesting costs. 

designed to ensure that stream banks and courses are protected. 

Clearcutting in larger areas is done to ensure better regeneration 

Riparian area Standards and Guidelines are 

Harvestkg 

273 
TIMBER 

m slopes greater than 30% will cnly be &ne if eccarmic caditions change to 

make it cost-effective. If this happans, mitigating measures will ensure 

that no irreparable erosion takes place. 

"w.: 

timber prduction. (2160) 

REsFmsE: (3" ' ts are placed 081 timber by other resources because of the 

fact that the Plan recognizes that other resnuce values exist and must be 

weighed against timber values. Red fir. will not be harvested during this 

planning pericd because of high recreaticn and visual values in the 

Ma"th/June area. 

The Plan dDes not adequately consider the many other values of the 

Forest. These Other multiple Uses are treated as conslX<S Upcol further 

"w.: The Plan needs a detailed analysis of the envircmental and 

cansequences of even-aged managemnt. (1548) 

"E: 

sale. 

Site specific detailed analyses are required prior to each timber 

"w.: --aged managmt, I've come to suspect, is a euphanisn for tree 

farming. An even-aged forest will support abut as much biotic diversity as 

a field of com - next to nothing. Moreover, like monocultural agriculture, 

it will be SuSCeptible to insects and disease, and require pricdic doses of 

pesticides and fertilizers. (1548) 

"E: ~rees have a long rotation perid to create diversity. Over time 

the vegetative mnposition of the understory changes and in saw cases the 

OverStOIy charges as well. The Inyo uses neither pesticides nor 

fertilizers. It is not 

cost-effective since it does not increase growth for mre than the 

Slmrt-term. 

Fertilizing forests has not pruven to be effective. 

"w.: The public arcern about diversity is incanptible with 

clearcuttirg 20-40 acre parcels. (1631) 

RESPONSE: Clearcuts on the Irryo average between 10 and 20 acres. Planting 

increases seral stage diversity by providing new young gmwth. These early 

seral stages in conifer forests provide habitat for annual plants. 

Fpproximately 13,000 acres will be managed under the uneven-aged system which 

limits opmings to 5 acres. 

-: 

on-site dtims. 

use of planned practices is not proper. (1869) (1864, 2142) 

RESPONSE: 

full range of silvicultural tools with the exception of the general 

Support use of the full range of silvicultural tools that best suit 

On-site juagment should be used by the foresters: strict 

The on-+Ae-grOund silviculturist making prescriptions will have a 

274 
TIMBER 

limitations dictated by this Plan. The project a-dmmmtal analysis will 

be site specific. 

m: These soils, prolonged sumner drought, and intense sumner 

insolation make regeneration of stands much more likely when individual tree 

selection is used to create snall opnhgs in the forest. (1798) 

"E: When vegetation management is needed, individual tree selection is 

impractical. Gn mxt sites, regeneratian is vnsu-sful without adefpate 

vegetation management. 

CxMllWr: We are lcoking at the probable loss of a very large -tree ping 

area as replant- appears to be igMrea totally. (2113) 

RES-: Standards and Guidelines require artificial regeneration to be 

accanplished within three years of clearcutting to as- that adequate 

restocking is attained within five years. 

CxMllWr: Small tracts of less than 20 acres on level or near level terrain 

may be appropriate for clearcutting. (2136) 

RFSPONSE: This coincides with the Plan. 

a"r.: "-aged managerent is expensive in the long run. (1664) 

RESPONSE: --aged managerent is less expensive 111 the long run than 

uneven-aged manag-t. It requires fewer entries into stands: regeneration 

and growth is higher for intolerant species: lcggicg oosts are rduced. 

CDPE": NFMA, Section 6 (G)(3)(F) states that even-aged methods may be used 

only where such cuts are carried out in a manner consistent with the 

protwtion of soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation and esthetic 

resources and the regeneration of timber T~SOUTCR. Thus, the NFMA places an 

explicit burden of pmf on the Forest Service regarding the use of even-aged 

systems and reserves its strictest test for clearcutting. The Inyo has not 

established how its excessive reliance on clearcutting is consistent with the 

legal r-ts discussed abwe. 

Accordirg to land managerent pl- directron for the Pacific southwest 

Regia (the Rainbow Boolc), the Draft Plan is to assume a stumpage price of 

$114.66 per thousand board feet. Based on the analysis of cut. and sold 

reprk mentioned awe, an average of $69.73 per MBF was actually received. 

Average timber prices actually received on the Forest are thus 39% less than 

the prices assumed by the Inyo National Forest. We urge the Forest Service 

to &up intensive timber management on the Inyo National Forest altogether. 

Its arid climate, soil prcductivity levels, wildlife, visual quality, and 

biological diversity wuld all benefit fran aban&ning the idea that the Inyo 

is an appropriate forest for intensive timber management. (2169) (160, 2054) 

275 
VEGETATION 

RESPQNSE: !Re Standa?ds and Guidelines and prescriptions assure the 

protection of other resources. Timber managerrent is one of the multiple uses 

on the Inyo. 

timber averaging $1,ooO,ooO per year at an annual cost to the gov.ernment of 

$800,000. In addition, it prwides jobs and ecoM3Ric benefits to local 

Camnulities. 

It has been rduced to benefit other uses. The Inyo sells 

COtMWl?: If the management stratqy of clearcutting were actually put into 

effect, the environmental consequences for watershed, wildlife habitat, 

soils, dispersed recreation and visual quality would be unacceptable. These 

impacts, haiever, are not discussed in the Envi"ta1 Consequences section 

for timber in the DEIS. Instead, this section merely describes the 

management strategy. (2170) 

RFS"SE: The consequences are in each individual resou~ce section under 

Rwimnmntal comeqxnces. 

COWml!: We were wncemed over the use of even-aged management using 20 

acre clearcuts in the Jeffrey pine type. Sane of these pine areas such as 

the Glass mtain managanent unit are located in arid regions with a very 

warse and undeveloped prrmice soil. Larye opmings could result in 

micro-climate changes which would require large expendi.tures of funds to 

reforest. The Jeffrey area has historically been logged using a selection 

type of management, and it my ba achrisable to continue use of uneven-aged 

techniques in the more arid portions of the Inyo. (49) (112, 1177, 1632, 

1820, 1995) 

FUSPCNSE: The actual 0psnu-g size and cutting prescription are dement 

up site-specific conditions. This Plan only prescribes the sidebards. 

Silvicultural field review with an interdisciplinary team will recQmwld the 

a-iate harvest methods. Although F'rescxiption #10 is high level tvnber 

management, that does not mean that Jeffrey pine will be harvested using 20 

acre clearcuts. It does mean that clearcutting is one silvicultural option 

that can be used if it is the best silvicultural technique for a site. 

alElrlEKT: The CMlDB currently reOOgnizes appmximately 375 terrestrial 

cunnunities for the State. The Inyo National Forest should determine which 

of these cumnmities are present in the Forest and develop a list of areas 

that wuld potentially fill RNA needs for Region 5. I would suggest more 

intensive inventories than the Cal Veg surveys. (1108, 1030) (134) 

RESPONSE: A canbination of wildlife habitat relationships (WHR) types, 

California vegetation types and timber types were used for identifying 

vegetation camiunities on the Forest. These classification methods consider 

Species. For Forest level planning, this is considered adequate. Project 

level activities are intensively suzveyed and plant associations are 

WerStoIy cover percent, successional stages, and daninant overstory 

276 
VM;ETATION 

documented in the environmental analysis. The database dictionary pruvides a 

crosswalk between the different mthxls used to classify vegetation. The 

Inyo has already provided a list of candidate RNAs based at least partially 

on the vegetation cnnmmities present. 

cC”w.: concerned with the practice of intrducing mnnatives for erosion 

control. (1108) (134, 382, 1532, 1608) 

RESPONSE: Limiting the intrcducticm of mnnatives for erosion control may 

result in a decreasing water quality. For projects such as ski area runs, 

I-EJII-M~~V~~ have provided the mst effective restoration results. On 

projects such as reseeding native vegetation or restoring wildfires, native 

species can probably be used. 

aM4ER.C: Eliminate exist- t-ix species on the Forest and prevent 

further invasion. Pbnitoring for salsola and eliminating it is not 

addressed. (1522, 381) 

RFSPONSE: The Inyo is currently prepariq an environmental analysis to 

determine the impacts of remving tamaru in spring areas where the species 

has invaded. The Forest is plaming on eradicating stands of tamarix that 

have encroached into spring habitats. Salsola is widespread both on and off 

Forest ahinistered lands. No attempt will be made to “itor this species 

on a large scale. 

aM4ER.C: Management Area Direction #19, Plan IV-136, third parapaph. The 

statement regarding foxtail pine is in ermr. It is found northward fran the 

Kern Plateau at least to onion Valley. (1431) 

“E: This will be included in the Final Plan and EIS. 

aM4ER.C: Why are foxtail and bristle“ pine not included? (1431) 

“E: Both foxtail pine and bristlecone pine were lump3 into the type 

titled subalpine forest. Included also in this category are whitebark and 

limber pine. Essentially m managwent activities are planned in habitats 

daninated by these species, so lumping them allowed a reduction in the 

canplexity of identify- vegetation camnnibes. 

m: Plan A-4. Is this an activity in which the California Native Plant 

Society could lend assistance? Inventory, transect establishment, pt&os? 

This also applies to oak woodlands, Plan A-6. (1431) 

“E: In the course of develop- inventory methods, several agencies 

will be oontacted. These will include the WS, the California Deparbat of 

Fish and Game, Forest Service botanists and other interested parties. 

277 
VISUALS 

CXXMWl!: "hem in the Plan or DEIS is there a description of vegetation 

types and seral stages found on the Forest. (1431) 

REspcBosE: Refer to the wildlife Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for 

d.rversity and habitat types. 

m: Forested habitats, Plan IV-43. What are "WHR" types"? (1431) 

"E: WHR types are wildlife habitat relationship vegetation types. 

Thev- daninant overstory, canopy cover and successional stage to identify 

various vegetation cxmnunities. They are used to classify habitats for 

wildlife species, and we.m used to identify habitats of managmiat indicator 

species. 

m: 

as possible. Therefore, 110 ski area sbould be visible fran U.S. 395. (214) 

RESPONSE: It wauld be highly desirable to have ski areas not visible fran 

U.S. 395; however, due to the nature of ski area design that calls for wide 

ski nm clearings on steep slopes through dense stands of timber, it is 

virtually impossible to have them mt visible. If a decision is made to 

develop a ski area, the VQO of part.ial retention will be rquir& which means 

that the runs may be visible but totally subordinate to the natural landscape 

character. Hopefully, through proper design, my of the runs muld not be 

discernible at all. Since the distance fmn U.S. 395 is 3-6 miles, the base 

areas and lift structures should not be visible at all. The main concern 

with visibility is color contrast of soil with dark forested areas. 

Revegetation of cleared areas will be necessary to reduce the visibility of 

arq cleared nms. 

Any new ski dwelopnent sbould be as umbtnLsive on scenic values 

CDMNJ!: In the visual resources 

direction, the following are missing: ad"le@-anent of the fact that this 

area daninates the view to the west of the Mono Basin Scenic Area and thus 

should not be scarred with roads, clearcuts, mining developnents and ski 

areas; and a statement to the effect that 170 logging will take place until 

the issue of developnent is settled via the ccmpletion of a cumulative study 

of the impacts of all pruposed developnentS on Inyo Forest resources and 

specific proposals inwlving the area to be logged have received final 

appmal . ( 2170) 

RESKNSE: The Mam~th Escarpnent Area #8 is located 20 to 30 miles south of 

the i%m Basin Scenic area and mst of it is not visible fran the Mom Basin 

as it is shielded frcm view by June Wnmtain RiCge. The direction for the 

Mammth Escarpnent generally emphasizes retention of recreational and visual 

values. Future ski areas will only be developd after preparation of a 

feasibility study, cumulative impact study, and an envimmental analysis 

has been prepared, and the decision that a ski area can be developed without 

Managmt Area #8 - Mamoth Escarpnent. 

278 
VISUALS 

significant adverse impad, with proper mitigation, an all other "wces in 

the area. Logging in the heavy red fir area at the base of San Jcaquin Ridge 

will not take place during this plannirg pried which will allow for the 

study of the future ski potential and the area's other resource values in 

relation to the existing timber stands. 

at-": Managmt Area #4 - june Lake Loop. Please add to the first 

visud resource direztive: "coordinate viewshed policies with those of the 

~une Lake General Plan." In the fourth visual resource directive, please 

insert " . . .scenic resoucce and design element guideline. " ( 1638) 

FtESPONSE: We have added wording similar to your suggestions. 

CC"?l?: Management ?+rea #2 - Lee Vining. Please add the follmiq to the 

first visual resource directive: "Develop a similar viewshed analysis for 

U.S. 395 within this Mana.gemnt Area." (1638) 

RFSFQNSE: u.S. 395 only crosses a snall portion of Managenent Area #2 and 

that is not on public land but through the town of Lee Vining. The need for 

a corridor viewshed analysis will be identified in both Managenent Area #3 

direction and the Wm Basin National Forest Scenic Area Plan. 

U3": One of the main attributes of the Inyo National Forest, besides 

scenic splendors, is the current availability of unspoiled and undeveloped 

open space. Please don't sacrifice such values for other values wh~.ch in 

caparison are of negligible benefit to the American public. (5) (79, 481) 

RESKXSE: Prescriptions have been applied to 1.38 million acres or 71.7% of 

the Forest that do mt allow significant developnent or land modifications in 

the Plan. These include Prescriptions #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8 and #17. 

Open space is one of the primary values for all lands where these 

prescriptions are applied. Prescriptions #6, #9, #lo, #11, #16, and #18 

allaw for sane degree of developwrit and land rodification but, for the most 

part, muld pres- open space. These prescriptions total another 476,000 

acres or 24.6% of the Forest. Of the renainiq prescriptions, #12 and #14 

both have high levels of open space which would remain unless an area was 

developed as a ski area. Only Prescriptions #13 and #15 could be considered 

to not have open space that is "pacted by developent. These two 

prescriptions total 8400 acres or 0.4% of the Forest. open space is 

intapreted to mean mn-developed general use zones, both roaded and 

unroaded. In the Preferred Alternative this muld apply to over 99% of the 

Forest. 

CCNMEVE Plant screening vegetation to reduce the visual impact of the 

Convict sewer plant facility. (1099) 

"E: Wording has been added to the visual resoucce directior, for 

Managenat Area #11 specifically addressing your concern. 

279 
m: Can't -thing be done in the long-term to reduce the visual 

impacts of the Mammth-June Lake airprt and the existkg waste treatment 

plant? They are major developnents, but the Forest Service alluded them to 

go in where they did, and, therefore, has a responsibility along with the 

permittees of reducing the excessive impacts. (5) 

RESPONSE: The Forest Se?srice is in the press of exchangiq the aim to 

Wno County wb will then be the owner. Our Forest Plan will not apply to 

"public land, thus any input would be through the county plannirg process. 

The Forest Ssmrica input would be limited to ooncerns of the developnent 

affeding public land. 

m: Because of adverse visual impad, rn wind farms should be located 

near main highways or near any roads leading into the main canycols on the 

east side of the Sierra Nevada. Unless hidden by intervening rimes or 

trees, there should be no wind generators within two or three miles of 

highways. (382) 

RESPONSE: Current direction in the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines 

would not allcw a wind farm to be visible fran major highways because they 

would not meet the VQO of retention. This would apply to U.S. 395 and all 

other major recreation roads senring the intensively used dr-ges on the 

Forest as well as many other key roads, trails, streamside zones, and 

recreation sites. 

COkMRTR Management Prescription #16 - Nordic Ski Area, Visual Resources. 

We muld probably opt to use the VQO classification of partial retention as 

opposed to retention. (1013) 

RESF€INSE: The retention VQ3 is required only for marked trails, rot the 

entire area. Prescription #16 has been retitled "Dispersed Recreation. 'I 

CCM5TC: 

RESPONSE: Depending on the size and scope of a wind energy developnent, it 

may not be possible to meet Veos. Desirable locations are on ridgelines 

which, on this Forest, are highly visible for long distances. The contrast 

and mement involved in a wind farm developnent will make it difficult to 

mesh with the local landscape even when seen fran long distances. Any wind 

farm propal would be analyzed on a site specific basis. 

I don't see how wind energy will maintain Wk! (1634) 

C€MlEM': 

change the name. 

2 on Page IS-36. (1099) (1617, 1983) 

RESPONSE: The name was selected by the CamRlnity of Mamma Lakes. The mad 

is classified as a sensitivi+q level 1 road with a VQO of retention applied 

in foreground. Designation as a 

potential scenic highway is made by the State of Califomia: the actual 

Either manage the Mamma Scenic roOp Road for visual resouTces or 

The Scenic Lcop should be included in the list in Pzagraph 

This is a very restridive classification. 

280 
VISUALS 

propal must be made by the county before designation is made. The County 

has their ayn systsin of what they consider scemc highways. The Forest 

Senrice does not designate scenic highways and only included those highways 

that were so selected by the state in Paragraph 2. The visual resource 

management system tloes recognize those roads and highways fm which the view 

is important and the scenic resource should be maintained and/or enhanced. 

The Scenic Loop Road is one of those roads. 

CCwmNT,: Only 3.6 acres out of every 100 acres on the Forest are propsed 

for timber management, yet you also propose to limit the size of 0psnu-g~ to 

protect visual quality. It seems to us that artificial limits on the size of 

clearcuts can have a negative effect on visual quality Forest-wide. We think 

the concern over the visual aspects of clearcut size alone is misdmected. 

( 1432 ) 

RESPONSE: The limit on the size of a clearcut provides the upper limit of an 

acceptable size. Limitations on clearcuts cannot be related to the Forest as 

a whole but only to the area actually seen fran a key view point. Since the 

hamesting of timber can result in a large percentage of acres in a 

relatively snall area to be heavily modified, the lvnitation is important to 

preserve the very valuable visual and recreation attraction that is found in 

the Eastern Sierra. 

CCwmNT,: Consider the conflict between high level timber management and 

other values such as scenic mrridors and concentrated recreation areas. 

(1638) 

RESPONSE: High level timber management is mt allowed in the foreground 

zones of key scenic corridcas. The VQOS of retention and partial retention 

constxain the harvest of timber to levels that are visually acceptable. The 

VQO of retention nust be mt within all ccolcentrated recreation zones and 

often in the middleground and backgmmd zones outside of the concentrated 

recreation zones. Management directicol in Prescription #12 precludes any 

high level timber management within concentrated recreation zones and 

maintains the timber resource for its recreational and visual values. 

CXXMENE The aesthetics of overgrazing must be addressed. The degradation 

of the landscape frcm grazing mimanagement is highly visible. The more 

dramatic examples are the prevalent barren "scapes that are sheep bedding 

areas (often adjacent to streams or wetlands or in meaaauS), or the clouds of 

dust that denote where a thousand head of sheep trample the vegetation and 

soils, or the lack of streamside vegetation where livestock go to water and 

collapse the streambanks. The resulting landscape is in direct conflict with 

the visual quality and recreational goals for basin Forest lands. (1617) 

REEONSE: The cansequences section of the EIS does not identify any 

significant impact on the visual resource because of grazing. Visual impacts 

are those that are readily apparent to the casual observer and the general 

public. Most of the key viewpints are frcm mads, highways and recreation 

281 
~ 

VISUALS 

sites. Frann s appear to be an acceptable part of tk t 

g-al public as a positive element in the view. Grazing is almost always 

eliminated fmn heavily used recreation areas thus eliminating any conflicts 

with recreation developnents. Rnm a nwing vehicle it is unlikely for 

anyone but the trained range c"ationist or botanist to discern any 

changes in vegetation. In fact m3st users would not be aware of the changes 

if located along a trail. 

Bedding gnnmds g-ally are not of the scale to be perceived as visual 

modifications, even in forcg"d, and they would easily meet a retention 

m. Likewise, dust from mnring sheep bands does mt constitute a visual 

impact especially since it has no lasting effect and is borne away by the air 

currents. Range oriented facilities are usually of minor visual impact and 

consist of fences and water- devices. These are also usually accepted by 

the general public as part of the local landscape and they do mt loak out of 

place. 

None of the above constitute a visual impact that needs to be handled through 

mitigation in the Forest Plan. The one area where grazirg does ham a visual 

impact on the visual resource would be in sensitive riparian zones that are 

used by recreatianists. Impacts are usually on a lccalized basis and 

mitigated through the requirements to meet water and riparian "I 

standards. 

COEIMENI: Please include the Wmo Basin National Forest Scenic Area in your 

analysis of visual resources based upn previous discussions of the 

relationships between managerent of Scenic Area lands and other Forest lands. 

(DEIS IV-134) (1617) (278, 1617, 2170) 

RESFCNSE: The Forest Land Manag-t Plan was started long before the Scenic 

Area was established. It would ham delayed the Forest Plan beyond an 

acceptable length of time to canbine both efforts. The managanent direction 

for visual resources found in the Forest Plan will also apply to lands in the 

Scenic Area but stated separately in the Scenic Area Plan. l'iie direction in 

the Scenic Area Plan will be more detailed and site specific than that in the 

Forest Plan. 

a3M?~4T: preserve the natural scenic visual quality everywhere in the Inyo 

National Forest. (13) (8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 21, 22, 44, 1434, 1435, 1436, 

1437, 1438, 1439, 1440, 1441, 1442, 1443, 1444, 1445, 1446, 1447, 1448, 1449, 

1450, 1451, 1452, 1453, 1454, 1455, 1456, 1457, 1458, 1459, 1460, 1461, 1462, 

1463, 1632, 1981) 

RESmE: Through the application of visual quality objectives on every acre 

of public land, the visual quality of the Inyo National Forest is recognized 

and protected. Reductions in quality can only be made when identified and 

approved in public documents through the enviromtal analysis pmess. A 

primary value of the Inp National Forest is its visual resources. Much of 

the econany of the area is related, in part, to the outstanding scenic 

resources available. 

282 
VISUALS 

aX4Em: me ptential visual inpacts of ski towers aloq the san Joaquin 

ridge should be considered. These could be seen for miles on either side 

fran the Fusel Adam Wilderness to the west as well as ficm the wildlands all 

the way to U.S. 395 and beycmd. (1183) 

RESPONSE: The p1amir-g docsuments do not get to the level of detail required 

to relate to location of ski towers. DFrection will not be found on how to 

develop a potential ski area; the decision on whether or not to build the 

area has not been made yet. A full raqe of preliminary analyses, a 

feasibility study, and a EIS mld be ccmpleted before ski towers on San 

Joaquir~ Ridge could be dealt with. The visu*l resource impacts of a ski area 

develapnerrt would be analyzed tluougbut all of these study efforts with 

appropriate mitigation identified and implemented. 

CTXWDCC: The seen area fron U.S. 395 and State Highway 203 should be kept as 

visually attractive as possible; do not build any condo anplexes or 

high-rise buildmgs of any nature. The area is for recreational scenic use 

with the primary purpose of bzirq away fron large urbanized areas and into 

unspiled scenic wildaness areas. (1260) (1421, 1540, 1570, 1631, 1645, 

1983) 

RSPONSE: The diredion in the Forest Plan identifies the importance of the 

seen area as viewed fran U.S. 395 and State Highway 203. The visual quality 

objectives for foregromd zones is retention which would preclude any 

developnent that would be noticeable by the casual observer. Developnent in 

middleground views would have to meet either retention or peal retention 

VQa. This resirictive direction would apply only to public lands. Any 

developnent on private land would be 00ntrOlled visually by the county and 

the appropriate zonirg and regulatiom. Generally the Forest Plan would not 

have anything to do with high-rise ccoldos and buildings. The Forest Service 

is willing to work with local agencies to develop guidelines and mitigation 

as part of a local planning effort. 

m: June Lake Loop - Visual Resources. How are the visual impacts of 

the electrical power transmission facilities to be "mized? How are the 

impacts of the private land developwnts to be mitigated? Seems to be a 

general interest in minimzirg the visual impacts of the 115 kv transmission 

lines. Where might they be located which would mininuze their visual 

intrusions witbut adversely affecting a different viewshed? (1608) 

RESPONSE: Private land developnents will not be nutigated through direction 

in the Forest Plan. Visual impacts of private developnent will have to be 

mitigated through comty and cmmiunity Zoning and regulations; hmever, the 

Forest Service will work with local agencies to develop guidelines and 

mitigation. The 115 kv transmission lines currently impact much of the heavy 

use zone in the June Lake Loop both visually and physically. Direction for 

Managemnt Area #4 calls for a corridor viewshed analysis that would identify 

the degree of adverse impact of all perlines, including the 115 kv, and 

wDuld propose specific mitigation to correct these impacts. Included would 

be possible relocation mutes. These are not kr" at this time, but they 

would have to be in a less heavily developea area to meet visual quality 

283 
VISUALS 

objectives and mce conflicts with the many users and residents of the 

Loop. In areas heavily oriented bards recreation, a further level of 

planning called recreation canp3site plans will also deal with conflicts with 

utility lines both visually and physically in relation to recreation use and 

deVelOpnent. 

m: The Forest Service will f"age visually damaging projects such 

as ski developnent and gathennal developnent. (1632) (1530) 

RESPONSE: Both ski and geothermal dwelopnent Will entail SDme loss of 

visual quality due to the scope and nature of the developnent. Direction is 

adequate in the planning documents to protect the visual reso- in relation 

to ski area developnent and to establish the guidance for futwe planning and 

envt"enta1 documents. DireCtian is found in Prescriptions #13 and #14 and 

indiredl .on for Managemat Area #8. Direction providing guidance for 

geothennal developnent is not identified specifically relating to visual 

resources except that which is under visual resoucces in the Standards and 

Guidelines. Geothermal developnent and its impacts on the visual resource 

has been handled under a separate analysis process that looked at and 

evaluated leasing and developrent potential. These processes are 

administared by the BLM, Departm?nt of the Interior. Neither ski area nor 

geothermal developnents are encouraged by the Forest Semite but rather they 

are analyzed when proposed by private indusbry. The Forest Service then 

analyzes these areas in relation to all Forest goals and objectives and 

-tal cxmu3m.s. 

m: We oppose large clearcuts of timher within the viewshed area of 

Mammth Lakes. The visual integrity of the area sunmmdiq Manoth Lakes is 

an important part of your e"c base. Large clearcuts which are visible 

frun higher elevations are a visual blight, and the Plan should not allow 

this practice. (1884) 

RESPONSE: The manag-t and harvest of timber west of U.S. 395 has been 

changed to prescxipticm #9 - Uneven-Aged Timber Managmat. Large clearcuts 

will mt be utilized under this prescription. Small pup selection could 

create opnings not to exceed 3 to 5 acres. This change in direction is in 

response to public concerns relating to the heavy dispersed recreation 

orientation of forested lands adjacent: and north of Mamnoth. 

CSWEW: The mt unsettling of all impacts on Forest users fm the cities 

is the mtinued erosion of our high-coUntry viewshed. Lift towers, logged 

ski rum, roads and buildiqs that are already exis- in Marmoth and June 

Ski Resort are far too visible when viewed frcm adjacent National Park and 

Wilderness lands. (2191) 

RESWNSE: The direction for Management Area #8 which includes mst of the 

existing and potential ski areas states under visual resouTces "wnstruct all 

ski area developnent in Prescription #13 and #14 to meet the VQO of retention 

as seen fm trails and use areas in Management ?+rea #10 which is primarily 

284 
VISUALS 

wilderness. So, as explained above, m new ski area impruvements will be 

visible to the casual observer as seen fron wilderness. 

a3Z4ENT: This section defies understanding. It seems you have cone up with 

a qlicated formula to evaluate the visual resource. The Inyo Forest's 

greatest asset is its natural scernc beauty. I'm SuTe that the Plan is 

designed to protect and presem this valuable resource; hawever, it is 

difficult to understand how this is to be accatplished based on the Plan. I 

would suggest a mre simplified version that is mre easily understood. In 

terms of visual landscape qualities, a pup of people and cmiputers are 

deciding for the public's eyes what is pleasing for the eye to look at and 

what is mt. I find that aspect kind of sad because everyone views natural 

sunmms a lot differently. (33, 2199) 

RESPONSE: The visual resource maMgement system is mt an easy one to 

understand without mrkirg with it. It is a system that defines and provides 

direction for visual resource mgamnt in the Forest Service. Visual 

resources, to be recognized and protected, must cane fm a base that 

captures and describes basic landscape values and how they are seen. 

system will mt satisfy everyone mr was it intended to. Termira3lcgy used in 

the Plan is consistent with the system and the direction given for the land 

management planning process through all Forest Plans. 

-: Visual Resources. 

of the DWP aqueduct across Williams Butte? (278) 

RESPONSE: The visual direction for Manag-t Area #3 states that a corridor 

viewshed analysis and plan will be developd for the U.S. 395 corridor. This 

muld include mitigating as much as possible the scar created by the aqueduct 

on Williams Butte as part of this analysis. Since another level of planning 

is identified to handle site specific visual resource impacts in this area, 

m specific direction concerning the aqueduct would be included in the the 

Forest Plan. 

Can anytl-iiq be done about the cnnspicuous scar 

a": Visual resou1~3es. Do not allow new per lmes to cut through the 

area to serve potential geothermal plants. Also, do mt allow any new road 

consbction in the mgmt area west of U.S. 395 for logging or 

geothermal developrent. (278) 

RESPONSE: Powerlines serving geothermal developnent will be located to 

"ize the visual impacts and will be thoroughly reviewed during the 

planning and application phases. New lines will generally follow approved 

corridors that "ize impacts on all in-place values. The road system west 

of U.S. 395 is in place. Any new roads would be those needed for access to 

either recreation develapnents or geothermal developwnts. The roads 

generated for geothermal developrent muld generally be for adninistxative 

use only and not for public access. All new mads muld be short. 
-cc"w: Your SeCYxld diredive for visuals in Management Area #4 sounds 

geed, but how can you "ize the visual impacts of those lllOdlStrOUS p3wer 

plants? (1643) 

-E: Geothermal power plants and their attendant well sites and 

pipelines are major inpacts an the visual resource. These jmpcts are 

addressed through tbe -tal analysis process at the tints that a 

specific developnent is prop3sed. Mitigatim could include ~oper location, 

siting of facilities, ~oper coloratirm, design mdificaticns, use of 

topographic and vegetative saeeniq, and site rehabilitative measures. 

Avoidance of roads, trails, and areas of heavy recreatiDn use will also help 

to reduce the impacts. 

coEI*IENI: The area east and west of U.S. 395 should be designated "limited 

developnent" to retain the visual and scenic quality, prevent damage to Hot 

(seek, and protect the migration corridor and staging area for the Sherwin 

mule deer herd. There should be M airp3rt expansion and M hotels, golf 

courses, or CcBlVenticBl centers built. (140) 

RESPOBVSE: Visual resaurce- 'on for Management mas #9 and #11 Call for 

a corridor viewshed analysis and plan to analyze all visual inpacts along 

U.S. 395 and State Highway 203. Since this plan will be tiered to the Forest 

Plan, specific direction aimed towards on-the-ground impacts should not be 

added here. The corridor viewshed analysis will be oriented towards Gacts 

m public lands, however, private land inpacts will be identified with 

suitable mitigation recamnended to the appropriate agencies. 

CC": All of these five prop3sed areas have a higher scenic value than 

developnent value. A need for expansion of ski capacity in the Irryo must be 

irrevocably proven. (1775) 

RESME: All potential ski areas identified in the Plan have outstanding 

visual quality and each area occupies an important segment of the landscape 

as seen fm many key viewpints fran Mammth to June Lake and north. The 

value of the visual resource will have to be weighed and meshed with the 

demand for downhill skiing as well as many other resources. The analysis 

that will identify the many resource values and determine the best mix of 

uses for these areas will be ccmpleted independent of the Forest Plan. 

m: Change the existing text to: "Timber managanent must meet or 

exceed the visual quality objectives of retention in potential concentrated 

and dispersed recreation areas: timber managanent openings should be limited 

to 5 acres or less." People do not travel hundreds of miles to the Inyo to 

view timber managemnt openings but to enjoy the Forest! (2170) 

RESEX3S.E: Managanent direction in prescription #12 - concentrated Recreation 

Area for timber states "apply selection, stand maintenance and other 

silvicultural methods to maintain or enhance the recreation benefits and 

attractions created by a healthy and vigomus multi-aged stand." This 

diredion would not allm clearcuts. Visual reSOUrCe direction for the same 

286 
VISUALS 

pmscxiptim states "met the VQO of retention with inplemmtaticm of all 

other T~SOUTCB activities". This direction applies to all proposed 

mtrated recreaticm areas, both developed and undeveloped. 

m: Reg- the Affected F"mBI t section for visual resources, 

the value of red fir to wildlife, soil and visual quality is far greater than 

its value as a harvest species. See the separate section on timber issues 

for a discussion of red fir's "Uneconanic" market status. (2170) 

"E: The 'on in the Final Plan will remcnre the red fir fm the 

available timber base for this planning periOa. The red fir will be managed 

for its values for recreation, wildlife, watershed, and visuals. 

m: 

major roads. 

U.S. 395. (1631) 

"E: Thedirec'h 'on for the foreground zone alorq U.S. 395 is to meet a 

retention VQO which means a multi-aged stand should be visible to the casual 

observer. This includes ma- stands of trees that should be maintained in 

this corridor. This ocolcern is addressed in the Forest-wide Standards and 

Guidelines. 

View corridors consisting of mature forest should be left alcolg the 

Much of the public Perception of the Forest is the view frat 

C€#MWT.: Saving a strip along the highways for visual impact is a sad 

connentazy on manag-t. Walkirg beyond the brder and finding gravel pits, 

trash, loss of the forest and prime qualities. (1900) 

REsFCNSE: 

a particular piece of land. 

visual resource in high recreation use areas. 

Visual resource managemsnt is depenaent up the use allocated for 

Managenent direction protects and enhances the 

CXBMmT: What can be &ne to raise the VQO degraded by the st~ctures atop 

Mamoth Mountain? I would like to see this issue addressed in the Plan or 

the EIS. (2185) (1924) 

RESKWSE: The management diredim for existing ski areas allms developent 

to meet a VQO of partial retention which means that facilities will be 

visible but subordinate to the si"- landscape. Any facilities that do 

not meet that direction will be mitigated, usually through the su~nner 

operating and developtent plan. The .two stmctures that currently may rat 

meet the partial rebation VQO m the lift tower on top of Lincoln Wuntain 

and the top ter"1 of Chair 23. Priorities for establishing visual 

rehabilitation projects are found in the Forest-wide Standards and 

Guidelines. 

CClWD4T: The Plan needs to specifically address Slci areas. What will be 

done to bring the current ski areas up to the VQO of partial retention? 

Since a request for partial retention is mt likely to be met by future ski 

287 
VISUALS 

areas, a mre stringent objective of retention needs to be applied to these 

areas. Partial retention cannot be expcted to satisfy the public's visual 

expectation, especially visitors in the ~-SIMW season. National Forests 

are visual resources as much as they are resources for other ccimvx3 'ties and 

values. (2185) 

RESEXNSE: Exist- ski areas sutmit a smnex operating plan for developwnt 

of nms, lifts, and base area modificatims. Included are pmjeds that will 

correct visual impads that do not meet the partial retention VQO. These 

mjects are analyzed through the envircovnen tal analysis process which will 

identify the specific actions and mitigation required to rehabilitate the 

impact. This site specific dirmtion skdd not be placed in the Forest Plan 

which is a long range planning document, rat a year to year program of wrk. 

New ski area developnent would rot be possible if a VQO of retention was the 

applicable VQ3. The major mcern relating to the visual impacts of ski area 

developtent is with the sumner visitor. If a major developnent such as a ski 

area meets partial retention, it will not create an unacceptable visual 

impact for the average sumner visitor. Direction is located in the Plan for 

new ski area developrent to meet a retention VQO as seen frcm wilderness. 

This is more restrictive than the existing direction m the mth-Pbm Unit 

Plan. 

m: The boundary line of Madera-Morm County Wescription #14 in the 

Preferred Alt-tive should be adjusted to meet the visual quality objective 

of preservation fmn the wilderness area. (1845) 

RESFGNSE: All wilderness will autanatically receive a VQJ of preservation 

right up to the designated wilderness bundaq. In this case the wilderness 

boundary is located 300 feet west of the San Joaquin ridgeline and the 

Mxm-Madera County line fran lbm Teats Peak south towards Minaret Sumit. 

Arrything east of the legal bmndary will be assigned a retention VQO. If a 

ski area is ever developd alorg this ridge, it will have to meet a retention 

v(x, as viewed frcm the wilderness to the west and a partial retention VQ3 as 

viewed frcm U.S 395 to the east. Preservaiaon VQ% are only used for 

classified areas such as wilderness and RNAs where developnent of any kind is 

prohibited. 

m: The visual quality objective of preservation should be applied to 

all views frcm the wilderness areas as well as views within wilderness areas. 

(1891) (225) 

RESFGNSE: All lands not mered by a special classification are subject to 

the multiple use concept which may include developnent or land ncdifications 

depndiq upn the mix of uses on that particular piece of land. The 

preservation VCXI only applies to land where developnent is mt allawed such 

as wilderness or RNAs. To apply the preserJation VQO outside of wilderness 

mld mean applying wilderness management policy to lands not so designated. 

Managaent is sensitive to how impacts outside of wildemess are viewed fran 

users inside wilderness, and every effort is made to reduce visual impacts as 

much as pssible. lfamrer, wildemess boundaries often are located 

288 
imnediately adjacent to developed and -pied zones which make it impossible 

to eliminate all modifications fm view. 

CiXmWT: The Forest Plan manag-t emphasis should note that there is an 

opportunity to co3rdinate with local plannirg efforts to mtain and enhance 

the visual quality of the area. (1638) 

RESKNSE: Visual resource managenent direction for Management Area #4 - June 

Lake Loop and Managwent Area #8 - Mamnoth Escarpnent calls for mrdmation 

with the local cormunities and Pkm~ county to develop scenic resource 

elements and guidelines for both public and private lands. In many other 

management areas, specific direction is found that calls for coordination 

with numerous other agencies. 

CtXm?AT: It was not possible to deter” the visual 

effects on the Forest without one. This must be an oversight as all other 

Forests provided a VQO map. Since visual quality is one of the main assets 

of the Inyo Forest, it is surprising that thexe wasn’t a map. (5) 

RESPONSE: A VQO map has been included in the map packet for the final 

documents. 

There was no VQ3 map! 

m: Please add to the first visual resources directive: “Work with 

local jurisdictions to develop design standards for dwelopent at or 

adjacent to the airprt.” (1638) 

“E: The Forest Plan and visual resource system does not apply to 

private land. Haiever, the corridor viewshed plan identified for Management 

Area #9 which includes the airport would identify all developnents withm the 

corridor that visually detract fm the scenic resource. Direction and 

mitigation UI that amidor viewshed study would call for workmg with local 

agencies to resolve visual problems. The Forest Service would also respond 

through any solicited re-e in the review of any proposed projects. 

WATER 

m: Managwent Area #9 - Mamnoth. For watershed, add: “Satisfy 

mcipal water needs after natural resource needs have been met.” For 

Management Area #7 - upper 0.m-1.~ River, add this element for watershed: 

“Give clrmulative natural resource needs priority over municipal needs. (2170, 

2179 ) 

RESF’CRiSE: Language svnilar to pur suggestion has been added to direction 

for Manag-t Areas #8 and #9. 

289 
Utm": The Draft Plan states that the Service Md "Initiate 

negotiatims with the city of Los Angeles Deparhnent of Water and Power to 

manage Grant Lake ReserWir for the enhancement of recreation, visual, and 

other natural resource values." We are open to discuss such matters; 

hawever, since Grant Lake is an aqu&ct storage and operational "res~voiir", 

water levels will fluctuate greatly at different times of the year, and fmm 

year to year. The reservoir is currently managed, to the extent possible, to 

benefit recreational activities (with abut 94,200 visitor days per year), 

but the very reason for the dam and the reservoir is to allm the Department 

to effectively manage the flaw of water to the City. We are concerned that 

this issue (and other water related issues) are bejng elevated to the level 

of a plicy which very likely could have an effect on the City's water 

rights. ( 1093 ) 

RES-E: The goals of negotiations with LADWP are to manage Grant Lake to 

maintain lake elevations during the recreation season (May 25- oct 31) within 

a specific range, and to manage the lake level during spring to minimize 

inundation of spring spawning fish redds (nests). The tem "negotiate" is 

intended to mean that the agencies can agree on a manag-t scheme. No 

intent exists to impact the City's water rights or impair the latitude to 

exercise lcolg established rights. If alteration of present management would 

not impair the City's 0pratia-s and benefit the public's enjoyment of the 

area, then all parties benefit. 

CCMF"F: We must preserve our mst prized resource, water. Allming 

developnent of the Glass Qeek emsystein, around our muntam lakes, or by 

Continuing to fill in our marsh lands such as hetween Gull Lake and June 

Lake, or anxlnd any lake in the Sierra is a crh of irreversible magnitude. 

( 420 ) 

RESFfXSE: Application of Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for water, 

riparian zones and soils will avoid irretrievable and irreversible lasses to 

wetland eOOSyStemS on the Forest. 

CCMF"F: In subsequent years, it should be made a part of the "itorkg 

plan to document the magnitude of sham remveq, the effectiveness of the 

corrective action, and detennine the need for further work. (2190) 

"E: The rmnitoring plan reflects a program that the Forest can 

implement. 

CCtmWT: The Plan and DEIS indicate that new mineral extraction, geothennal 

energy and hydroelectric power plant developnent activities may occur. We 

wish to review and consider issuing waste discharge requirements for any new 

mining, mineral extraction, gathennal energy or hydroelectric powerplant 

developnent activity within OUT region. (1939) 

RESPONSE: Activities which could occur under the Forest Plan are subject to 

the same regulations as are activities which OCCUT under the current Plan. 

The need to evaluate the waste discharge potential of proposed projects is 

290 
included in these regulations. “ally, anmumication with the Lahontan 

Board is the resp3nsibility of the project pmpment. 

C€B”l’: Management Area #14 - Rock -/Pine Creek. under watershed, add: 

‘“nitor the tuqsten mine tailings and make sure that they are either 

remwed or stabilized so they will not degrade the water quality or 

streambanks of Pine creek.“ 

IUSFCNSE: Before 

any closure, the permit requires subnittal of a shut-down and closuce plan 

for Forest Service approval. The tailing pcolds and the issue of water 

quality muld be addressed in such a plan. 

The fzurgsten mine is operated under a special use permit. 

m: Management Area #19. Stress rewatering Cottonwood Cr& to impwildlife habitat. (1616) 

“E: 

Plan. 

A statement similar to your suggestion was includ+ in the Draft 

It has been rewDrded and is also included in the Final Plan. 

Cci”: Management Area #4 - June Lake Loop, watershed element (Plan 

IV-96). Current adherence to the June bbuntain EPP still allows for “A 

shutdam of water treatment system for 30 days or mre each year.” Tkis is 

inexcusable and a violation of 36 CFR 219.27(E). The EPP guidelines must be 

s-. (1634) 

RESKINSE: The sentence quoted from the municipal watersheds stops short of 

the projected resolution statement in the following sentence. This section 

was written in 1984 and since that time the streamflow in Twin Springs has 

met or exceded water qwality standards. There has not been a violation 

since 1984. 

Cci”: The Forest Senrice should exercise its authority to restore the 

many Eastern Sierra streams that have been altered, diverted and dried up by 

water developnent interests. The Forest Service should work together with 

the California Department of Water Resources to ensure that our stream 

ocoltinue to flow for the enjoyxmt of all Forest users. (1579) (65, 89, 139, 

225, 294, 298, 1160, 1608, 1617, 1629, 1634, 2178) 

“E: Certain aspects of the restoration question will be addressed in 

the public trust case centered around Mmi~ Lake. The additional streams 

impacted by past diversions are either legislated by Congress, predate the 

Forest and the California Division of Water Flights, or have been federally 

adjudicated. These are beyond the Control of the Forest Senrice and will be 

dealt with on a case-by-case basis as an opportUnity may arise for 

negotiation with all parties concemed. 

291 
CXXWSW: We feel the Inyu should implement the watershed imprwemmt needs 

at an average rate of 350 acres per year as proped in the Preferred 

Alternative. (2179) 

RESPONSE: The Forest Service does not have the manper or funds to obtain 

this goal. It is a desirable goal but unrealistic. The Preferred 

Alternative reflects a realistic goal considerig mqmer, funding and other 

resource needs. 

CtX”: Plan 111-13 p-es to use Best Managwent Practices in order to 

meet water quality objectives. Acoording to the Federal Water Quality 

Condl Act, federal agencies mst mly with state water standards which 

require shewing me than just BMps. (2183) (2213) 

RESF€INSE: Application of ENPs is used to assure the Forest Senrice canplies 

with state water standards when addressig norpint sources of pollution. 

BMP application does not override state standards. 

a@ND?l!: We strcolgly urge that the Forest Plan contain a provision for 

”itorig water quality throughout the Forest with the goal of returning to 

100% pure water. (2183) 

RFSPONSE: P4XLtori.q water quality Forest-wide is not necessarily desirable 

for the best use of public funds. Forest personnel k” where most of the 

problems are and Cancentrate on these areas. Retwmirg the water to 100% 

pure is unrealiskc. 

COIMWT: A mnbined analysis of the total project (city, county, state and 

federal lands) should include identification and quantification of water and 

other psible resource limitations such as conflicts with wildlife habitat 

(e.g., deer migration routes), water quality and quantity, and wildemess 

quality mdless area managment. No new ski developnent shDuld be apprwed 

until the Inyo’s Final Plan is acbpted. (2170) (181, 487, 1617, 1638,) 

“E: Grwdh inducaient and associated impacts identified under each 

alternative are projections based on the best infomation available at the 

time of the analysis. The impacts are assumed and may not actually CCCLU. 

Cn a broad scale, the Plan identifies appropriate uses of National Forest 

lands. However, the decision to allocate resou~ces and lands does not stop 

at the finalization of the Plan, but will be made on a case-by-case basis. 

The apprwal of growth-inaucirg activities and the associated changes would 

be based on the site specific and emulative impact analysis of the project 

as identified in an enviroMlenta1 document. The fact that current 

projectians suggest such a change, emphasizes the need for detailed analysis 

at the time of specific project evaluations. 

m: The supply and demand section doss not reflect the extensive 

discussion throughout the DEIS ccolcerning the tremendous impacts suffered by 

292 
the water resource and water-dewdent resources fm water diversions. The 

consumption of water by other parties outside the Forest's primary zone of 

influence is in conflict with Forest management activities and mandates (see 

CFR 219.27(E)). Mention the accaupanying desiccation of streams, the 

destmction of riparian vegetation, the lcwering of water tables, major 

erosion of streambanks, and penrasive stream channel instability caused by 

these diversions. The public should be informed of the consequences of 

over-diversion. (2170) 

RESPONSE: The affected environment section describs the impacts of past 

water diversions on the water, riparian and fisheries resources on and off 

the Forest. The intent to describe non-forest lands was to give a picture of 

the amulative impacts that have resulted fm past management decisions and 

emphasize the hpxtance of remaifllng resources. The Forest does mt control 

nor have authority on the non-federal lands. The Forest and other land 

management agencies reccgnize ramifications of management decisims on 

adjacent lands, and attmpts to cmrdinate management activities to recognize 

and alleviate off-forest impacts. 

aVNJ3?T: Water Quantity. The DEE, Consequences of the Preferred 

Alternative, states that the demand for ground and surface waters is 

projected to be -le existing supplies. This is a red-flag situation that 

needs to be addressed. (1650) (49, 225, 319, 320, 1333, 1432, 1547, 1556, 

1576, 1631, 1634, 1795, 1891, 1924, 1981) 

RESPONSE: The Forest coordinates with the ccmrmnities expcting to incur 

gzwdth as a result of Forest Service activities. It is the intent of the 

oz"ities and the Forest to have the water supply proven prior to obtaining 

the go-ahead on developnent. 

aVNJ3?T: The anticipatd 5% rise of wnsmptive water needs over the next 50 

years (111-37) seems unrealistically snall in light of the anticipated rise 

of developea recreatimal use during the same period (111-26). Any 

discussion in the Plan or DEIS referring to potential increase in water yield 

on the Forest (e.g. Plan 111-36, DEIS 111-116), should be qualified by the 

statement that the FPA goals for water proaUction for 2030 have already been 

exceeded by more than 1IX)% (Plan IV-13, DEIS 111-109). (118, 1631) 

RESPONSE: The 5% increase in water use is projected for the Forest Service 

facilities. Most of the increase in water use is associated with developd 

recreation increases, particularly ski area developnent. The local 

oz"ities, not the Forest Service, will be responsible for supp1yi.q the 

mcceased demand for danestic needs. The FPA was an estimate made in the 

late 1970's and was inaccurate at the time of conception. There is little or 

no opportunity for increase of water yields on this Forest. Th~s is 

explained in the FEIS. 

aWE"R We suggest altering the statement in the Plan on Page 111-36 to 

read, "There is little, if any, opportunity for additional reservoir capacity 

293 
WATER 

or for haeashq water outputs by vegetation management, and M necessity to 

do so. Fifty year RPA goals for water output are already far exceeded. 

Further attempts to increase water yield would cause unacceptable levels of 

-tal damage. " ( 1631 ) 

REspoBvsE: The RPA was an estimate made in the late 1970's and was inamate 

at the time of cxnception. There is little to 1y3 opportunity for increase of 

water yield on this Forest. This is explained in the FEIS. We feel the 

statement in the Plan is accurate. 

CCEMENT: Is estimated demand for water ,to supply ski areas "1200 acre-feet 

over the next 25 years" as stated in the Plan, or 1200 acre-feet per year 

over the next 25 years? (1548) 

RSFWSZ: The FEIS and Final 

Plan will be wrreded. 

The correct figure is 1200 acre-feet per year. 

m: Additional growbh in recreation activities must recognize impacts 

on the services provided in the Town of Mammth Lakes. The water provided by 

surface diversion in Lake Mary and one ground water supply well. hriq less 

than 100% normal precipitation years, the District cannot utilize its full 

ccastraints and the re@ram~ts of various water managemsnt agreements. The 

District has drilled a large nunhr of wells at 10 separate locations amund 

the cnmnmity, but only one well is producing water of a quantity that can be 

supplied as a potable damstic supply. We must be permitted to adquately 

explore the potential ground water - located under Forest Service 

lands. The additional developnent of any recreational activities in the 

vicinity of Mammth Lakes is dependent: upon that acquisition of additional, 

econanically viable sources of 6mssb. 'c water supply. (1259) (1638) 

"E: The Mammth County Water District is actively Pursuing the 

exploration of groundwater n?sources. The Forest Service supprts this 

effort and is cooperating with the MCWD. 

the Mammth County Water District presently comes fm just two sources, the 

m: The demand for water in June Lake will also likely grow quickly as 

additional ski area developrent cccur~, and it may be necessary for the 

Forest to transfer certain water rights to local oarmunities to provide for 

the local growth generated fran Forest activities such as ski area expansion. 

( 1638 1 

RESPONSE: The Forest Service has worked closely with the June Lake Public 

Utilities District and assists them in obtaining sufficient water for their 

presfnt and future needs. The Forest has transferred the right to use water 

to the JLPUD but will not transfer water rights if Forest Service facilities 

are beiq served by this water. 

m: 

needs are mt" should be retained in the Final Plan. (2190) 

"Satisfy municipal water supply needs after the natural resources 

294 
RESPONSE: 

and #9. 

Language similar to this has been added under Management Areas #8 

C"W: The operating agremnt between the Forest service and the Mammth 

Cbunty Water District indirectly specifies a total yearly flaw of 8991 acre 

feet, as measured at the flume by old Highway 395. Wen tbough the total 

yearly flow for the 1984-85 water year was 12,107 acre feet or 72.2% of the 

55 year mean, the minimum flows as set forth in the operating agreement were 

violated several times during the sumner of 1985. This would suggest that 

Ue sunnier flows will be belaw the required "m when the total yearly 

flow is less than 72% of the long term mean. The historical record shows 

that the total yearly flaw has been less than 72% of the 55 year mean 22 

times (40% of the years) since 1932-33. If the MCWD is successful in 

developing the ground water in Mamma Meadow, they could divert water frm 

the creek and thereby decrease the flaw at the old 395 flume. This could put 

the "I in violation of the operating agreemat more frequently than in the 

past. It is important to maintain the flows in Mammth creek during the 

sumner to attract tourists and fishermen to the area. (1547) 

RESFUNSE: MCWD is cooperating with other government entities on water 

management in the Mammth (seek Basin. They are actively seeking additional 

water supplies by exploring ground water and other surface water resources. 

CSWMENF: Ground water and surface water resources. Solid waste dipal 

practices should be discussed and the potential for impacts assessed, 

including tbose fm any permitted municipal or county sanitary landfills 

with the National Forest. The statement does not address waste water, 

sewage, or solid waste diqmsal. The FEIS should discuss the types and 

operational efficiency of waste water and sewage disposal facilities in the 

Forest and assess the potential for impacts fran such facilities on the hman 

environment, particularly on ground water and surface water resources. (1576, 

487) (181, 1638) 

RESPONSE: The private land 

base adjacent to the Forest can supply this service. Waste water and sewage 

is regulated by the State Water Quality Control Board according to the 

Lahontan Basin Water Quality Plan. Specific envi"enta1 impacts associated 

with sewage and waste water are addressed on a site-qxdfic analysis versus 

the broad land allocations in the Forest Plan. 

There are m sanitary landfills on the Forest. 

COMMENT: Water mality. The statement in the EIS that bacterial problems 

are "small and localized" ignores the problem of gima. While lack of 

testing precludes designating which waters are mt contaminated, it is 

generally accepted that most Sierra waters are contaminated with giardia and 

people are well advised to treat all water that does not ccme out of a 

faucet. Page IV-147, Paragraph 3 should include the fact that cattle are 

lomwn to harbor giardia, a waterbme disease which lnfects humans. (167, 

1650) (91, 1248, 1617, 1634, 2170) 

295 
WATER 

RESFQNSE: Cattle, horses, ckgs, ooyote, beaver and humans are all hosts for 

giardia. All water is recDmnended for tceatmmt prior to human consumption. 

rxWE": Opp3se further water quality dwadation in the i"th and Hot 

CYeek drainages. mion associated with winter sports developwnt is 

increasing: the sediment load into mth creek and adcXtional degradation 

can be expeded as - slopes are cleared for developnent. Erosion control 

efforts need to be increased if out&andmg ' fisheries resoucces of the area 

are to be preserved and standards: set by the State Regional Water eUality 

Control Board are to te met. Cumulative watershed impacts must be evaluated 

before a new project is pcmnittd. (1248) (91, 139, 167, 278, 281, 1010, 

1269, 1650, 1776, 1932, 1939, 2183) 

"E: This CQrment is incorrect. The water quality off both Mammth and 

June Mxntains has been imp- in the last 5 years and has met waste 

discharge requirement levels for the last two years. It is the intent of the 

Forest Service and the ski industry to meet or exceed standards. Refer to 

the facilities directian for Managwent Areas #4 and #8 regwiling a 

emulative effects study for future developnent. 

CCMR?T: We are cxmcernd about potential water quality impacts of other 

types of chmcals which could be used in Forest actimties, including fire 

retardants and fertilizers. (1939) 

RESFQNSE: Chemicals used by the Forest are subject to OSHA regulations and 

other federal and state laws regulating their use and application. The 

Forest will ccmply with all existkg laws and regulations. An envimmtal 

analysis will be perfonxed to assess the risk of using the chemicals versus 

other measures of achieving the goal. The analysis will also document the 

measures needed to protect water quality and canply with regulations. 

CCMR?T: Definitions of "consistent" resomce damage or abuse and 

"unacceptable" changes in water quality. These terms should be specifically 

defined so the Forest Service workers can objectively determine when criteria 

are not being met. (2170) 

RESPONSE: Water quality standards are quantified in the Lahontan Basin Water 

Quality Control Plan. Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines spell out the 

standards for mgmt and define the unacceptable resource damage level. 

. CCMR?T: A more detailed evaluation of specific contamination problems is in 

order. Increased grazing on sensitive stream reaches and meadows, continued 

illegal OW use and/or new timber harvest in the "ache area could have 

significant impacts (HI water quality. The potential impact of the continued 

or expanded use of off-road vehicles (OW) on water quality should be 

adequately addressed. The use of OWs in or near surface waters may result 

in increased erosion and/or sedimentation. (1632, 2178, 1939) 

296 
WATER 

RESPQNSE: The Forest Plan is a land allocation document that sets priorities 

for the Forest in its management. A site specific evaluation is performed on 

all projects. Timber management and increased grazing in mche are not 

proposed in the Plan. prescription #17 limits motorized vehicle use to 

existing roads result- in no new road construCtion. The Forest has 

assigned a patrolman in the mche area to police and manage the OW use, 

thereby reducm adverse impacts to water quality. . 

COt@ENR Analysis of the PRF and CEE Alternatives say mthing abut the 

impacts of grazirg on water quality (Page IV-150-151). 9% and 12% increases 

in grazing will have impacts on water quality which should be discussed. 

(167) 

RESPONSE: The Final Plan maintains grazing at existing levels. 

CCNMl3W: The statement on Page IV-147, Paragraph 3 that "continued grazing 

will not generally increase sedimentation" is unfounded. Sedimentation will 

increase with mtinued grazing, although the sedimentation rate may ranam 

constant. Forest Service should analyze how the sedimentation rate will 

charge under the various alternatives. The statement -lies that the 

sedimentation rate will remain wnstant under the Preferred Alterative, which 

is not true, since the preferred Altemative calls for a 9% increase in 

grazing. (167) 

RESPONSE: Any proposed increases in grazing are projected on transiton range and upland 

vegetation. Implementation of the Prefexred Alternative will result in a net 

decrease in accelerated erosion associated with grazing. Watershed and fish 

imp"nt projects will create a net decrease in sediment due to headcut 

and gully restorahon, and overall netnvxrement in riparian resources. These 

are the key areas for maintenance and inp"at of water quality. 

The Final Plan maintains grazing at existing levels overall. 

CCPIMENP: 

protect the water quality and the riparian areas frcm human impacts. (607) 

RESFONSE: Individual assessments will 

be made on each restoration project to determine the best method for 

Your Plan should be specific for each stream as to how you plan to 

The Plan was not designed to ck, this. 

protection. 

CXBWiNT: Watershed, Plan 111-36. Stmmg" this section by stating, "The 

enforcerent of water rights for non-c"ptive (instream) uses such as fish, 

wildlife and riparian habitat and visual quality.". It is incorrect to say 

that "changes muld have to ou3u~ legislatively at the state level in order 

to provide water rights for instream values.". The Forest SeIvice has and 

should exert its pre-existing riparian and littoral rights. (1617) 

FESFXINSE: 

of most Management Area direction. 

Forest Service will pursue through negotiation or legal 'SnS the 

Language with this intfnt can be found in the watershed elements 

297 
WATER 

m: The Scenic Area is tied directly to the upland management areas by 

way of shared watersbds. Activities at the headwaters - potentials for 

water di-ians, mining, OW and lunbring - will affect water quality and 

riparian habitat and ernriranmen tal relatimships depenaent upcol it 

daynstream. (1608) 

RESECNSE: 

the MOM) Basin Scenic Area Plan. 

The watersheds as a wble will be analyzed in the water portion of 

m: Stress recwering lost resomces by returned water to Mill, Parker, 

Lee Vining and Wilson Creeks. (1616) (88,. 129, 134, 140, 491, 934, 986, 1412, 

1608, 1617, 1629, 1632, 1638, 1723, 1952, 2060, 2170) 

RESPONSE: This will be addressed in the Wnm Basin Scenic Area Plan. 

CCWlEW: Return the Mmo Lake to 1940‘s average depth. (303) 

RESPONSE: This will be addressed in the Mono Basin Scenic Area Plan. 

m: Regarding the Affected hviromt discussion on 111-52, i%m Basin 

National Forest Scenic Area, water resoucces in the Eastern Sierra are 

precious, finite and already severely inpacted by water exports and 

hydroelectric diversions. Canpting uses for the rem“g water have 

s.tretched available supplies to a aangerouS degree. Any pmpsed new 

developnents, whether industrial (e.g. geotT”al) or recreational (e.g. ski 

developent), must be carefully considered in light of the limited supply of 

water. Increased consumption of water south of the MOM) Basin - water that 

muld have gone into the LA aqueduct - could mean increased exports frun MOM) 

Basin streams. The Forest Service must thoroughly analyze such projects to 

ensure that unacceptable cmsmption of water does not cccur. Wfy “The 

Scenic Area is not likely to conflict seriously with activities on adjoiniq 

Forest Lands.“ In fact, it is obvious that the Scenic Area and adjacent Inyo 

lands are closely interrelated; proximity ermres that adverse impacts on one 

directly affect the other. (2170) 

RESFUNSE: This will be addressed in the WJKJ Basin Scenic Area Plan. 

.. 

cX”r: A minimum 

flow should be established (and enforced) to protect fisheries and riparian 

Lee Vining - winter flow depletion should be disallowed. 

areas. (1988) 

RESPONSE: This will be addressed in the Mono Basin Scenic Area Plan. 

a)MMEEpT: The Forest Service should enforce a policy ensuring a viable lake 

level, a healthy ecosystem, and natural flaw conditions for Iyljno Basin 

streams. zls it did in the past, the Forest Service should play an active role 

in “J sure of a healthy lake level. In 1979, there was Forest Service 

participation on the Mom Lake Task Force which helped develop the 

298 
recoRnended plan dch would have reW the Lake to the 1970 level of 6388 

feet. (2170) 

WBFONSE: This will be addressed in the Basin Scenic Area Plan. 

m: DEIS, Afff?cted Eb"mm t (S-18). The description of the Wum 

Lake region should include a brief discussion of water diversions, their 

past, current and potential impacts to the area's scenic, wildlife, 

recreational and air quality values. (1617) 

RES-E: This Will be included in the WJID Basin Scenic Area Plan. 

m: Plan IV-119 refers to "rewatering" portions of the Owens River 

me. The City "s riparian lands alcolg bth sides of the Owens River 

Gorge, as well as the water rights. The Forest Service's concern about "lost 

~'esou~ces" has already been addressed by the Hot Ck-& Agrement, executed 

mre than 4 years ago. The Hot CYe& Agreement, entered into between the 

State and the City of Los Angeles, provides mitigation measures for the 

dewa.tering of the W River Gorge for pmer generation purposes. As a 

natural part of the water diversion projects and the (xuens Gorge mer 

project, the City constructed Long Valley Darn, which created Crewley Lake 

Reservoir. This facility, in addition to the benefits bestowed by the Hot 

Oxek Agreement, more than replaces the fishery in the Owens Gorge. The Plan 

should also address the question of replacing the energy generat- capacity 

lost to the City should water be returned to the Owens Gorge. (1093) 

RJBFXSE: If the 

opportunity arises, the Forest Service is interested in discussing 

alternatives on this issue. 

The Plan states that it is desirable to mater the Gorge. 

m: Plan IV-133 discusses rewateriq sections of Big Pine and. Division 

Creeks. The City is legally entitled to &vert water from both Big Pine and 

Division Q-eeks. The City has a pre-1914 water right to divert from Division 

(=reek for municipal power use, as well as a State Water Resources control 

Emrd licensed applicatian to divert water from Scotty's Spring, a tributary 

of Division -. Big Pine CXeek is "ally wet below the Department's 

intake. This creek has rot been oanpletely dewatered. The City's 

hydrcelectric facility at Division Chek has the capacity and the right to 

divert a "I of 8 cfs, but on a yearly average, only 6 cfs is diverted. 

(1093) 

RESPONSE: Re"l of greater than 99% of the water &mng the 9 month low 

flow season does constitute nearly dewatering the stream, but we do recOgnize 

that Big Pine Creek is wet. The Plan states to negotiate with a goal of 

recovering lost resources. This inqlies that there will be discussion with 

attempts to develop a mrkable solution. The Forest Service recognizes the 

City's valid claim to the water. 

299 
U": We support Fish and Game's proposal that the Forest implement the 

GAWS methodology for the measurement of stream and channel degradation fm 

grazing or other potential stream disturbances. We encourage the Forest 

Service to work in oooperation with Fish and Game in the dete"tion of 

the best monitoring, managanent and restoration strategy including correction 

or elhination of the causes of degradation. (1617) (79, 281, 1433, 1608, 

1638, 2170) 

FUSPONSE: We have added a Forest-wide Standard and Guideline under 

Threatened and Endangered Fish that states the Forest Senrice will be using a 

guantitative methodology suzvey such as WS, C?XFISH, etc. 

aPMl3TC: H@mlogic analysis should be conducted to determine the msst 

effective means of desirability of streambank stabilization and/or instream 

structures based upon the hydrologic nature of the stream. We would 

appreciate an opportunity to participate with Forest personnel m devisirg a 

5-year action plan which will define priority waters to be worked on. (2190) 

RESKNSE: Hydrologic analysis is always pesformea prior to implementation of 

a watershed or fishexy project. has an open door policy 

on recarmendaticms for restoration activities. We would appreciate any 

suggesticas. The Forest has an existing plan for watershed and fisheries 

restoration. 

The Forest Senrice 

CCW3EW: 

or in addition to acres (Page 11-57). (2190) 

RFSPONSE: Both methods are useful and acceptable but we will continue using 

acres which are derived frun stream miles. We are followiq Regional 

direction in using acres to provide consistency with other Forest Plans. 

It would be helpful to refer to stream habitat by miles instead of 

U": The Plan states in several areas that "lost (water) resources" are 

to be "recovered". This statement implies that the E.lOn0 Basin water 

resources utilized by the City of Los Aqeles have rot been efficiently 

utilized, but instead were "lost" to streams in the Pbm Basin. The people 

of Los -el= depend on the water fran the M~Y Basin and have efficiently 

and effectively utilized it since the diversions began in 1941. 

Consequently, one mt consider this resource as beirg "lost". (1093) 

RFSKNSE: The reference to lost resources refers to the natural resources 

such as vegetation, wildlife, and fish, not just water. 

CCIEIIMENT: Managexent Area #20 - South Sierra. For Wild and Scenic Rivers, 

add: "ccnmi.hnent to protect the riverbank of all classes for 1/4 mile on 

each side of the rivers. " ( 2170) 

300 
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

RESPONSE: President Reagan signed legislation in "her, 1987 that 

designated 72.5 miles of the South Fork of the Kern River as a Wild and 

S-c River. The portion through POnache outside of wilderness is 

designated as scenic; the portions within wilderness are wild. This 

legislation requires that a managmat plan be prepared within three years. 

That managmt plan will include direction which will maintain the integrity 

of the river. 

COMMENT: I strcolgly support the Draft Plan's proposal to recamend wild and 

scenic river status for the North and South Forks of the Kern River and the 

Middle Fork of the San Joaquh River. I'm sure that reservirg this 

designation for these waterways will be of great public benefit for 

generations to m. (1489) (27, 78, 91, 126, 129, 139, 140, 151, 152, 164, 

166, 177, 182, 276, 277, 279, 284, 286, 319, 345, 349, 377, 438, 441, 934, 

945, 953, 979, 1010, 1029, 1032, 1107, 1108, 1160, 1175, 1177, 1218, 1229, 

1230, 1231, 1248, 1253, 1269, 1274, 1280, 1283, 1295, 1317, 1318, 1332, 1346, 

1348, 1376, 1398, 1407, 1412, 1414, 1485, 1513, 1519, 1536, 1541, 1549, 1559, 

1585, 1586, 1606, 1608, 1616, 1629, 1632, 1656, 1662, 1730, 1738, 1774, 1776, 

1784, 1798, 1800, 1804, 1814, 1837, 1843, 1851, 1863, 1868, 1893, 1898, 1901, 

1904, 1924, 1926, 1938, 1980, 1982, 1983, 2007, 2030, 2036, 2049, 2053, 2054, 

2058, 2103, 2113, 2119, 2142, 2160, 2179, 2183, 2185) 

RESPONSE: Actual designation is reserved for COCgreSS. In the case of the 

North and south Forks of the Kem River, President Reagan signed legislation 

in "ber, 1987 that designated portions of these two rivers as Wild and 

scenic. 

COMMENT: We support managertent of the south Fork of the Kern River and San 

Jm River without any special designation. (1432) (49, 469, 1258, 1347, 

1869, 2017, 2197) 

RFSHINSE: The Forest Plan protects those portions of the Middle Fork of the 

San J0aqui.n fiver that have been inventoried as a candidate river for 

potential designation. The South Fork of the Kem River has been designated 

by President Reagan in "ber, 1987 as a Wild and Scenic River. The Sierra 

National Forest is the lead Forest for the San Joaqum mver segment. The 

fact that the Wddle Fork of the San Joaqun river is be- remended for 

Wild and Scenic River status does mt necessarily mean that it will be 

designated. Wild and Scenic River reccmnendations in the Forest Plan are 

prelinunary administrative reccarmendations that will receive further review 

and possible rrodificaticm by the Chief of the Forest Senrice, Secretary of 

Agriculture, and the President of the United States. Final decisions are 

made by the Congress. 

C@NE": I am opposed to the Wild and Smc River designation for the South 

Fork Kern River in Mmache. It would be of m benefit and could place 

restrictions on the Forest Service or Fish and Game. There may come a time 

that the Forest Service would want to improve the meadow and stream banks by 

irrigation fran the river. If designate3 as a Wild and Scenic fiver, turnout 

301 
WILD AND SCENIC RIVWS 

structures muld not be built and the irrigation OptiCHI would mt be 

possible. (1887) (1807) 

FUSFCWX: The South Fork Kern River through Wmache has been designated by 

President Reagan as a Wild and Scenic Wver in "ber, 1987. The portion 

through Molache is classified as a scenic segment. The management plan for 

the river and its mts would address the activities that are 

appropriate. Sane activities that may be appropriate for a scenic segment 

would mt be appropriate for a wild segment within wilderness. The follawing 

existing Forest Service plicy direch 'on on management of Wild and Scenic 

Rim would apply to your cancans. 

Under range, permit livestock grazing within the designated river area 

provided it does mt substantially interEera with public use or detract frun 

the values which caused the river to be included in the Natimal Wild and 

Scenic River system. Permit facilities and imlpovements witbin a wild river 

area if they are necessary to mrt the range activities, provided the area 

retains a IlatUral appeararm and the slzuctures 'ze with the 

-t . 

Under wildlife and fish, the cmstmction of minor stxuchres for such 

purposes as inp"nt of fish and game habitat are acceptable in wild river 

areas provided they do not affect the free-flming characteristics of the 

river and harmcoll. 'ze with the . envircrmnent. 

Under water, undertake watershed improvements where deteriorated soil or 

hydrologic coditions create a threat to the values for which the river is 

managed...or whem such conditions could cause serious depreciation of 

important environmental quality outside the river area. 

Permit the construction of water bars, drainage ditches, flow measurement 

devices, and other minor structures or manag-t practices when necessary 

for protection, cxmsezvation, rehabilitation, or enhancement of the river 

area resources. They must be capatible with the classification of the river 

area and ha" 'ze with the "wdxg ' environment. They must not pose a 

direct and adverse impact on the river values. 

Address the need for retaining and maintahing existing water diversions, 

ditches, and water managemnt devices. If retention is part of a valid 

existing right or in the interest of gd river managemnt, prescribe 

maintenance standards h the management Plan. 

aWlI3TC: We recamad that full disclosure of the econanic and cultural 

"sequences of addition of these rivers to the Wild and Scenic River systems 

be made public before approval of the Final Plan. (181) 

"E: See previous ccmnents relating to the south and North Forks of the 

Km River. The South and North Forks of the Kem Ever were designated by 

Cangress. The econanic and cultural Momtion for the Middle Fork San 

Joaquin Rim are given in EIS ' E for both the Inyo and Sierra 

National Forests. Congress has the sespnsibility for designation of wild 

and scenic rivers, and sbould Cmgress decide to pursue the recarmendations 

302 
WILD AM) SCENIC RIVERS 

of the Middle Fork San Joaquin River EIS, there will be formal heariqs on 

the proposal. At that time there will be a chance for additional public 

In the case of the Middle Fork of the San Joaquh River, the Sierra National 

Forest has the lead role in aSSeSSing the River and re"nend.lllg ' its future 

managmt in their Forest Plan. The cultural and e"ic effects of the 

proposal will be documented in that Forest Plan. The Inyo National Forest 

will follow the Sierra's lead in rnakirg Forest Plan recarmendations for 

futura managmt of that river. 

input. 

EM4DJl': We are c"ed that in those segments of the South Fork Kern 

River within the Inyo National Forest, the DEIS indicates that the 

maintenance of the cuzrent grazing levels could have adverse effects on 

stream qualities. Hawever, there is m proposal to eliminate this grazing 

impact if the river is designated. We remrmend exploring this alternative. 

The sane wDuld apply to Segment 3 with respect to mntinued ORV use, 

particularly stream crossings. Again, the DEIS should discuss possible 

eliminatim of this impact. (487) 

RFSFQNSE: The south Fork of the Kem River has been designated a Wild and 

Scenic River. Csazing and ORV use will be addressed in the Wild and Scenic 

River Managmt Plan which must be developed within three years. 

m: With respect to the Middle Fork of the San Joaquin River, the 

portion of the river that flows through Devil's Postpile National F4mument 

should be considered concurrently with the Forest portion for designation. 

We reamned that the Forest have the lead in any necessary study or draft 

legis1ation to effect this designation: the sequoia and ms caryon National 

Parks staff will be happy to assist at your refpest. Based on a preliminary 

review of the river segment contained in the Monument, the classification 

mld be as follows: North i%"t boundary to a point about 100 yards 

below the Visitor Center should be scenic: and fra 100 yards below the 

Visitor Center to the South Monument boundary should be wild. (487) 

RESKNSE: The Sierra National Forest has the lead responsibility for 

recarmending this river for Wild and Scenic status in their Forest Plan. 

They have cmrdinated their pmpxsal with the Inyo National Forest and 

Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks which adninister Devil's Postpile 

National "nent. The recannendation in the Sierra's Forest Plan would 

designate the portion of the river flowing through Devil's Postpile National 

Monument as scenic. The scenic portion would be 2.5 miles long and stretch 

between the soda Springs footbridge downstream to Rainbow Falls. 

COMMENT: On behalf of the Board of Supesvisors, we would like to go on 

record as being opposed to any designation of the North or South Forks of the 

Kem River under the Wild and Scenic River Act. (137) 

RESKNSE: 

portions of both rivers as part of the Wild and Scenic River systm. 

President Reagan signed the law in "ber 1987 that designates 

303 
WILDERNESS 

CrWmW.: Designation of any portionS of the North Fork Kern outside of 

wilderness areas will prohibit future major water improvemmt projects fran 

being constructed on the river. Although mnstruction of the Elephant Knob 

Res-ir has been determined to be infeasible at this tm, it is 

inappropriate to preclude "&ion of this and other such water projects 

in the future. (137) 

"E: President Reagan signed a law designating a porkion of the North 

Fork of the Kern River as a Wild and Scenic River which would preclude major 

water improvawnt projects. 

CrWmW.: We respectfully request segments under the Wild and Sceruc River 

Act be subject to the public hear% process, in order that you may lamw the 

voice of the people you represent on th~s sensitive issue. (137) 

RESFQNSE: If Congess decides to pursue Wild and Scenic River status for any 

of the pmposed rivers, there would be formal public hearings to accept input 

fran the public. 

Ca": Geothermal developnent and road construckon and logging along the 

South Fork of the Kern River at Wnache Meadows should be pmlnbited; golden 

trout should be restored to this river. (944) 

"E: Geoth€?Imal d-lopnent waS considered and reJeCted in an 

environmental analysis for the mnache area. The Forest Plan does not 

propose logging in thls area. Any attempt to restore golden trout to this 

area would need to be initiated by the California Department of Fish and 

GCillE. 

m: The major goal of the Inyo Plan should be to pr--'rve wilderness. 

I am of the firm belief that the value of the land saved rrcm developnent of 

any kind will be worth far mre in the future in a multxtude of unpriceable 

ways than the manetary gains of todays developrent can ever brsng. It is 

folly to des- that which we consider mt prized, mst desirable, and mst 

spiritually upliftirg, only to leam severdl years down the road that we sold 

our rmst treasured heritage for a lot of push and shove fran self interests. 

I go on record for maintaming and preserving the natural intqrity of the 

Inyo Forest lands, and for the reversal of any existing developnents in this 

region other than those for the sole purpose of strict land maintenance. All 

wildlife, botanical, fisheries, watersheds, lakes and rivers should be 

protected to the maximum degree pssible and the wilderness areas should be 

used only for purposes of research, observation and low impact pedestrian 

appreciation. (324, 1532) (65, 89, 106, 170, 225, 322, 328, 331, 337, 1771, 

2053, 2129, 2143, 2162) 

RESPONSE: The Plan is remmmdrg ' apFaaximately 60,000 additional acres in 

the White i%untai.ns for wilderness designation. Each wilderness is managed 

304 
WILDERNESS 

according to its own wilderness mamgmt plan under the overall direction 

of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the California Wilderness Act of 1984. 

CclrpJIEWp: My most serious concerns are that more land should have ken 

proposed for wilderness designation and there should be less emphasis on ORV 

use of the Forest. (5) 

RFSFCNSE: The Final Plan recarmends approximately 60,000 additional acres 

for wilderness, primarily in the White Mountains. The Forest Plan does not 

wiphasize ORV use of the Forest, but rather reaffirms the Forest's ccmktment 

to the existing 1977 Interagency Wtor Vehicle Use Plan. Direction in the 

Standards and Guidelines is consistent with present policy. 

U": The preferred Alternative doesn't as much land for 

wilderness designation as the CEE Alternative. That indicates that you 

sacrificed public net value in the Preferred Alternative to maintain more 

management flexibility. Wildmess designation is obviously e"ically 

efficient on 339.8 additional acres of Inyo NF. The amenity values of 

wilderness far surpass any ecoranic values. This provides a good argument to 

add significantly to the lands proposed for wilderness designation in PRF. I 

am hQpeful that you will cone up with a plan that increases proposed 

wilderness by abut 250,000 acres over PRF and that you will ellminate or 

drastically reduce acreages of open ORV lands. (5) (69, 315, 483, 923, 995, 

1006, 1014, 1021, 1274, 1490, 1524, 1632) 

"E: The Final Plan recormends 172,600 acres for wildemess designation 

which is approximately a 60,000 acre increase over the Draft Preferred 

Alternative. This increase is primarily in the White bbuntains. 

Prescription #18 which has been retitled Multiple Resource Area states that 

1y3 additional acreage is recQrmended for the "open" category, which is 

defined on the 1977 bbbr Vehicle Use Map as an area where m restrictions 

apply to OWs. The Final Plan recarmends the Poleta Canyon area as the only 

open OHV area. 

-: I support the maintenance of the integrity of the Sierra mt from 

the Minaret Sumnit to the San J0aqui.n bbuntain-Carson Peak area including the 

maint-ce of the mall isolated fir forest area at the Hartley Springs, 

Deadman and Glass CY& areas. (2211) 

FESFQNSE: See the Management Frea #4 discussion in Chapter IV. Stands of 

red fir west of U.S. 395 will mt be harvested. 

CclrpJIEWp: There is m conflict between wilderness and RNA status as the 

Appendix C discussion suggests. (2152) 

RFSPCNSE: The statement is "Wilderness manag-t could conflict with the 

management objectives of such research natural areas.'' The Wilderness Act 

states that wildemess is set aside for such things as recreation and 

scientific use. Recreation use in RNAs is discouraged al-gh mt 

305 
WILDERNESS 

necessarily prohibited. Adivitles such as canping may be prohibited; the 

main thrust of RNAs is not for recreational use, but for scientific studies. 

where two cimflictiq objectiws OCCUT in an area “aged under two 

designaticm such as wilderness and research ~Wal area status, the m 

stringent guidelines prevail. 

m: For Management Prescription #1 - Designated Wilderness, I would 

like to modify the seventh recreaticpl dim3z.1 ’ve to allow for wood to be 

carried in or packed in to areas that are closed to wood fires. wood fires 

sbuld be allawed in areas short of wood if the wood is hauled in. Areas 

abwe 10,ooO feet should not have to banned fm rn fires. All new 

informational handwts should include proper instructianS for fire building. 

m”t use ro&s in a circle for your campfire. km‘t blacken rocks by fire 

for any re- or use. The old Boy Scout techniques for fire building need 

to be discauraged. (1005, 1645, 185) (156, 172, 173, 178, 179, 1645, 2170) 

RESPCBJSE: The Forest is addressing this request outside of the Forest 

planning prcccss. A test area has been designated in-a location wfiere 

campfires are prohibited. The results of the test will determine if this 

concept can be camtinued and/or applied to other areas of fuelwood shortage. 

It ad be premtura to establish &Lrection in the Forest Plan at this time. 

Recreation direction for FTescxiption #1 states “emphasize “I impact 

campiq teclmiques wfien interactiq with wilderness users or developing 

informatim handouts.” M” impact techniques include proper lccatim 

of fire rings, size of fire, restoration of site, and use of existing fire 

rings as opposed to building new ones. 

.. 

CC”: Pruhibit all campfires in wilderness areas. The use of snags and 

deadfalls near timberline has been disastrouS ecologically speaking. (1781) 

RESPONSE: For many people, campfires are an important part of their 

wilderness experience. Forest orders are presently in effect prohibiting 

campfires in areas with sparse vegetation and within 300 feet of lakes. New 

orders will be put in effect where resowce problems develop. 

CXtMDiT: Cc”te with the National Park Service to develop a consistent 

ro campfire policy abwe 9-10,OOO feet for all wilderness areas within the 

Sierra Nevada. I recannend that we develop a Forest-wide plan to 

restxict/pmhibit campfires on an elevation basis as the Sequoia-Kings Canyon 

Parks have. The Eastern Sierra does rot prwide sufficient fuel to continue 

allowing campfires without risking serious resource damage. I oppose any 

proposal which muld allow cunnercia1 packers to build campfires in closed 

areas, not even if firewood were packed in and firepans were used. (1099, 

1252) 

RESPONSE: The Forest has carefully considered the course of action to pursue 

in relation to campfire prohibitions in areas of scarce firewood. There are 

many areas abcrve the 9-10,ooO foot elevation that have plentiful supplies of 

firewood. The scarce areas generally relate to heavily used trail corridors 

306 
and ppular camp- areas. An elevaticnal closure does mt reMgnize these 

differences, and, while prokctirg sane areas, leaves the Forest Service in 

an awkward position when trying to defend campfire restrictions in areas of 

Plentiful firewood . In sane areas that are heavily used, the Forest has 

pmhibited campfires. 

The Forest meets annually with both adjacent National Parks and Forests in an 

effort to c”a ’ te our management direction of wilderness. To date we have 

not been able to st- ‘ze our management of areas with scarce fuelwood 

with the Parks, but the Forests generally subscribe to specific area 

restrictions. 

CCEIMENT: Write naixral fire management plans for all wilderness --areas. 

~ssess the need for helicopter entry to suppress 1ightnh-g caused fires in 

wilderness. (1099) (2170) 

“E: Management Prescription #1 - Designated Wilderness lists direction 

for fire management under protection. The decision on use of a helioopter in 

fire suppression in wilderness considers many factors. Such thirgs as fuel 

type, slope, aspect, predicted fire weather, existing fire activity, and 

availability of perscolnel are all factors which have a bearing on whether or 

not to use a helicopter. The decision is made on a case-by-case basis. If 

suppression of a fire can be acocmplished by primitive mans, that muld be 

the course of action the Forest would follow. 

The approved wilderness management plans are inwprated into the Forest 

Plan with a”nts as necessary. Direction is present in the existing 

plans to develop naixral fire management plans which muld allm 1ightm.q 

fires to bum. Direction under Standards and Guidelines in the Forest Plan 

would allow use of the confinement or containment strategies in relation to 

lightning fires within certain guidelines. 

m: It is stated that without timber harvesting in the Monache area, 

recreational use of the South Sierra and Golden Trout Wilderness areas will 

increase at a much slower rate, but since it is predicted that these areas 

will be used to capacity by the fifth decade, why should increased 

recreational use be encouraged? (2160) 

“E: Increased recreational use would only be enwuraged to the limit 

of the area to accormodate use. When the Golden hout and South Sierra areas 

are considered to be fully utilized, they will be managed through quota 

systems, if necessary, to main- an acceptable level of use as determined 

by resource capability. 

a”: Why not consider signs similar to those used in the Yosemite 

wilderness? If a sign blends into the envi“mt, it can’t be seen, so why 

put it up? (1645) 

307 
WILDERNESS 

RESPONSE: We have feworded one of the Standards and Guidelines for 

facilities in Prescription #1 - Designated Wilderness in respsnse to your 

concern. 

03MmW: It is not true that wi1dwmes.s designation "irretrievably remcnres 

affected lands fran mst kinds of corrmodl 'ty proauctlon and fran management 

activities that would alter natural ecological precesses." The land remains 

intact, and the designation can be changed by an act of Congress. The 

statement here is wrong and should be remved fran this section. (2160) 

RESFQNSE: The mrd "irretrievable Carmitrnents" is defined in the glossary. 

The definition states "applies to losses of prcduction or use of renewable 

natural resources for a pied of time. For example, timber proauction fm 

an area is irretrievably lost during the time an area is ccmnitted to another 

use such as skiing or wilderness. The prcduction lost is irretrievable, but 

the action is not irreversible." The corrmodl 'ty prductim lost while the 

land is classified wilderness is irretrievable, but the designation of 

wilderness is not irreversible. 

m: Add a fourth Standard and Guideline for wilderness that limits 

comnercial use of wilderness areas to 5% of total use as stated in the 

Minarets Wilderness Plan. (225) 

IUSPONSE: A management plan is prepare3 or revised for each wilderness which 

gives specific direction for that wilderness. Sane wildernesses may be able 

to withstand higher levels of "exial use than others. The wilderness 

management plan will set this level. 

Cf3NEW: 

RFSPONSE: New fences are generally rat permitted within wilderness areas. 

Existing fences may be left within a newly designated wilderness as a result 

of legislative wording allwing existing uses including grazing. New fences 

are occasianally permitted. 

Fences should not be a part of the wilderness scene. (1376) 

CCWZWl': In the second paragraph under 

recreation, replace "reconstxuction.. . . . 'I with "m reconskuction of 4WD and 

bike trails if such trails have been used as hiking trails." In the fourth 

paragram, replace "ccols.tructian.. . . " with "m new collstruction of 4WD and 

bike trails except for very short distances to connect dead-ends at 

wilderness bundaries." Add: "Vehicle damage in existing wilderness will be 

repaired. " (2170) 

RESFQNSE: The e"wntal assesgnent dealing with OW use in Monache is 

the govemiq document that will spell out what activities would take place 

in relation to OW mute rew"Iction and constn~ction. No hiking trails 

are wed for any reconstructim activity in the Monache area under the 

Green sticker grant program. Because sane hikers use existing ow mtes 

such as 4WD mutes or bike trails does not mean they are hikirg trails. 

Managenat Area #20 - South Sierra. 

308 
WILDERNESS 

Kiking trails are trails where motorized vehicles are prohibited. New 

ccastruction of 4WD or b&e trails may take place to connect dead-end 

mutes. The envirunmental analysis will specify where these would be. The 

process of determining this is outside the scope of the Forest planning 

process. Manag-t direction for areas jnside mlderness is covered under 

Prescription #l. Direction for management of wilderness is contained in the 

wilderness managmt plan for each wilderness. These becane part of the 

Forest Plan. Any damage resul- fm unauthorized vehcle trespass in 

wilderness would be repaired according to direction in respective wilderness 

management Plans. 

m: At the Sierra roadheads, like Whitney Portal, South Lake, and North 

Lake, I would “?ed mwing thw dawn the road five to ten miles to reduce 

impact on the wilderness. (384) 

RESPONSE: The impact on wilderness is measured directly in terms of 

cmidirg, resource impacts, and visual and auhtoq impacts. Managenat 

Prescription #1 - Designated Wilderness outlines direction to reduce or 

eliminate impacts to wilderness. This direction includes the bssibility of 

impl-ting entry limits, establishiq restricted use seasons when these 

entry limits would apply, redirect- or restrid5.q use as necessary to 

restore impaired wildemess resources, linuting party size, or 1%- the 

“berofstockinaparty. 

Most of the trailheads on the Inyo National Forest also have developed 

caqgrounds and picnic areas associated with them. It would mt be desirable 

to move existing trailhead par- down the road away fm these sites smce 

most drainages do mt have rocm to develop new par- areas. Wst 

wilderness users are shuttled to the trailhead when crowded parking 

conditions force use of alternative sites. 

CStM3W: I am opposed to new and/or improved trailheads at wilderness 

boundaries. Keep them primitive. Overnight canping at all wildemess 

trailheads must be restricted to short stays. (381) 

RESPONSE: Ary r~nstruction or ccolstruction of trailhead facilities would 

be analyzed according the National hvironmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 

analysis would take into consideration the scale of developent, how it fits 

inwiththe- ’ enviro-t and any adjacent developed facilities, 

and the type of facilities to meet the needs of the public. Tralheads are 

not campgrounds altkmgh overnight stays are usually permitted if not in 

conflict with other facilities. where carppounds are avalable, Overnight 

stays are normally restricted to the campground which usually has a maxi“ 

lmgth of stay of seven days. Sam canpgm- at trailheads have a one 

night stay limit. 

Cm”: The Plan should state explicitly that wildlife needs are to take 

precedence over livestock needs. In the Golden Tmut Wildemess, cattle 

grazing should be severely limited to protect wildlife. (1843, 1489) (65, 

2170) 

309 
Grazing of livestock in wilderness is governed by Forest Service 

"al (FSM) 2323.2. The objective is to "manage wilderness range in a 

"er that utilizes the forage resauce in accordance with established 

wilderness objectives (36 CFR 293.7). Section 4(D)(4)(2) of the Wilderness 

Act states: "Tha grazing of livestock, where established prior to the 

effective date of this Act, shall be permitted to wntinue subject to such 

-ble 1-egulaticms as are deemed necessary by the Secretary of 

Agriculture. " 

FSM 2323.22 further states: "Fpply Coqressional guidelines and policies 

regarding grazing in National Farest wilderness areas (Sec. 108, P.L. 96-560, 

H.R. Report 96-617 date3 11/14/79), in a,practical, "able, and uniform 

manner in all National Forest wildernesses". The Omgressicmal guidelines 

state in part: "The legislative histcay of this language is very clear in its 

intent that livestock grazing and activities and the necessary facilities to 

Support a livestock grazing prcgram will be permitted to cnntinue in Natimal 

Forest wilderness areas, when such grazing was established prior to 

classification of an area as wilderness.... To clarify any lingsring doubts, 

the CCmRittee wishes to stress that this language means that there shall be 

M curtailment of grazing permits or privileges in an area simply because it 

is designated as wilderness." 

The "nittee guidelines wntinue in part saying "It is anticipate3 that the 

nmbxs of livestock permitted to graze in wilderness would remain at the 

approximate levels existirg at the time an area enters the wildemess 

system. If land management plans reveal conclusively that increased 

livestock numkrs or animal unit nrmths (AW) could be made available with 

no adverse impact to wilderness values such as plant rxmnunities, primitive 

recreation, and wildlife populaticms or habitat, sane increases in AUMS may 

be permissible. This is not to inply, however, that wilderness lends itself 

to AUM or livestock increases and consbuction of substantial new facilities 

that might be appropriate for intensive grazing management in rrm-wilderness 

areas. " 

Grazing must be managed under these guidelines, and even mgh the 

guidelines do rot say that wildlife needs will be superior to livestock 

needs, neither do they say that they will be subrdinate to the same. 

Wilderness values will preaaninate. 

CCWlD?T: The fo1lwi.q shDuld be banned in wilderness areas: cows, sheep, 

horses, mules, llamas, burros, dogs, other pets, wood fires, the suppression 

of naturally ignited fire, drift fences, and any other "xynents. wood 

fires should be prohibited in all wilderness in the high Sierra due to heavy 

human utilization of wood and the ecological imbalance that has resulted. 

(1634, 492) (140, 151, 266, 934, 1602) 

RESPONSE: Section 4(D)(4)(2) of the Wilderness Act states: "The graziq of 

livestock, where established prior to the effective date of this Act, shall 

be permitted to mtinue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed 

necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture. Also refer to the abwe resp3nse. 

310 
WILDERNESS 

Section 4(D)(6) states: "Ccmnercial services may be performea within the 

wilderness areas designated by this Act to the extent necessary for 

activities which are prop for realizing the recreational or other 

wilderness purposes of the areas." Horses, mules, llamas, and burros are 

used by carmercial outfitters and private parties in recreational use of the 

wildemess and are n>t denied access by the Wilderness Act. In scme areas, 

stock is prohibited due to unsafe &ti- or for resource prol%ction. 

The WiMemess Act also states in part 'I.. .except as necessary to meet 

minimum requirements for the ahinistratim of the area for the purpose of 

this Act ,... there shall be... no structure or installation within any such 

area." Drift fences and other improvements which are necessary for 

adninistxation of the area such as proper grazing of livestock or pack stock 

would be permitted under this Act if they are the minimum facilities 

neCeSSary. 

No place in the Act or subsequent acts is it mentioned that aOgs or pets are 

to be excluded. In certam ' areas, such as the California mountain sheep 

zoological area which is partly in wilderness, there may be additional 

restridians pzhruq to dogs or pets. These are cwered by specific 

Forest orders authorized by the Forest Supervisor. 

wood fires are not prohibited by the Wilderness Act, but specific area 

reStrictiom on campfires are in effect under Forest Supervisor authority. 

Recreation direction in Prescription #1 - Designat& Wilderness states 

"Prohibit wood fires in areas that are envircormentally sensitive or short of 

wood." Under the protection element for prescription #1, directicol is 

outlined for suppression stxatqies for lightnhg-caused fires. If the fire 

meets the predetennined criteria, it may be allowed to bum under the 

confinement or containment strategies. 

.. 

Man-caused fires will be suppressed. 

CCfMEW.: Fire suppression in the wilderness should be avoided althugh there 

may well have to be sone adjusinents to this policy to make up for past 

misguided fire suppression policies. (1631) 

RISFQNSE: Prescription #1 - Designated Wildwmess. Under protection, we 

state "Use the fire suppression strategies of confinemat, containment, or 

control..." Ctnfinaent or containment would let naturally occurring fires 

continue to bum if they meet the fire prescription directi om. This would 

help return fire to its natural role in wilderness. Any man-caused fires 

would be suppressed. 

CXNMFNT: Aerial stccking should not be allowed in wilderness. (1634) 

RESPONSE: The Wilderness Act of 1964 states that "within wilderness areas 

designated by this Act, the use of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses 

have already becam established, may be permitted to continue.. .'I. Forest 

Service Manual 2323.34 states that "Stocking shall "ally be done by 

primitive mans; however, Regional Foresters may pennit dropping of fish from 

aircraft for those waters where this practice was established before the area 

311 
WILDERNESS 

was designated a wildemess. cbnduct aerial stcckirg pre- or post-visitor 

SeasoIIS." 

CCSNENP: I'd like to stress the importance of your wildemess ranger 

prcgrm. Undoubtedly your propal for increased education of ba&counixy 

usezs will help in reducing the human impacts there, but I feel that a very 

cost-effective method of mitiga- and controlling impacts would be the 

addition of mre bckmuntry wilm rangers. On our Sierra Club clean-up 

trin & last war at Thousand Island Lake. we noticed a definite need for the 

oE mre rangers, primarily fo; education, but also for enforc"t. 

(1107) (1539, 1843) 

m: We have added the following diref3a 'on to Prescription #1 - 

Designated Wilderness: "IWphasize the "nber of wilderness rangers 

on-the-g~0~~~3 during the restricted seasc~l in heavily used, pqniiar areas to 

maximize the face-to-face contact with the wildemess user." 

CCSNENP: charging fees for wildemess permits or reservations is a bad 

idea. You could solve the overuse problem by ctmsmcting Wails to sane of 

the seldan used areas. A better system needs to be developd for obtaining 

permits to hike and camp in wilderness areas. I don't want to be prohibited 

fran go-, and I don't want to pay more than $5 to go on a hike. (2124, 

1539) (2178) 

RES-E: There is no authority at the present time to charge for wildemess 

permits. We do have the authority to charge a fee to recover costs of a 

reswxation system. During times of reduced budgets, it is necessary to 

recover costs of managing a resexvation system or it would mt be possible to 

provide this service. Response frun the public indicates that this service 

is desirable, and the user is willing to pay for it. 

The present systm of obtainkg wilderness permits has been developed over a 

nmhr of years and has been accepted by almsst all the users. Personal 

pickup of reserved permits is necessary to allow €or those pple who do not 

show up. To do otherwise would be to systematically undersubscribe the 

wilderness capacity. Scme permits are always available on a first cane basis 

for those -le who cannot plan their trip in advance. However, when quotas 

for a trailhead are full, the line must be drawn so that those people who do 

have permits are reasonably sure to have the opprtunity for solitude and a 

wilderness experience. 

m: The managemmt of airfields should be mre specifically or 

"xetely described, especially the plans for the fields in Tunnel Meadows. 

(382) 

m: We have revised the Final Plan to reflect that the Inyo National 

Forest does not have any airfields/airstrips under special use permit. The 

special use permit for the airstrip at TuMel Meadows expired and the 

airstrip has ken closed and restom to a natural condition. 

312 
am": Although the issue of 4a3w survey cabins in designated wilderness 

is discussed, there is n0tlui-g about autanatic 91ow surveying instruments 

(SIYNI pillows), the associated solar panels for power, and the data 

transmission ant-. Also there is the similar problem or potential 

problem of autanatic seisnographs in the wildemess. Need to establish and 

publish a psition abut the use and presence of such instxumnts in the 

wilderness. (382) 

"E: We have added a facilities directive for FTescription #1 - 

Designated Wilderness that addcesses your concern. 

-: The high Sierra trails can support at least five times as many 

backpachrs as are currently being admitted. The only significant impact 

caused by laryex "hrs would be the disappearance of firem, so prohibit 

wood fires in scarce areas. Currently 

about 25 backpackers a day are to major basins which could easily 

accanrr>date 125 without c- (the word crwdiq in such large areas is 

laughable). (1) 

Amther respondent cx"nt&: "I feel that quotas are too high for the 

wildemess areas." (1602) 

RFSFCNSE: Managenent direction for Frescription #1 - Designated Wilderness 

directs the Forest to manage use to capacity using trailhead quotas. The 

numbex of people in an "area" does rat equal the quota for the trail since 

the average length of stay is longer than one night and people accumulate in 

the "area" fmn other areas. Larye ndxrs of people reduce the 

opp3rtunities for solitude, create more encounters on the trail, etc. Even 

though the areas are large, people tend to corgrqate aTDL2nd the mre 

desirable canpites near water. The Forest atteqts to disperse the users, 

but short of applying in- Cantrols, the people will disperse themselves 

according to the= pxmmal preferences. certain areas where firemcd is 

scarce are Closed to fires. 

The State Deparhmt of Fish and Game is responsible for settq limits on 

the nmbr of fish. 

Fishing limits could also be imposed. 

That authority is outside the Forest Plan. 

a%+": aUestion whether or not wilderness management plans are necessary 

when considering the manag-t direction that is given in Prescription #l. 

Operation plans and maintenance plans would be mre appropriate. (29) 

RESFCNSE: Direction in the Forest Plan under Standards and Guidelines and 

Management prescriptions is broad and applies to all wildernesses. Direction 

in individual wildemess managmt plans is specific to that wilderness. The 

plans are similar to operation and/or maintenance plv. Even though scme 

direction may be standard for all wildemesses, mast mll he specific to a 

particular wilderness. 

313 
cc&~": The trails in this area over the passes, especially Sawmill, 

She-, Taboase, and Baxte should be mght Up to Standard. This area is 

use3 by equestrians, but it is exhemely difficult to explore any new areas 

of Sequoia-Kings Canyon due to px or rrm-existent trail maintwmnce. I dD 

not feel that it is fair to deny access to this area to equestrian users due 

to poor trail maintenance. pmper signs are alsu impoaant for the area. 

(1260) (156, 169, 185, 296, 1261, 1929, 2193) 

-E: Many trails 011 the Forest in need Of recanstructiOn. These 

trails are prioritized, but our ability to acccnpslish the work is de-t 

on funding. The process for selecting these trails is cnxtsi.de the soope of 

the Forest Plan. Satmill Pass Trail is presently accessible to stock; 

Shepherd Pass Trail is on the Forest's list for metion. Baxter Pass 

hail is not classified for stock use in the Park. It would not be pNdent 

for the Forest to bring the east side of the trail up to a standard 

accessible to stock when the west side of the pass is not. The same holds 

me for Taboose Pass. If the Park decides to maintain these trails for 

stock use, then the Forest wuld put these trails back into the process of 

prioritization for reconstruction. Signing in wilderness is covered in 

appxuved management plans and calls for only that which is necessary for 

progressive travel. It does Mt include si- of place names or the 

placjng of mileage on signs within wildemess. 

CCMENF: Include mileage on signs. (1261) 

RFsF€RiSE: Directicol for Managerent prescription #1 - Designated Wilderness, 

under facilities, directs the Forest to sign only as needed for progressive 

travel. The Forest Plan also inmrpratffi direction in the apprwed 

wilderness manag-t plans which calls for directional signing only. Signs 

at trailheads whxh are outside wilderness may have mileages. The absence of 

mileages on signs wit3h-1 wilderness is to enable wilderness travelers to rely 

mre on map skills. 

-: In wilderness areas, recreational use of brses ?at graze should 

have priority over cattle. The Plan n& to make sire that recreational 

horse users have rights to grazing. (1261) 

"E: 

Designata3 Wildemess that addresses your concern. 

We have added direction to the range element for Prescription #1 - 

EiME": 

been -ially damaging to meadows. (1634) 

RESPONSE: Management direction under Prescription #1 - Designated Wilderness 

under facilities is to "Manage the trail system as determined in the 

managerent plan for each wilderness. Maintain trails to assigned maintenance 

levels." One of the asmnptions in the approved John Muir Wilderness 

Managerent Plan, for example, is that the present kail system is generally 

adeqate in length. That means that new trails are not needed. However, old 

trails need periodic reconstruction, and that muld include reroutrig around 

There is no need fox new trails in wilderness. Heavy trail use has 

314 
CCtmmr: You 

are ccnpressing true wilderness value into an artificial definition by humans 

that wilderness be necessarily spedacular or encanpass a given amount of a 

defined ecological system. Wilderness value for the wild-ss and not just 

humans can enccmpass pure bulk of dubious terrain in addition to unique and 

spectacular terrain. Wildlife doesn't judge by scenery, neither do ecological 

systems. (65) 

RSECNSE: 

designation which is abut a 60,000 acre increase over the Draft Plan. 

wilderness values exist without benefit of formal designation. 

I think you should add more wilderness than you currently plan. 

The Final Plan reccmnends approximately 172,600 acres for wilderness 

Many 

CCWERI': We would urge that all 962,697 acres of madless lands within the 

Inyo National Forest be granted wilderness status: this includes "released" 

lands as well as further planning areas and would bring the total wilderness 

acreage to 1,527,329 acres. In preserving this most significant amxlnt of 

acreage, priority should be given to the White-Inyo Wilderness canplex where 

535,401 acres are Inyo National Forest land which adjoins BIN wilderness study 

areas. Priority should also be given to OUT propssed 130,000 acre Glass 

lvlxlntain Wilderness/Wilderness Recarery Area and to the 21,214 acre San Joaquin 

Roadless Area. In addition there are sane 250,000 acres within the Inyo which 

should be designated as wilderness recovery areas. Roads into these areas 

should be closed and all practices that conflict with future wilderness 

designation should be terminated. (2101) (66, 123, 140, 166, 171, 214, 279, 

298, 311, 320, 331, 438, 450, 978, 1009, 1218, 1358, 1759, 1781, 1865, 1928, 

2015, 2019, 2091, 2152, 2188) 

RESPONSE: Congress has mandated that National Forest System lands be managed 

for multiple uses. The Final Plan recQrmends approximately 172,600 for 

addition to the wilderness system. Refer to Appendix C for evaluation of the 

Fmther Planning Areas for possible wilderness designation. The released 

madless areas have rot been considered for wilderness designation during +3us 

plw perioa. Refer to the Manag-t Area containing specific roadless 

areas to determine the Management Prescription under which they will be 

managed. 

m: I feel we have nwre than enough wilderness and object to any further 

land being designated as such. The area West of the Sentinel Meadow Research 

Natural Area could be excluded. We hope that the Forest Service will continue 

to provide for multiple use of the Forest rather than placing any further areas 

in the "wilderness" designation where only the very select few have the 

opprtwuty to enjoy them. (983, 1640) (31, 183, 257, 330, 335, 347, 357, 469, 

988, 998, 1151, 1254, 1347, 1349, 1386, 1429, 1432, 1590, 1869, 1959, 2017, 

2179 ) 

RESPONSE: The Forest Service is mandated to provide for a wide range of uses 

on National Forests. These include recreation, range, timber, wildlife, water 

and wilderness. Ehergy and minerals are other important resources of the 

Forest. The Plan recamends that 172,600 acres on the Forest be designated as 

wilderness. %s recamendation is based an the environmental analysis of the 

315 
WILDERNESS 

areas and infmtmn received fran the public. The detemma ' tion was that 

wilderness is the nnst appropriate use on these areas. 

Approxhately 576,500 acres m FurWmr Plarmhg Areas were evaluated in this 

planning process. The remaining 403,400 acres will be managed for multiple 

use. 

CD": I would urge the Forest Service to ccnpmnise and find additional 

parcels of up to 5,000 acres to classify as wilderness, or as Special Interest 

Areas, particularly in the larger firther planr3jng areas in the White and Inyo 

Wnmtains. In the White Mountains, it huld be psible to find several 

Special Interest Areas in addition to Wee Meadow. (952) (76) 

RFSFGiiSE: The Inyo Forest has provided Research Natural Areas such as McAfee 

Meadows as part of a nation-wide system of botanical targets. The California 

Region is developing a target system for geologic and aquatic Special Interest 

Areas. When the system is canpleted, it is anticipated that the Inyo National 

Forest will be selected to provide a significant nu"? of Special Interest 

Areas. ?+pproxhately 60,000 additional acres are proposed for wilderness 

designation in the Final Plan, primarily in the White Mountains. 

CD": The 

ratings of roadless areas were part of the RARE I1 lawsuit which led to the 

finding against the Forest Service. Ju@e Karltan noted that "the Wilderness 

Act does not speak in terms of ocmparative ratiqs, but in terms of intrinsic 

wilderness values. As noted, all RARE I1 areas meet minimum criteria of the 

Widlerness Act." Judge Karltan also noted that under the Forest Service 

wilderness quality ratings, "one can hypthesize hay the Grand Canyon might be 

rated: canyon with river, little vegetation." (2160) 

RFSFCNSE: 

objected to by Judge Karlton. 

decision making process. 

We question the determination of "quality" of wilderness areas. 

We believe the term "quality" is not used in the same vernacular as 

Wildemess quality ratings were not used in the 

CCtM3TF: Managemmt Prescription #2 - Proposed Wilderness. Replace the lands 

ampment to place a high priority on acquisition of private lands through Land 

and Water Conservation Fund appropriations. (2169) 

RESEQNSE: Acquisition of lands within wilderness and proposed wilderness areas 

is given a high priority whether it is by exchange, donation or purchase. 

Public acquisition is controlled by the landowner's willingness to exchange or 

sell. 

CXME": The designation of areas as Mule Deer or Sighom Sheep Managenk-?nt 

Presrriptions should not invalidate the areas as wilderness if they are in a 

relatively undisturbed condition. (140) 

-E: In the hierarchy of the planning process, wilderness designation 

would invalidate the application of the Mule Deer Prescription or the Wmntain 

316 
WILDERNESS 

Sheep Frescription. The area vnxlld be managed under Prescription #1 - 

Designated Wilderness. 

m: A statement is made on Plan 111-62 that limits placed on wilderness 

use have not resulted in more demand for mn-motorized primitive recreation in 

non-wilderness areas in the Inyo National Forest. Since wilderness permits are 

not required for visitors to these roadless areas, what evidence exists to 

support this claim? (2160) 

RESFONSE: Personal observations by Forest manages and on-the-ground contact 

with Forest users supp3rt this statement. 

CCWENC The AMN Alternative is eliminated fm detmled study without 

adquate reason. This is the only alternative which would recoIlTnend all 

further planning roadless areas for wildemess designation. It is stated that 

this alternative would not respond to the management con- that all 

remnnended wilderness meet basic criteria for suitability and manageability 

under wilderness designation. Congress is the place where this assessment is 

properly made. Also, con- abaut the cost of keeping areas wild are minimal 

as rxmpared with developnent costs. It is achitted that current outputs could 

be maintained over the first five decades under this scenario: we trust that 

Congress would make the final determination on these ruadless areas in the next 

half-Century, allowing the Forest Service to modify their Plan for needs of 

mn-wilderness uses. (2160) 

==E: Please refer to Apper&x ' C (Mer Planning Area Description and 

Evaluation) and to Appendm D (Roadless Area Allocations) in the EIS Appedix. 

These appendices describe how these areas mll be managed during the planning 

period. 

COWl3fC Management Area #8 - Mammth Escarpnent. Designate all potential 

alpine ski areas as wilderness. This includes the Sherwin Bowl, White Wing, 

Minaret, Knolls and San Joaquin Ridge. Also designate Crystal Crag, Mamnoth 

Rock, and the Sherwin and Laurel creek drainage (all p-ed for managmt 

under Prescription #17 in the Preferred Altemative), and the area east of 

S-in eeek (Prescription #4 in the Preferred Alternative) as wildemess. 

The San Joaquin Roadless Area should be added to the Ansel Adams Wilderness. 

prop3sed wilderness south of the Tm of Mammth Lakes should be added to the 

John Muir Wilderness. (140) (1904) 

RESFONSE: Refer to Management Area #8 in the Final Plan for a map and 

management direction for this area. 

aM4EXC: We propse that the Reversed Peak area be designated a Wilderness 

Recovery Area. Close all access mads but allow existing trails to remain. 

Build 110 new trails. (140) 

317 
WILDERNESS 

REspoNsE: This area will be managed under Prescripticsl#9 - Uneven Aged Timber 

Management in the Final Plan. It Was FapP3sed for management under 

F'rescriptiapI #10 - High Level Timber Managenent in the LWaft Plan. 

CCMEIW: The Robinsan Lake area near Won Valley should be studied for 

wilderness in your next revision of the Forest Plan. (1539) 

RES-: There _are M manag-t activities planned durjng this planning 

period that would charge the wilderness attributes of the area. Therefore, it 

would be eligible for mideration for wilderness when the Plan is revised. 

CCMEIW: Further Planning Areas. Your first paragram on DEIS S-24 that 

discusses wilderness or non-wilderness is misleading. "Released areas" can 

continue to be managed in the planning period to retain their roadless 

character and must be reconsider& for possible wilderness recarmendation at 

the end of the first planning cycle. (1634) 

RESFQNSE: The Plan sets the 'on for managwent for the next 10 - 15 

years. The Forest is mandate3 to review and remsa the Plan at the end of this 

period. For this planning period, all roadless areas have been analyzed and 

will be manage3 under a variety of prescriptions. Refer to the Managenent Area 

maps for specific Management Prescriptions applied to each roadless area. Also 

refer to Appenduc ' D - Roadless Area Allccaticms in the EIS Appm3.x. 

m: All areas presently called "Further Planning Areas" should be 

reconnended for wilderness. At the very least any Further Planning Areas not 

officially becaning wilderness during the current planning phase slnuld be 

managed so that they will still be eligible in the next planning phase. This 

is absolutely essential for the large White/Inyo Mxmtain mnplex of Further 

PlarJling Areas. (328, 1218) (96, 146, 164, 231, 958, 968, 1911, 1216) 

RESFQNSE: Refer to Appsdix C in the EIS Appenduc ' for a discussion of each 

Further Planning Area. 

aM"C: In addition, 

you sbould proposed the Yost Creek-Glass Meadow-upper Deadman Creek area for 

wilderness status. (152) (345, 398, 954, 1579, 1616) 

RESPONSE: Ticga Lake (#5050): Prescription #2 will be applied to the portion 

of the area excluding the "valley floor" adjacent to State Route 120 and the 

heavy day-use fishing areas on the shoreline of Ticga Lake. Yost Creek and 

Glass Meadow will be managed under Prescription #17. 

Support the proposed wilderness addition at Ticga Lake. 

a3": Hall Natural Area, just north of Ticga Pass, huld be restored to 

wilderness status and a consideration should be given to enlarging the Hall 

Natural Area to canplete the protection of the Lake Basin of which Shell and 

Fantail Lakes are part. This whole little high COuntLy basin just under the 

back side of White Mxntain is a gem and should have highest priority for 

318 
WILDERNESS 

protection. 

fragile! (1545) (129, 278, 487, 1548, 1568) 

Keep it wilderness and don't enlarge Junction Campgrouna. It is 

RESPONSE: Hall Natural Area (#5051): Wst of the area (75%) is currently 

withdrawn fm mineral entry and is a designated Research Natural Area. As an 

RNA, the managerent direction is more restrictive than wildemess. The 

s" portion is mineralized with active claims. Designation as whdemess 

could prduce conflicts with existing managerent which has successfully 

maintained the amenity values. The Research Natural Area designation and 

hescriptiosl #17 will preserve these values. 

CCM4lWR There shauld be wilderness designation at Table Mmntain, Tiqa Lake, 

Paiute Mountain and the upper elevations of the White and Inyo Mmntains, 

totalling 112,000 acres. (319) (272, 944, 1716, 1983, 2202) 

RESFCNSE: These areas were recarmended for wildemess in the Draft Plan. 

There has been no change in the Final. bever, the Final Plan reccprmends 

approximately 60,000 additional acres for wilderness designation, primarily 111 

the White Mountains. 

OJMIWJ?: Manag-t Area #14 - Rcck --Pine creek. We propose that the 

Wheeler Ridge Further Planning Area and the area around the eastem Brook Lakes 

be designated as wildemess. ORV use and vegetation manipulation are totally 

inappropriate in this area! (140) 

RESPONSE: Vegetative manipulation is not proposed by the Plan and OHV use is 

restricted to existing routes. Refer to Managerent Area #14 in the Plan 

regarding the manag-t of this area. 

aX": There should be lots of restricted access areas and a lot more 

wilderness. Each of the following Fbrther Planning Areas should be considered, 

or reccolsidered, in light of this: Cayote Southeast (#5033), Table I%untain 

(#5035), Buttermilk (#5038), Wheeler Ridge (#5040), Laurel-McGee (#5045), Horse 

Meadow (#5049), Ticga Lake (#5050), Hall Natural Area (#5051) and Log Cabin - 

Saddlebag (#5052). Sane of these areas such as #5035, #5050, and #5051, should 

be propsed wildemess areas in their entirety. The others should be carefully 

reviewed and those pOaions of them with desirable wilderness qualities should 

be set aside as wilderness areas. As stated many times in these documents, the 

wild- use in this Forest is very heavy and the maxi" possible area 

suitable for this use should be pmided. (76) (121) 

RESFGNSE: The Forest has reconsidered the Further P1annit-g Areas and made saxe 

changes. Existing wilderness use is heavy and demand exceeds supply during 

Certain times of the year. However, there are certain attributes that the user 

seeks that an? not available in most of the remaining madless areas. Refer to 

Appx3.x C in the EIS I\ppendix for a discussion of each area. 

C€"EW: 

six of the eight Further Planning Areas for non-wildmess uses. 

Mono County supprts the direction of the Forest Plan that designates 

The County 

319 
WILDERNESS 

also supprts the mall portion of propsed wilderness at Tiqa Lake. The 

modified bmdary of the proped wilderness in the White EJlsuntains that 

excludes mst of the areas possessing mineral and other developxent potential 

1s also supported, conditioned on the availability of additional infonnation 

that clearly documents the area's wilderness value and veri€ies the lack of 

mineral ptential for the area. (1638) 

RESPONSE: The wilderness propsal in the White Wuntains is based upon mineral 

infonnation supplied by studies conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey and 

U.S. Bureau of Mines. 

. 

CCt@EMF: Regarding the Lcq Cabin-Saddlebag Area, I feel it is quintessential 

Sierran wilderness. In addition to spectacular scenery, streams, and 

opportunities for solitude, this area is mtiguow with exlsting wilderness 

areas, affords awesome vistas and is critical habitat for the newly mtxduced 

bigl" sheep. I not only urge wildernfss designation, but want the Warren 

Fork watershed abve State Route 120 included as well except for a ~eep road 

that extends abut 0.5 mile up the Warren Fork. This area is roadless and 

should have been and be considered for wilderness status. 

Another respondent wrote: "In order to maintain the high quality of 

wilderness, I suggest that the Hmer Wilderness boundary be med southward to 

include the mrth share of Saddlebag Lake. " (1548, 2015) (1617, 2015, 2170) 

RESFQNSE: The Log Cabin-Saddlebag Area contains OW routes, mining claims, 

private mineral developent, and recently intrcduced muntain sheep. Nearly 

30 percent of the area is included within the recently designated l%m Basin 

National Forest Scenic Area. The higher elevations have been used for 

helisluing. These existing and potential uses as well as the viewshed were 

considered when Corgress established the Scenic Area Boundary. Prescriptions 

#3 and #17 can allow for the existmg uses and yet protect existing amenity 

values. 

COMMENT: The Inyo is acting as the lead agency in the study of the 4,052 acre 

Eenton Range Wilderness Study Area. Section 603 (A) of FLPMA provides clear 

direction as to how such lands are to be studied and states: "...the review 

required by this subsection shall be conducted in accordance with the prccedure 

specified in Section 3 (D) of the Wilderness Act." Section 3 (D)(l)(B) of the 

Wildemess Act of 1964 (PL 88-577) requires the following: "the Secretary of 

Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall, prior to suhnitting any 

reccmnendations for preservation as wilderness....hold a public hearing or 

hearings at a location or locations convenient to the area affected." The Inyo 

has clearly not met this -t in their study of the Benton Range. The 

study of the Eenton Range is inadequate. The overall attributes of the BLM 

portion of the study unit and their relation to the Forest Service portions of 

it have all but disappeared in the discussions of the area in Fppendix C. The 

Wilderness Scciety objects to this trea.bnent of the Benton Range WSA, and 

maintains that it has failed to meet the reqrirements of the Federal Land 

Policy Management Act, the Wilderness Act, and the National hviroMlenta1 

Policy Act. (2169) 

320 
W1LD"ESS 

"E: The BtN mion of the Benton Range Rrrther Planning Area is less 

than 5,000 acres; it has been studied pursuant to Section 202 of m9MA. The 

entire area has been given the same mideration as other further planning 

areas. 

aMlE": Throughout the descriptions and evaluations of further planning 

areas, the Forest Service refers to the "unmanageable" boundaries of roadless 

areas. Other agencies, including the National Park Swice have hfficult 

wilderness boundaries, but they are able to manage the areas. If the Forest 

S&ce is unable to manage its lands, perhaps the land should be transferred 

to an agency better able to protect public lands. (2160) 

RFSFCNSE: me tenn "u"geab1e bomdary" refers to an "mventory" boundary 

which includes existing land occupancies that are not allowed wii" designated 

wilderness. In many cases these uses could be allcwed to continue with an 

adjustment of the b3undary. 

aMlE": The people of E-alda County and their duly elected officials, the 

Esneralda Board of County Camussionez, are on record as being opposed to 

wilderness designation in the State of Nevada. (486) 

RESFCNSE: Excelsior (#5989): This relatively isolated area is the remnant of 

larger roadless areas in Califonsia which were released by the Califorma 

Wilderness Act. The area is mt currently being proposed as wilderness by 

legislation be- considered for the State of Nevada. Prescriptions #4 and #17 

are appropriate for the area. Sugarloaf (#5296): This area is heavily 

impacted by the presence of man's activity related to mining and contains 

significant nuneral values. The area is appropriately managed under the 

Prescription #18. There has been no change fm the Draft Plan. 

aMlE": The Excelsior Roadless Area (Further Plannirg Area #5989) should be 

considered for wilderness status. At the least, managemnt of this roadless 

area as a "wilderness-quality" roaaless area under prescription #17 should be 

considered. (1608) (211) 

"E: The area will managed under Prescriptions #4 and #17. 

aMlE": Why are the Queen's Valley Area (#5296) and th Birch Creek Area 

(#5060) given Prescription #18 status? I really oppose the idea of destmying 

any natural area solely for recreational purp3ses for the few. Indiscriminate 

ORV dri- is not a respco7sible use of public land. (278) (293, 1464) 

"E: h-escription #18 has been substantially rewritten and renamed 

"Multiple Resource Area". It does not allow for indiscriminate OHV use. 

Please refer to Appadix C in the EIS Appendur ' regar- managercent of all 

further p1ami.q areas. 

321 
WILDERNESS 

CCMlNJ!: I wish to make special about Area #5045. This area contains 

Sherwin and Laurel Creeks, and Sherwin Lakes, and f- a very attractive and 

these areas should be preserved in their pre.sent state, and protected fran any 

developmnt and excessive use that wculd certanl ' y result fran mtorized 

access. The fact the motorized use already occurs nearby and that the Proposed 

Sherwin Bowl Ski Area is also quite close, mly - sizorgly aphasizes the 

need for stxq protecticn for these two special places. -fore, I ~ery 

stxqly urge wilderness pmtecticn for at least this portion of Area #5045. 

(76) 

Inprt was received encouraging wilaemesS designation for the entire 

Laurel-McGee Roadless Fuxa. (129) 

Another mspndent felt that if sum wilderness is absolutely nquired in Area 

#5045 that the southem half of the Laurel Creek drainage which lies abwe the 

first set of swithbacks up the Laurel Lake Road should be used. This 

respnknt felt that there should be no more wilderness designated in the McGee 

Mxmtain area. (1870) 

"E: Laurel-- Area #5045: Because of the dispersed recreation use 

patkms, mineral values, range activities, sewer ponds, OHV rautes, we do not 

feel this area should be & for wilderness. Refer to Appendix C of 

the EIS rrppendix regading Prescripticms applied to these areas. 

Still Very area Very CloSe to the Of MallIKlth Lakes. 1 feel. that 

CCMlNJ!: We prome that all of the 

Coyote SE FFA be rermmended for wilderness. The Coyote Flat Road should be 

clased to vehicular traffic and obliterated imnediately. No hydroelectric 

facilities should be constzucted on Baker Creek. Private inholdings in the 

Ford Flat and Sugarloaf areas shDuld be purchased imnediately. (140) 

Amther respxdwit wrote: "Another high priority area that definitely should 

be Faoposed wilderness, not Prescripticm #17, is Coyote Ridge and Flat and the 

area fmn Sugarloaf south to ming Flat. This area contains plant 

assemblages that area unusual in the Sierra, and the best lamwn ppulation of 

the sensitive plant, Lupinus padre-crowley, occurs abwe wing Flat." (1589) 

Other input was that Coyote FlatsDaker Ckeek does not meet wilderness criteria 

as set forth by the 1964 Wilderness Act as mandated by ccolgress as it is eroded 

area and contajns a military strip. (201) 

Public camnent was also received mx"J ' that Coyote Riage, which contains 

Green and Rocky Bottun Lakes, be added to the existirg John Muir Wilderness. 

(1108) (129, 134, 139, 281, 944, 1928, 2183) 

RESEQNSE: Coyote SE Area (#5033). The area contains numerous OW routes, road 

corridors, a military air strip, range imp"nt and semi-primitive motorized 

rezxeation mrhmities. Allocation to Prescription #17 and efforts to 

solidify existing OW routes through the Upaate of the 1977 Interagency Wtor 

Vehicle Use Plan will preserve the amenity values m present. 

Management Area #16 - Coyote Wilderness. 

322 
WILDERNESS 

03.M”: 

John Muir Wilderness. (278) (129) 

“E: Buttermilk (#5038). This area is imnediately adjacent to private 

land with existing OW routes: the area pruvides critical deer winter range. 

Its amenity and habitat values are appropriately managed under the Mule Deer 

Habitat Prescription #4. 

Please recamnend Further Planning Area #5038 as an addition to the 

CCW-ERT: It’s distcessing to see the beautiful Wheeler Ridge Area of 16,229 

acres not included in your recarmendations for wilderness. With a 22/28 

wilderness rating and tremendous wildlife (I have seen bth mxlntain lion and 

bighom sheep in this area), I cmt imagine the Wheeler Ridge not receiving 

full wildemess designation. 

Wheeler (sest is a dramatic sight fm U.S. 395 and an entic-, if 

mventional, destination especially for the winter mxmtaineer. Part of the 

Crest is within the John Wr Wilderness already. We would like to see mast of 

the rest of the mdless area added to the John Muir. (1253, 1928) (129, 1616) 

RESPONSE: The Wheeler Ridge Area is bisected with a 4x4 vehicle route serving 

existing mining claims and is used for semi-primitive motorized recreation 

opprtunities. The geologic stxucture of the area restricts activity to these 

existing mutes. Prescriptions #3 and #17 will protect the amenity and 

wildlife values currently present in the area. 

CI~W~W: Managawnt Area ?%3 - WaIker/Parker. Because of the degradation 

caused by grazing and motorized vehicle use, I’d like to see Upper Horse Meadow 

included in Ftrther Pl- Area #5049. All of Area #5049 should be given 

wilderness status because, even under prescription #17, I fear the existing 

dirt tracks in the area will becane more pranimmt. Altbugh, in a sense, Area 

#5049 is already “rcaded“, the wilderness qualities and opportunities for 

solitude, particularly in winter, make it a prim area for wilderness 

designation. (278) (140, 1548) 

RESPONSE: The Horse Meadows Further Plw Area is laced with existing braand four-wheel drive vehicle routes. Existing facilities are located on 

private inholdings and range facilities are scattered throughout the area. The 

area will be allocated to Prescription #17 and a reduction of vehicle mutes 

may cccur when the 1977 mtor Vehicle Use Plan is updated. 

a3klMENT: The treatment of the released madless area resource in the DEIS and 

Plan is deficient under the provisions of the National hvimental Policy Act 

(42 USC Sec. 432 1 et. seq.). On 03/06/86, the Wildexness Society, Sierra 

Club, Sierra Club Legal Dsfense W, and the California Wilderness Coalition 

wrote to the Regional Forester concermq ’ madless areas in the planning 

mss. In part, that letter stated that we respectfully request that you 

prunptly instruct your staff to include in each Forest Plan EIS: 1) a map on 

the same scale as the Forest Plan maps that displays the boundaries and name of 

each roadless area (released areas as well as further planning areas); and 2) a 

323 
WILDERNESS 

description and evaluatim of how the proposed managemnt plan and alternatives 

would affect each rcadless area. In response, Inyo officials sent a map of the 

RARE I1 roadless areas in ccmpliance with the first request but failed to 

respond to the second request. Witbut the analysis, the map is essentially 

useless. Such treatment of one of the mst impsrtant issues in the planning 

pmcess violates NEPA requirements that there be a full and fair treatment of 

Wrtant environmental issues in the EX. (2169) (2178) 

"SE: At the tune of the request, all the information did not exist and 

was not finalized until the Draft Plan was published. Copies of the Draft Plan 

Appendix H and the maps acccmpanyirag the DEIS. 

were mailed to those identified. The infomtion was contained in . c, 

m: Roadless areas "released" by the California Wilderness Act of 1984 

can be considered for wilderness designation in this Forest Plan. While the 

California Wilderness Act of 1984 made 21 madless areas available for 

m-wilderness uses in this planning period, the Congress did not prohibit the 

Forest Service fran considering any of these areas for wildemess. The 

California Wilderness Act of 1984 states "...The Deparhnent of Agriculture 

shall not be reqmred ' to review the wilderness option prior to the revision of 

the plans.. .'I. The Forest Service has the option of considering a wilderness 

alternative for "released" roadless areas. The issue of the managercent of 

these "released" areas remains and should be part of the Forest Plan. (2160) 

(140, 1634, 2169, 2178) 

RESPONSE: Management prescriptions assigned to the specific roadless areas can 

be found in the Management Area in which they OCCUT. The roadless areas are 

managed under a variety of Management Prescriptions. Refer to Appendix D 

(Roadless Area Allocations) in the EIS Fppendix. 

CX"f: The Plan should provide that all roadless areas of wilderness be 

for wilderness designation or be managed SO that they can be 

designated as wildemess areas in the next planning cycle. (1218) (66, 978, 

1009, 1358, 1759, 1865, 1928, 2019, 2091, 2131, 2152, 2188) 

RESPONSE: Refer to am response. 

m: The tip of released Ftoadless Area #5388 lies withm Management Area 

#5. Since it has m managenent prescription nmhr on the map, I assume it 

must be the 1,608 acres of Prescription #l8 referred to on Page IV-98 of the 

Plan. If this is the case, I vehemently opp3se this land use designation. The 

southem part of the Mom ckaters is a unique geologic resource, not a site for 

an ORV playground. The area is also intensively used by deer, juclgirg by the 

tracks and droppings I see on my walks. This area should be designated 

Prescription #17, with the interior of each crater limited to ROS primitive 

m-mtorized use only. (278) 

RESFWSE: This area is in Prescription #17. 

324 
WILDERNESS 

m: I?t-&er Canyon (#5053) and Watterson (#5055). These areas possess 

outstanding biological as well as scenic values that warrant wildmess 

designabon. (1548) (1617, 1988, 2170) 

RESFONSE: The RARE I1 process idenbfied over one million acres of land 

administered by the Inyo National Forest that mt the definition of roadless. 

Cb-s passed legislation which released, or made available for 

m-wilderness uses, approximately 38 percent of this total. The Department of 

Agriculture has chosen, as perrmtted by this legislation, not review the 

wilderness option for lands Cturing this planning period. Information for each 

of the released areas is discussed in rrppendix D of the EIS Ilppendix. 

CXXWmPT: The portions of released 

roadless areas #5054 and #5055 that fall in Managmt Area #12 should be 

reclassified fm ROS Class Semi-primitive Motorized to ROS Class 

Semi-primitive "otorized. The southern portion of #5054 should be 

protected fm motorized vehicle use as it is part of the large Glass Mountain 

Roadless Area which has wilderness potential worth pres". (278) 

RESEWSE: ROS classification as mapped is determined by existing dtions 

and is not subject to charge unless the exist- conditions change such as the 

ccastruction or obliteration of a road. The southern portion of the Glass 

Mountain area will be managed under Prescriptions #11 and #17. Vehicles are 

restricted to existing mtes and new routes are not currently proposed. 

Managmt Area #12 - Bentcol-Casa Diablo. 

rXWllWR Regardng roadless "released" areas #5053 and #5054, these areas 

should not be opened to lcggmg and motorized traffic. #5053 should be 

designated ROS Semi-primitive b&n-mtorized rather than Semi-primitive 

Wtorized to help presave its madless character. I am glad to see ROS 

Primitive and Sa-primitive i%n-motorized designation for a gd portion of 

#5054, but I think all of this area should have that kind of status. (278) 

RIS€"SE: All released areas were evaluated individually to determine what 

prescription allocations were appropriate. ROS classifications are made based 

on the existing character and facilities of each area. 

CXWMDlT: Manaaemnt Area #12. Reccmnend wLlderness desicmabon for the Benton 

Ridge Roadless Area to protect cultural. resoucces f&n further vandalism. 

(1616) (129) 

"E: Wilderness designation is not required to protect cultural resoucces 

resources. Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines and federal laws for cultural 

resources provide specific and adefpate protection. 

a"TC Of the 435,459 net Forest Service acres in the White kuntains, only 

93,183 acres (approximately 21%) will be available for general mtorized 

access. The remaining 79% will be subject to restrictions rang- fm limited 

access, through horse and foot access, to no access except by special permit. 

325 
That essentially plts access in a large part of the White Mtns beyond the reach 

of better than 99% of the POFpilation and may eventually limit usage to tbDse 

few who have the time and resources to either backpack or horsepack into the 

area and the research ccmnwnity. (1588) 

m: PC€SCXi@CHl alklXtiCilS W3T33 mad0 based CBI both the WIiquB MbllXCL 

resource characteristics of an area and the uses that would be appropriate in 

the area based on past use, exlpessed dgnand 0TInanag-t ox?€"s. see the 

description and prescription allccaticm for Management Area #13, White 

r"hmtajns in chapter Iv of the Plan. 

w: Total wildemess designation for the White Mountains is not a 

preferred managment plan as no provision for mining in this highly mineralized 

area has been made nor grazing allotmnts amsidered, plus many roaded areas 

which exist do not meet wilderness cri-ia. Blanket wilderness is not the 

answar. (201) 

RESPOBVSE: The Plan does not recamnend wildemess designation for all of the 

White mtains. See the description and prescription allocations of 

Management Area #13, White Mnmtains in Chapter IV of the Plan. 

CCWlXF: Classify the released roadless areas as semi-primitive non-motorized 

recreation areas and manage them under Prescription #17 - Limited Access. 

Revise Prescripticm #17 as discussed by the Friends of the Inyo, and apply that 

revised version of limited access tn the other 12 released areas. (2169) 

-E: Semi-Pcimitive Ncn-mtorized Recreation is an Ilos tenn that is 

designated by a mappiq process based qon several criteria. Prescription #17 

has been mxXfied to clarify its original intent. Prescription #17 has been 

applied to much of the inventoried loadless lands where the major management 

enphasis was to retain the semi-primitive m-mtorized and motorized 

recreation opprtunities. 

m: The public and the Forest would be better served if the 

"rmm-wilderness roadless lands" category was divided into ISKI categories: 

"wilderness quality roadless lands" and "m-wilderness quality roadless 

lands". This division wnuld make it easier to prescribe appmpriate management 

practices for the Inyo's inventoried wilderness quality areas. Any roadless 

areas which do not meet wilderness quality standards (see RARE 11) could then 

be managed to develop resource potentials to an extent not appropriate for 

wilderness quality roadless areas. All the Inyo's inventoried wilderness 

quality areas not recaRnended for wilderness in this planning cycle could then 

be placed in Prescripticm #17. A few mxiifications of this category muld 

allow management practices. ..to be aimed at keepkg open future options of 

wildemess designation for wilderness quality areas. (2170) (1107, 1532) 

RFSPONSE: The use of the terms "quality" as used in the RARE 11 to make 

canparative ratings led to a findirg against the Forest Service that 

invalidated its RARE I1 process. Refer to Appndix D - Roadless Area 

326 
WILDERNESS 

~liccaticms in the EIS 

various rcadless areas for this planning period. 

for the Manag-t Prescripticms applied to the 

"J!: The Coyote North, Deep Wells, Excelsior, Hortm Creek, Indep"s 

Creek, Mono Craters, Mt. Olsen, Nessie, Nevahbe, North Lake, Rcck Creek West, 

Soldier Canyon, south Sierra, Tinemaha , Watterson, and Whiskey Creek Roadless 

Areas shDuld be designated semi-primitive non-motorized areas. (2160) 

"WE: r&st of the "madless areas" of the Inyo Forest exist because of 

theirinheren t topcr3raphic characteristics and lack of eccomnically feasible 

opprtunities for recreation or CCmTlodl 'ty production. We do not invisim any 

significant change during this planning period. 

m: Of primary importance is the White-- wilderness mnplex, totaling 

aplpoximately 750,000 acres. 535,401 acres of this canplex are Inyo National 

 ores st lands; the reminiq acreage is ccmp3sed of cnntiguous Bureau of Land 

Manag-t Wilderness Study Areas. The Final Plan should discuss the potential 

for a joint effort between the Forest Service and the BLM to manage this 

canplex as a single wilderness. (166) (126, 140) 

RESPONSE: 

BLM lands. 

coordinated with BLM. 

The recormendeed Boundary Peak Wilderness in the Whites includes scme 

The recormendeed wilderness boundary in the Inyo muntains has been 

m: The White/Inyo mtain ccmplex is the highest priority for 

wilderness designatim as it is cole of the prim examples of Great Basin 

ecosystem. It is a unique area that desemes the ptection of wilderness 

designation. If r"r boundary adjustments are necessary such as by cherry 

stemning roads to eliminate major points of conflict, they should be used. 

(1332) (138, 328, 444, 1099, 1539, 1616, 1757, 1802, 1806, 1923, 2169) 

RESPONSE: An additional 60,000 acres has been added to the wildemess 

-tion in the Final Plan for a total of abut 172,600 acres. The 

majority of this 60,000 acres is in the White Mountains. 

CCWmW We interpret the reduction of mining opprhmities on the Inyo Forest 

as shown in the Preferred Alternative when ocmpared to the FPA Alternative to 

be due to withdrawals of over 112,000 acres of land into the wilderness 

category. There are five separate wilderness areas being proposed in the 

Preferred Alt-tive and, while three of these located m the west of Owens 

Valley are supprtable as wilderness, the other two are located in the White 

and Inyo bbuntains will lock up acres which have a proven geolcgical potential 

for mineral exploration. We recormend 110 additional wilderness m these two 

areas during the first decade until a careful analysis 1s done of the mineral 

potential of these two ranges. Since the area is currently maintained as a 

defacto wilderness, there is no urgency to officially designate the area. 

Research into the econcmic potential of developing minerals wMch may be vital 

to the United States earmy and security sbuld be done in the two proven 

327 
geological areas before an opportunity to utilize valuable resources is lost by 

proposing wilderness designations. (49) (352, 1807) 

RES-: Recent mineral information provided by the U.S. Geological Survey 

and U.S. Bureau of Mines have been cansidered in delineation of proposed 

wilderness bnmdaries. Areas identified as having significant mineral values 

have been excluded fran proposed wilderness designation. 

m: I believe that if the White and Inyo muntains were to becane 

wildemess, there should be no developed trails. Let it remain in a primitive 

state a true wild area. It shouldn't be "dolled" up to attract people to it. 

People wk~ enjoy solitude, openess and challecges would easily be attracted to 

undevelopd wilderness. In the Wilderness Act it 1s stated as b&rg an area 

"untrqled by man. " Untrampled to me mans -loped! (2177) (2199) 

RESp(3NsE: Refer to the recreation direct2 'on for Manag-t Area #13 in the 

Final Plan which suggests "izing trail construction. The decision to build 

or not to build trails and their locations will be determined by a wilderness 

managemmt plan which is prepared after wilderness designation and with further 

public involvement. 

-: In designating the White and Inyo E?I3untain ccmplex as wilderness, 

clearly state that recreational developnent will not wnflict with wildlife 

needs and int-ts: 1) do not place a new trail system in areas where the 

fish, wildlife, or riparian habitats will be harmed; 2) If you must put a new 

trail system "iq north to south along the ranges, be sure to place it well 

belaw the crest so that prime bighorn habitat would not be disturbed. (1522) 

RESp(3NsE: Refer to abwe response. 

Cl3PENT: The Forest Service has not documented any significant need for 

wilderness designation in the Whites. The Plan specifically states that thDse 

characteristics which foster high quality and frequent wilderness usage are 

designation, the high unrwded areas in the Whites will not change 

significantly. In my opinion, and that of Wehausen (White Mountain Bighorn 

Sheep, 1982), wilderness designation may well be the death knell of the real 

wilderness that does exist north of White Mountah Peak. Let's leave it alone 

and not destroy it with the wildemess designation. Prescription #17 - Limited 

Access would urovide all the "u 'ms for urotEm this area and not 

missing in the whites. The Plan further suggests that irregardless of 

advertise it fbr the hman abuse which will & with whemess designation. 

(2171) (1363, 1420, 1588, 1919, 2048, 2171) 

-E: Because of the isolation of a large part of the higk elevations in 

the White b%x", it is not anticipated that there will be extensive use 

resultiq fm wilderness designation. Rails will be minimized in the area. 

-: The bigl" sheep, native trout, cows and I like the Whites just the 

way they are. rz"t shut us out tn sexve the limited special interests of a 

328 
WILDERNESS 

“mall but mal pup of local citizens, as well as state and national 

wildemess adhrocacy orgarnzations. (989) (1393, 1502, 1588, 1918, 2201) 

RESFQNSE: See response abve. 

CCM4”: I suumrt a wilderness reca“&tion for the entire 222.000 acre 

White ~&untakL~tudy Area rather than the 53,200 acres that you &xmmend. 

(388) (80, 91, 100, 111, 112, 152, 158, 167, 182, 303, 306, 384, 386, 390, 391, 

392, 397, 400, 419, 430, 441, 491, 494, 932, 986, 998, 999, 1031, 1159, 1161, 

1170, 1188, 1263, 1322, 1350, 1424, 1469, 1489, 1516, 1529, 1549, 1579, 1588, 

1598, 1602, 1605, 1607, 1616, 1622, 1628, 1642, 1649, 1655, 1672, 1675, 1678, 

1679, 1682, 1687, 1706, 1721, 1757, 1802, 1805, 1814, 1819, 1836, 1877, 1909, 

1933, 1937, 1969, 1980, 2023, 2032, 2045, 2170) 

RESHINSE: 

an additional 60,000 acres, primarily in the White Pbmtains. 

We have increased the wilderness recxmn~tion in the Final Plan by 

CfBMWT: The propsed white Mountam Wildemess should be expanded to 

incorporate watersheds of trout streams aloq the east slope, including Leidy, 

Perry men, Mcafee, and Cottonwcd Creeks. The Preferred Alternakve, revised 

boundary alternative, places the western boundary too high (abut 8400 feet). 

None of the White Mmntain roadless area should be designated open-roaded. The 

prop& White Mountain wilderness area should be enlarged by &endirg the 

eastern bow north of White Pbuntam Peak as follows: it should coincide 

with the eastern boundary of the White Mountain ruadless area but excludmg the 

mining area south of Indian Creek (the Argentite &d, iW~llini, Green kmster 

and Evergreen Mines and the Silver Consolidated prospects). (1549, 1650, 1776) 

(71, 79, 139, 140, 151, 157, 166, 171, 263, 266, 279, 281, 288, 289, 298, 311, 

315, 438, 934, 944, 970, 1018, 1108, 1177, 1223, 1653, 2023) 

RESFQNSE: See above response. 

CDWE”: Stmnqly recaTmend wilderness designation for qlete White 

Mountain, Birch creek, Black Canyon, and Blanc0 I’%untain Roadless Areas in 

Management Area #13. (129) (278, 293, 1464) 

RFSPONSE: Please refer to Ap$€ndia?s C and D in the EIS AppenaUr regarding the 

management of further p1annj.m~ areas and roadless areas. Also refer to the 

Forest map showing Prescription and Management Area boundaries in the map 

packet. 

m: Black Canyun FPA has geologic beauty as well as scme Bristlecone 

Forest and Dedeckera eurekensis deserving protection. The Black Canyon route 

should be closed and, whm ecoxmically feasible, reclaimed. The roadless 

areas of the northern Inyo Mountains, the Paute and Andrew i%mtain Further 

Planning Areas form the logical northern extension to the proposed ELM Inyo 

Mountain Wilderness. As in the Whites, the lower slopes should be included as 

wilderness. (1664) 

329 
RBP(1NsE: Zmdrews (#Sa): A rnrmber of existirg vehicle routes into 

the area prwide access to minirg claims located wi% the interior portion of 

the area. F?cescriptim #18 is appropriate for the area. 

cx"?l!: 

this area is one of the few places where local people can enjoy a primitive 

enviroamnent without having to hike many miles. If they are recormended for 

wilderness, we suggest that the area between Badger Flat and Papoose Flat, 

including the areas arcund Squaw and Side Kill Springs, be excluded. These 

areas ccmW nu"^ roads and are utilized for cattle grazing, hunthg, and 

other recreaticmal activities. The rcad, between Badger Flat and Papoose Flat 

prarides a loop road "eztuq ' the cmnnmities of Big Pine and Indepndence. 

I s!tmxJly oppose wilderness designation for the White m- as 

It is a locally popular --day excursion witlnut ham to retrace one's 

mte. (174, 135) (294, 325, 1258, 1588, 1807, 2201) 

m: The proposed wilderness boundaries of the White Mountains and Inyo 

muntains were defined to protect sensitive natural areas and at the same time 

to provide for existing activities. The road between Badger Flat and Pam 

Flat is excluded fran the props& wilderness knmdary but the Sidehill Springs 

area is within the boundary. The Forest %mice aclau3wleages that this area is 

popular for other uses, but it is felt that the protectioll of its ~tural 

resource values outweighs other considerations. 

CXtMWl!: 

Pbmtains Prescription #18. 

m: 

Object to mkiq the area klu&rg I4n1teneq-m Springs in the White 

I would -e it to Prescripticol #17. (134) 

This area will be managed under Prescriptions #12 and #17. 

cx"?l!: The White mtains, incluclhq Gunter Canyon, should be managed 

fo1lu.cb-g Prescription #17 rather than #18. The rem for this is that one of 

the few Dedezkera eurekensis populations occurs in Qmter Canyon. In addition, 

the area in the northernmost portion of the White Mountains, a block designated 

as Prescription #l8 in the Preferred Alternative, should be divided into 

Prescriptions #17 and #18 as described in the AMN Alt-tive. (1108) (134, 

1617, 1649, 1857) 

"E: Due to the lmown and potential mineral values and the roaded 

dtion of Qmter Canyon, it has rmzun ' ed in Prescription #18. Sensitive 

plant species are afforded adequate protection by Forest-wide Standards and 

Guidelines regardless of the assigned Managrmmt Prescription. Whereas the 

mrthern end of the White Mountains in Nevada is already heavily impacted by 

the mrks of man and significant mineral values may exist, we have left the 

area in Prescription #18. 

m: Amend the boundaries for the east flank of Managenent Area #13 - 

White Mountains, sham in the Preferred Alternative, to match those boundaries 

contained in the (3uR Alternative for this area. Sunshine C4ini.q Chqany can 

see m valid reason for departing fran the current managaent prescription in 

the CUR Alternative for the chatovich Creek, Davis Creek, Indian Creek and 

330 
Mable Cke& drainages. The documented high mineral potential of these 

drainages would be rendered inaccessible for mining by a Limited Access 

Management prescription. While exist- road access may be preserved under 

permit for the life span of need, the limited access requirement that visual 

resources must meet or exceed the VQO of retention will serve to effectively 

eliminate mining operatias. (1023) 

RESPONSE: The mineral potential of the subject area is not rendered in 

accessible and the VQO of retention as seen fm the Fish Lake Valley Highway 

will not significantly effect mineral exploration and developnent. 

Ca.": The proposed wilderness area along the crest of the Inyo lvlountains 

shcaild be given the highest priority and should be expaded to include the 

adjacent parts of Further Planning Areas #5064 and #5063. At the least, the 

large area in the Inyos designated as Prescription #18 should be changed to 

#17. This area is mthy of strcolg protection. It is a beautiful desert 

nrnmtain area and several rare plants and plant assemblages OCCUT there, 

including but not limited to the Bristlecones. (1589) (91, 134, 140, 152, 167, 

306, 377, 419, 971, 1108, 1263, 1549, 1582, 1586, 1593, 1598, 1634, 1649, 1655, 

1679, 1942, 2152, 2170) 

RESFCiQSE: The ppsed wilderness boundary was determined to provide for the 

protection of sensitive resources and the provision for other uses. The 

bnmdaries were designated after careful consideration of all resoucces and 

uses on the Forest. Identified sensitive plant species will continue to be 

protected. See Chapter I1 of the EIS for a mre cmplete discussion of the 

sensitive plants of the Forest. 

CCNNEXC: I am strongly against your proposed wildemess in the Inyo Mh7s. 

Wilderness should be necessary provided there is proper management of the 

land. It is wrong to lock rmst of the people out just to satisfy a few special 

interest groups. One of the best things abut these mountains is the few to no 

people you run across. I have seen very little change since the first time I 

drove up there. Due to the rugged texrain and lack of water, this area is 

unlikely for backpacking. One thiq that really disturbs me is the lack of 

cmnunicatians between the Forest Senrice and the BLM. None of the Forest 

Service pxsonnel at the Lone Pine workshop knew whether the southern half of 

the Iqos are pmpsed as wilderness in Cxanston's Bill. I think it is. If 

both wilderness proposals succeed, it will lcck up practically all of this 

unique area. If you must have wilderness, I suggest you me your north 

boundary south of the exist- mads, perhaps to abut Tamarack Caryon. This 

would avoid conflict with the present users and provide some very good land for 

wilderness. 

RFSPONSE: Paiute Area (#5064). The emlogically sensitive area around 

Sidehill Spring will be lncluded in the recarmended wilderness boundary. 

This area is natural wilderness due to its rugged terrain. (103) 

CXM4ElW: I encourage you to include restrictions in your Plan against new 

mads and mineral exploration and expansion of grazing in the Inyo Pbountains. 

(306) 

331 
WILDLIFE 

RESWNSE: 

remain open for mineral activity. 

grazing in the Inyo b5n"cain.s. 

National Forest lands not specifically withdrawn for mineral entry 

The Plan does mt project any increase of 

cci": Beginning with Section 14 on Forested Habitats, it might be mre 

clear to place the remainder of Standards and Guidelines for wildlife under a 

new heading, perhaps Habitat Types. These sdkms are m llsted under 

mphasis Species. (2190) 

S-E: We have inmrprated your suggestion. 

m: Wildlife deserves priority in roadless areas. (467) 

REspoNsE: 

wildlife habitat. 

Prescription #17 was developed in part to prate the integrity of 

cci": I advmate the of inbxduced species such as tule elk, wild 

horses and burros. (298) 

RFSPONSE: Current direction and interagency agreements mandate Forest 

Service responsibility to manage these species. Management plans are be- 

(or have been) developd to provide direction on habitat management and 

acceptable ppulation levels. 

m: Many plant and wildlife species may require a mre natural 

distribution and abundance of habitat to maintain genetically viable 

populations, rather than snall or isolated islands of habitat. Natural 

corridors for migration must also be considered. The guidelines as drafted 

will mt meet the NFMA standards (See CFR 219.27 (A) (5)). (1617) 

RES-E: Old growth allocation &&lines will be used to inplement Forest 

Plan direction for those forested areas that are be- planned for timber 

harvest. The goal is to display areas by timber anpartmmt that will be 

"aged for old growth at 10, 50 and 50+ years follming Plan 

inqlementation. This 

management strategy should allow maintaining ccoltiguous stands of old gmwth, 

and reduce fragrentation of these stands over time. There is M evidence to 

suggest that inplementation of the Preferred Altemative will result in 

reducing levels of any species belaw genetic viability. 

Stands of old growth will be allocated and documented. 

m: Acmdit-g to our figures, only about 29,000 acres of brush would be 

treated for wildlife under the AMB Altanative over 50 years based on 

treatment rates disclosed on Page 11-131. Figure 11-38 reveals a figure of 

102,000 acres of txeated shrub. It would appear that the figures on shrub 

treatment in this alternative are overstated. (2190) 

332 
WILDLIFE 

RESXNSE: 

those specifically designed for wildlife. 

Shb treabwnt totals include all vegetative treatmmts including 

CCWmW.: Limited Access FTescription #17. "Improve riparian areas where 

necessary to enhance fawnkg or other fish and wildlife habitat." (2190) 

RESPONSE: We chose not to add the mx?ing "or other fish and wildlife" to 

the wildlife element in Prescription #17. We assume that "wildlife" includes 

fish. 

CCWmW.: Start a pnqran for the reintrwiiuctim of pmnghoms to their 

original range in these areas, and Vnp1-t the plans. (1532) 

RESFCWSE: In 1982, a reinfxxiuction plan was develapea by the Forest Sexvice 

in ccoljunction with eight other agencies and organizations. One goal of this 

document was to identify areas suitable for pmnghom relocation to expand 

their range into historic habitats in and adJaCent to the Inyo Forest. Since 

this plan was cmpleted, there have been three intmiuction efforts where 

pmqhom were transplanted fran northern California to BIN lands adjacent to 

the Inyo Forest. 

iXWmW: Management Area #5 - Glass Mountain. Pronghorn antelope, 

rein.troduced to Adobe Valley in 1982, range the northeastem boundary of Wus 

Manag-t Area. Fmql" antelape also have develop4 a consistent pattern 

of spring, sumner, and fall season habitat use in Long Valley, which includes 

fawn drop along the western side of the Glass Phmtain range frcm Watterson 

Canyon north to Laughlin Creek. Also, prcolghorn have recently extended their 

habitat west of the Owens fiver and are found fm the Little Sand Flat, 

north of the Indiana Sumnit Natural Area south to the meadows near the Hot 

Creek Fish Hatchery and then east to the Cwens fiver. These pmnghom 

migrate through Wattenmn Canyon area to Banner Ridge near Mran Spring and 

then continue east through Chidago Flat and across the volcanic tablelands to 

the winter rqe along the west side of the White Mx"ains on BLM lands. 

( 1433 ) 

"E: 

and 1985 transplants. 

This is gm5 information that documents results of the 1982, 1984 

UM4EWT.z pronghorn antelope that sumner on BIN 

lands in Adobe Valley have established fawning areas withm the Pizona Hills 

east of Adobe Valley. Under Manag-t Area direction, I recccRnend a 

wildlife element that states: "Maintain the value of the Pi- Hills area 

to pmrghom antelope as a fawnkg/sumwr range area." (1433) 

RESEONSE: A few animals use this Manag-t Area as spring/sumner/fall 

habitat. This area is currently being evaluated in the developnent of the 

Montganery Pass Wild Horse Plan. Managewnt goals for pmnghom will be 

addressed in this plan. ?he current priority for this area is managing for 

viable wild horse ppulations. 

Management Area #6 - Pizona. 

333 
WILDLIFE 

m: Management Area #12 - Bentcn-Casa Diablo. Prmgl” antelope use 

this area as a migraticm wrridx to and fran their sumner range in the Lay 

Valley area to their winter range in Hamil Valley. (1433) 

RESF€WE: The area betmen Wattersan Canycm and Moran Spriqs is a funnel 

far the approximately 20 animals that summr in the crowley Lake area and 

winter in Hdl Valley. A wildlife diredx ’ve will be added to this 

Management Area that pxuvides ptecticm for pmql” migratim corridors. 

m: Management Area #13 - White Marntains. antelope ham 

also recently kgm utilizing Pellisiqr and Chiatwich Flats as sumner 

raqe. Thesep”marepmbablyascembq ‘ the White Mmntains fmn the 

east side. There is a mall group of pmqhom that OCCUT in Fish Lake 

Valley year round. Cmsider the ”ductim of prongtom antelope to sane 

upper elevation areas of the White bbuntajns with the design of Fish Lake 

Valley being available as winter me. (1433) (2170) 

RESF€WE: This is a low priority far transplant purposes for the following 

reasans: the SMll size of the area may be a limiting factor; alhgh 

M”, 

prcuql” remains have been excavated at Indian campsites in the white 

there is M verificaticm that these animals used the white 

bbmtains; and transplants are Mly made onto winter ranges as these 

habitats are usually limiting-. The animals find suitable sumner habitats on 

their awn. A pmqbrn transplant in the White Wnmtains would require a 

late spring or early fall transplant. A fall transplant axlid disrupt 

breding behavior, and transplanting does with fawns is not recannended. At 

this point in time, it is probably better to look at supplementing existing 

transplant endeavors and initiating transplants into mre favorable sites. 

m: There is M mention made of pmqhom antelape which were once 

present in greater numbers than they are today in the bbm Basin, Pi- area 

and “diq BIM lands. As pql” are indigenous to grassland habitat 

in the Great Basin, greater emphasis shuld be placed on hpmvhg their 

habitat and populations, with less emphasis on m-native species such as 

wild horses, burros, and tule elk. (1634) 

RESmE: PrOnghDm were initially recomnended as an indicator species. 

The fact that r“c exist- use occurs on BLM lands resulted in mal of 

this species as an MIS. They are a gccd indicator of high quality 

shrub/steppe ecOSyStemS in the Great Basin. Irnplmtation of the Standards 

and Guidelines, and Managecent Area Direction should suffice in insurirg 

protection of pro-bm habitats. 

CXBMWT.: There is m mention in the Plan or the DEIS of the inpacts of 

grazing on antelope herds or other sensitive species. what can be done to 

protect the antelope‘s wintering and fawning grounds? (278) 

RESmE: The majority of prongtom habitat is located on BLM and/or private 

lands. On Forest Service lands, the riparian Standards and Guidelines, 

management direction for sage grouse, and habitat manag-t guidelines for 

334 
WILDLIFE 

shrub cammities should ensure protection or hp”ent of habitats 

impoaant to pronghms. Fragnm are not amsidered a sensitive species on 

Forest Service administered lands. 

m: Reintroductian of all extirpated plant and animal species. 

Attention sbould be given to restoring native preda’cors. (298, 311) (123, 

151, 166, 171, 302, 331, 934, 1532, 1632, 1781, 2102, 2178) 

-E: The Califoda Departm??it of Fish and Game or the Nevada 

Deparbnent of Wildlife normally takes the lead in ’ reintxduction 

of fish and/or wildlife species. The U-ryo has been aggressively involved in 

remvezy efforts for Labontan and Paiute cutthroat trout, Owens Ttri chub, 

Peregrine falcars, tule elk, and Sierra Nevada and Nelson t4nmtai.n 

sheep. We are not aware of any extirpated native plant species on the Inyo 

regarding reintrcduction. 

CiMm?T: An end to predator c”l, namely of black bear, coyote and 

nnmtain lion. There is no discussion of trapping or predator control. These 

practices sbould be prohibited. (298, 1632 ) (151, 266, 288, 302, 450, 934, 

970, 1412, 1781, 1982, 2102) 

“E: This falls under the respcolsibility of the California Department 

of Fish and Game and the Nevada De;parbnent of Wildlife. 

CCWENT: (1) Locate new developnents at least one-quarter mile frcm hardwood 

stands in order to protect them as wildlife habitat; (2) Restrict vehicular 

access as necessary to protect deer winter range, holding areas, migration 

routes, and kram fawning areas. Allm 110 new vehicular access in these key 

areas; (3) Locate all developcents outside of main deer migration corridors. 

(1532) 

RESPONSE: Standards and Guidelines for oak/hardmd stands are sufficient 

for protecting these habitats. Items 2 and 3 are addressed specifically in 

the responses for mule deer. Standards and Guidelines, the Mule Deer 

Management Prescription #4 and the Semi-Primitive Recreation Prescription #17 

also help maintain integrity of important mule deer habitats. 

CtBWIW?: We concu~ with the wordkg of mst of the Standards and Guidelines 

for the categories of wildlife species listed. Please expand this section to 

(1) Include the species given in pages 3-4 of our cxmmsnts; (2)(A) add a 

statement outlining a carmitment to obtain needed baseline data for all 

threatened, endangered, rare and sensitive species and to validate the models 

used to evaluate impacts of management activities on fish and wildlife, B) if 

evidence exists showing that any fish or wildlife species are in a declirung 

or depleted state, prohibit activities that would keep the situation from 

inpruving until recovery is well underway, C) if insufficient information 

exists on the status of or habitat availability and condition for threatened, 

endangered, rare or sensitive species, prohibit activities that would disbrb 

these populations or remare their habitat until sufficient infonnation to 

335 
make manag-t decisions is available. (1617) (140, 381, 1260, 1261, 1532, 

1548, 1577, 1634, 1650, 2170, 2178) 

RESP(INSE: The species listed as Managment Indicator Species have been 

substantially lrodified in the Final Plan. Please also refer to the 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for wildlife. 

Item 2A: The need for specific data relating to wildlife species is addressed 

in Appndix A. 

Item 2B: This a~nc%m is addtiessed under Standards and Guidelines and Forest 

Goals. 

Item 2C: Clmcems identified by this statement are addressed under Standards 

and Guidelines, and Managmt Area Direction. 

Direction for Censuses are in the "itor- Guidelhffi. 

03&": The Forest Goals shDuld state that wildlife populations will be 

enhanced and managed at levels cmpatible and pprtionate to habitat 

conditions. Where habitat degradation has cccmred in the past or is still 

occurring, appropriate actions should be taken to imp- its quality and 

help it retum to a natural oandition. (1532) (78, 232, 466, 954, 1650) 

"E: The Standards and Guidelines for all resources address wildlife 

habitat conditions. 

m: I recomnend that the mnitoring metboaolosy be described for 

individual species (Page V-10). Forest Objectives have already been 

established in a species-specific "er as shown on Plan IV-14-16. under 

your current standard of canparisan, scme species could actually be 

eliminated fran a habitat type and be cansidered acceptable. I consider this 

approach to be in serious error. Generally, the mnitoring scenario is 

inadequate, poorly described and needs to be rehght and explained in mre 

depth. The lis- of "itoring activity (Plan V-10) has no standard to 

"itor deer range enhancement. The primary objective to the Forest Senrice 

should be to monitor plant and amhal species and to conduct detailed 

ecological studies to better understand habitat requirenr-ts, reasons for 

populaticn declines or explosions, and ecosystem rehabilitation. 

1. We deplore the lack of -is m non-game animal species and any plant 

species not associated with lcgging or livestock grazing. 

2. All wildlife species that are krmwn to have been found historically in 

the Inyo National Forest should be considered for pssible reintroduction. 

3. We strongly ope the huntirig of predator species currently inhabiting 

the Forest, such as black bear and Coyote. 

4. We insist that mre detailed inventories be taken of all sensitive 

wildlife and plant species to ascertam ' present distributions and habitat 

5. Intrxduced species such as wild horses, burms, and tule elk are 

inappropriate in this area, especially in light of the ptenbal 

tal damage and captition with native species, and should be 

extirpated fmn the Forest and ' lands. (1433, 1631, 140) (158, 

278, 300, 381, 487, 1608, 1638, 1839, 1863, 1802) 

requiremen ts. 

336 
WILDLIFE 

RESPONSE: The Plan reflects a reasanable management program for wildlife. 

The praposed prcgram must be inqlementable. "itoring direction in the Plan 

reflects the Forest's ability to acoarrplish the specified activities. 

m: You state on V-10 that the presence of MIS will be ccmpared 

-ally with the presence of the species they are intended to represent. 

The Plan indicates that this will be acccniplished for $6,000. We tkink this 

is unrealistic. Tu ensure viability, it is necessary to carefully rmnitor 

population trmds of all rare species. Therefore, all species for which 

viability is a concern should be specifically named and mnitored by 

conducting direct counts on established sample plots. (2190) 

RESPONSE: We are wading the mnitoring plans for individual species and 

special habitats. Threatened, endangered, and some sensitive species will be 

mnitored by direct cmsus. Others will be evaluated using habitat 

capability or habitat suitability models. 

C"r: Upland game species such as chukar and quail received no attention 

in the documents. If this information is needed for the p1anni.q effort, it 

is available fm the Nevada Lleparfxemt of Wildlife. (282) (33, 1433, 1988, 

2170, 2190) 

RESPONSE: Although chukars are a harvest species, they weren't used as an 

MIS for the following reasons: they are exotics, they are not god ecological 

indicators as they are de-t on annual undexsto~~ species, populations 

can fluctuate significantly due to precipitation patterns, and the Forest is 

not planning managemsnt activities that will &ersely affect habitats used 

by chukars. There are no management activities planned that would affect 

rnxlntain quail. 

C"r: No population for blue grouse is given in the Plan/EIS. Based on 

1986 obsenration and hunter reports, that population is believed to be 

250-500. The excessive grazing impacts on high elevation meadows and 

riparian areas caused by livestock and wild horses also pose a threat to blue 

puse ppulations. (282) 

RFSPONSE: Blue grouse use mt drainages in the Sierra between the 8,000 and 

10,000 foot elevations that contain a desired mixture of forested and open 

habitats that they require. Riparian Standards and Guidelines should ensure 

mamtenance or iniprwmwnt of sumner habitats for this species. 

(XtMWl': I usually 

find these grouse nesting below 8,000 feet in areas like Lundy Canyon and Lee 

Viniq canycol. They are not within wilderness areas: sone do "e upslope 

during s"er. (1548) 

RESPONSE: This statement has been r-ed. Both wilderness and 

mn-wilderness areas provide habitat for this species. 

Doubt that "mst blue grouse habitat is in wildexness". 

337 
WILDLIFE 

QX”: Carefully “itor grazm of meadows in blue grouse habitat. 

Since grazbg is likely to be the ntxt significant impact an this 

Guidelines for riparian areas -de pMcm as this habitat merit is 

also impcatant for blue grouse. 

or eliminate grazing if adverse impacts OCCUT. (2170) (1244, 2169) 

IIEspoELsE: 

species, habitat requirements and “g-t directi cm to maintain this 

species will be addressed in allotment- management Plans. standards and 

COEIMENT: A mnplete list of wildlife species that are k” or suspected to 

ocau rm (or have been astirpated fmn) tbs Forest and an accwnt of habitat 

availability and amdition should be provided &era in the Plan. Without 

such a list, M ane can juQe whether the Forest Senrice will be able to 

adequately manage the inevitable &lids between resource uses that can 

affect wildlife populations and lead to a loss of viability. (1617) 

m: A capchnsive list of all species is not ”sidered necessarily 

“rhgfd. MIS, sensitive plant species, fish species, and the habitat 

mpments defined in the Plan can provide an adequate perspective cm hau the 

Forest intends to manage these ~~sou~ces. Acceptable management practices 

Management Area Direction. These will be im@emnted using project level 

are described in the standards and Guidelines, Management h-escripti- and 

evaluatilms. Mcolitorirag will insure that we maintain OUT carmitment to 

Illanaging these resources. 

m: Research is needed to develop a biological my of species in the 

Forest. Missing fran Plan A-5, mentioned briefly in B-5, this is not a 

lcw-priority item, but an indispensable tool. A Species list/species 

atmdanca database must be developd for the Forest before any meaningful 

management can take place. Cne cannot provide for “...all fish and wildlife 

species cm the Forest...“ witbut this kamledge. It is particularly 

important to have this infonnaticm for roadless areas before changirg their 

use designaticm. (1631) 

RESPONSE: R“ig and manpower preclude a canplete biological inventory of 

the entire Forest. We will “itor MIS species or their habitats to insure 

viability. This should in tum insure the viability of other species on the 

Forest. kmibrirg guidelines will define the level of mnitoring for MIS 

and other habitat canp3nents. Priorities for &toring will be in areas 

where managemat activities will alter habitats. 

CCtM”: No new road cansb.-” should be allowed if it would degrade 

important wildlife habitats and any me&ded roads should be obliterated 

where possible. When deciding whether roads am to be obliterated, wildlife 

habitat protection should take over considerations of recreational 

and ON oppcrhmities. (1907) (1433, 1532, 1565, 2147, 2170, 2190) 

RESFQNSE: Standards and Guidelines, Managemnt Prescriptions and Managemat 

Area Directioll are designed to insure that wildlife habitats are protected. 

Althugh wildlife habitats are not maximized 081 every acre of the Forest, 

338 
"LIFE 

habitats will be maintain& or impmved to support viable ppulations of all 

species. M single resource is "ized an all National Forest lands. 

atmmr: Managerent Area #7. "utilize existirg roads for timber harvest to 

"ize impads an wildlife where mible and obliterate roads that are no 

lager needed. " (2190) 

-E: A Fd-dde Standard and Guidelhe for timber States: "Close 

or, where Fible, obliterate unmeded roads to preclude resource conflicts, 

Mle considering OHV opp3rtunities." 

CU+E": 

pzgulations. (438) 

RESPONSE: Managing for maxi" ppulations is unrealistic. Even whtm 

managing specifically for cme species, this is often to the detriment of 

other species de-t on different vegetation CcmrmnitieS or successional 

stages. Direction in the Plan seeks to manage habitats for species where 

viability is a oclncern so that recwety of those species will be realized. 

Species where viability is not a problem will be managed to maintain or 

enhance habitats well alxNe the viability level. 

Wildlife should be managed for maxi" ppulations, not just viable 

atmmr: Mountain beaver can be looked at as an illustration of the need to 

have an ecological approach to Forest management. They cxmstzuct extensive 

burrow systems which in tum shelter many other species. The role that these 

rodents play in mintainirg or altering habitats in the forest is not Inmwn. 

Their activities may play an inpxtant role in forest ecology. Without 

lrnowing more details "hg thls species status, it is &fficult to 

evaluate broad Forest management actions that would affect the species or its 

role in the forest "runity. One example is the lack of infonnation 

available for many species which will mtheless be affected advexsely by 

increased timber harvest and developnent as propsed. (127) (1019) 

RESHNSE: In 

the Eastern Sierra, they utilize riparian mas for their habitats. 

Application of riparian guidelines should ensure that their habitats will be 

preserved in addition to other species that use these riparian areas. 

b4zn"aj.n beavers are a Category 2 species for federal listing. 

m: It seems unreasonable that the option identified as a Wildlife 

Alternative has only the same or reduced benefits in caparison to the 

Amenities option. There should be programs directed to increase wildlife 

species throughout the Forest. As an example, only 580 acres of habitat are 

treated for enhanced wildlife habitat under this alternative, while the 

Amenities Alternative treats 820 acres of habitat. Given the lesser 

treatment area, an explanation is needed to show here the 20 percent 

increase in habitat capability is going to be achieved. (2190) (78) 

RESPONSE: Both of these alternatives have a stxung emphasis on wildlife 

values. One emphasizes wildlife with other m-ccnmodl. 'ty resourc€!s, and the 

339 
WILDLIFE 

other enphasizes Wildlife with recreation. Neither was subject to bumet 

~~~~&~ai.nts. Neither~Mxmu ' 'zes wildlife abve all other resources. With the 

exception of the imDunt of deer habitat to be treated, they are essentially 

the same. 

CCWENl!: On DEIS IV-167, Table IV-46 indicates that if the PRF is chosen, 

them will be a decrease in the capability for 4 of the 7 MIS habitats over 

the 50 year life plan. This is rot mly undesirable fran a wildlife 

stmdpoint by itself, but it violates CFR 219.19. On page l3-113, this 

decline in habitat is attribted to the redudion in snags and older seral 

stages of amifer habitats (81 areas managed for timber and riparian habitat 

on areas managed for grazing and recreation. The Department of Fish & Game 

recormends that . grazing, and recreatim management acreage and 

pactices be adjG'permit the plan to canply with CFR 219.19. (2190) 

-E: Altbugh inplementatiOn of the preferred Alt-tive would result 

in loss of habitat for some indicator species, viability would be 

maintained. The preferred Alternative is not in violation of 36 CFR 219.19. 

Reductions in deer habitat are &e largely to developed recreation inpacts on 

deer migration routes. Directicsl for maintahirg the intqrity of important 

deer habitats such as winter rqes, migratim corridors, staging areas and 

high density fawning habitats has been added to Manag-t -qt.ions and 

Management Areas in the Plan. 

Old growth reductions would ccar primarily in lodgepole pine stands in 

Manag-t Areas #4, #7 and #lo. Outside of this there would be no decrease 

in old growth forest stands. Reductims in old growth have been recalculated 

to reflect the deletion of pure stands of red fir fmn the timber base 

which significantly lessens the reductions in old growth habitat. The 

decrease in early and mid-successional bmsh stages is the result of 

attempting to Convert nwmtypic mature stands of brush to m shrub/steppe 

vegetation types of historic times. 

CCWENl!: The reduction of wildlife habitat capability is contrary 

maintenance of fish and wildlife Populatim and diversity, and the principle 

of maxvlu ' 'zation of net public benefit as stated in DEIS 1-1. (1617) (449) 

RESPONSE: NFMA requhes that habitats of all species be managed to insure 

the continued survival of these species. Althxgh there will be declines in 

habitats (and ppulatians) of scme MIS, these species will still be viable. 

populations of .sane species will innease. 

to NFI% regulations govemiy nniltiple-use of forest resources, the 

a@": The population trend of wildlife species dependent on riparian 

areas has not been adequately studied for the Inyo. (2170) 

-E: The Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for riparian areas and 

MIS dependent on riparian areas should insure that habitats are protected. 

population trend studies are intensive and will probably be done only for 

specific species (threatend, edargm and sensitive). Intensive 
WILDLIFE 

"itorirg will be done in riparian habitats using fish habitat assessment 

methods such as GAWS, and mnitoring charges in riparian bird guilds. 

CfX%": In the section on species dependent on older seral stages of 

coniferous Forest (111-43). there is no mention made of pine marten, an old 

It 

might perhaps be a better indicator for old growth red fir than is the 

goshawk, which has been noted in clearcut areas. The pine marten requires 

conifer or conifer/deciduous forest with at least 50%. crown closure and heavy 

dead and dcwn caqxm?nt. Need unbroken conifer mer travel corridors 

between areas of suitable habitat. 10,ooO acres is listed as the mini" 

area needed for viable populations. Given the 50/500 Rule - that it takes 50 

breeduq individuals to guarantee even the short-term future of a population 

under ideal conditions and that one marten requires 640 acres of habitat, I 

ccme up with 32,000 acres as the "m habitat requirement needed to ensure 

a viable population. The 10,000 acre figure is pbably based on territorial 

overlap. If overlap is taken into acoount, and we assume three martens per 

640 acres (two faales and one male), then I get 10,667 acres as the mini" 

habitat rqxmmsnts, which is closer to the Forest Service figure. (1634) 

FSSFGNSE: Since the red fir area north of Wth is be- remmed from the 

timber base for this pl- period, essentially no pure stands of red fir 

are being harvested. This will maintain hgh quality pine marten habitat on 

the Inyo Forest. The assmptions made in this annient are for the 

maintenance of a viable species or subspecies, not a pqmlation. Given that 

there is pbably sane genetic interchange between martens on the east and 

west side of the Sierra, and considering the entire Sierra Nevada as 

potential marten habitat, viability is not currently ccolsidered a problem. 

Given the ldgeple pine, red fir and mixed conifer stands on the Inyo, and 

riparian areas that are pmtected, this species should not be significantly 

impacted by managment activities. 

de-t species that is rr.3~ considered sensitive on this Forest. 

m: Should include aquatic animal species as well as terrestrial. 

(2190) (2178) 

RIBXNSE: Paiute cutthroat, Lal-xmtan cutthroat, Owens tui chub and resident 

trout are all addressed in the Plan. Although they may not technically be 

called MIS, they essentially are. Standards and Guidelmes, Prescriptions 

and Management Direction address the needs of these species. 

CfX%": An averaging method whereby snags on a few acres are used to meet 

per acre requirements should be replaced with actual on acre requirements. 

(1738) 

RESPONSE: A clq of 5 

snags allocated to an area of 5 acres would be better than one snag per acre 

over the same area. 

Snags are normally found in a cl- distribution. 

341 
WILDLIFE 

a"r: we believe the standards and Guidelines for slag managenent are 

inadequate to meat the needs of snag-dependent wildlife species. Guideline 

(B) will allow for the reductian of snag habitat in Sone areas which will 

reduce the quality of wildlife habitat. This should be revised to read: 

"Manage snags to at least 60 perent of potential or the current level, 

whim is greater, in each forested habitat type and successimal stage." 

Guidelines (D) and (E) slxxld be revised as follows: "(D) Manage hard slags 

cm suitable/r"-suitable timberlanck and riparian areas to achieve an average 

dansity of 2/- (12-14" DBH) plus (greater than 24" DBH) with all 

snags greater than 20 feat high. (E) Retain all soft slags an suitable and 

nrm-suitable timberlands and in riparian areas." (2190) (1634, 2185) 

-: It was meant to I& 

at habitat potential in term of habitat quality and slag densities for 

varitms cavity-demt species; 40% of potential is cnnsidered a minimal 

acceptable level to maintain viability. 

The 40% of potential is a confusing ccmcept. 

a"r: Standards for dead and down management are inadequate for 

maintenance of the numerous species dependent on these habitat elements. 

populations of lizards, salamanders, snall birds, "rials, black bears, etc. 

which are deprdent up3n dead and down woody material (including logs and 

slash) would be diminished. A "rm of 3-4 down logs (20" X 20' or larger) 

per acre should be retained (1ooC cubic feet). On. key wildlife areas a 

him "ber should be considered, with logs yarded to positions providing 

maxi" effectiveness as wildlife habitat. woody debris (slash) should alSo 

be retained cm at least 10 percent of the timber harvest area. (2190) (1547, 

1649, 1900) 

RESPONSE: We feel these StandKds and Guidelines are adefpate; they were 

designed for the Inyo Forest taking into account the species canposition and 

climatic conditions cm the Forest. 

m: In the Draft Plan, "me ptecticm is weighted heavily on the 

side of developnent, and specifically assures carmercial developnent of 

the other hand, specific direch '011s for pt&ci.rg the Inyo's wildlife, 

habitat, and diversity while other resources are be- developed are 

unacceptably general where such 'om exist which for the most part they 

do not, except in the Plan's Goals and Standards and Guidelines sections. 

These sections are meant to be general, of course, and are not suped to 

guide management actions in specific cases: specific guidance is suppasedly 

offered elsewhere in the Plan. As far as wildlife, habitat and diversity are 

"&, though, such guidance is coIlspicuous by its absence. (2170) (1650, 

904) 

RESPCNSE: The Standards and Guidelines are species-specific and provide 

management applicable to the Forest as a whole. These are designed to insure 

that viability for wildlife, fish and plant populatiom will be maintained. 

Additional djrectl 'on developed specifically for wildlife and fish also exists 

in Management Rescriptions and Management Area Direction. 

resources such as timber, nlinxals, grazing and downhill skiing areas. on 

342 
WILDLIFE 

cammr: I 3 with the ccmw developnent jn the 

~ake~ as in, kng villey-~dera and along the sherwin Grade slope to 

Roum3 Valley is severely reducing available historic habitat of not only deer 

but sage hen as wall as other wildlife species. (1767) 

m: Standards and Guidelines and Management Area Direction for 

livestock wing in relation to wildlife habitats in this area are designed 

to insure protection of these habitats. Human developnent and intmsion into 

these habitats will probably have a greater impact as reflected in the 

Preferred Alternative in t- of estimated deer declines. Additional 

direction was added to Management prescripticm and Management Area Direction 

to insure that important deer habitats are maintained or enhanced. 

m: The Management Prescriptions for each area should specifically 

address the habitat needs of all wildlife species and allocate a-te 

forage, cover, and water for these ppulaticms. (1107) 

RESPONSE: Management Prescriptions were designed to provide direction mxe 

specific than the Standards and Guidelines. If Standards and Guidelines were 

adequate for a given management area, then no additional direction was given. 

CUWDTl': The Plan provides direction for 20 Management Areas in which one or 

mxe of 18 Management Prescriptions will apply. The m!FG recarmends that (1) 

specific management areas for critical habitat of T&E, candidate, sensitive, 

and de facto rare species such as the establishment of Managmt Areas to 

emphasize goshawk, peregrine fal- and bald eagle; (2) in addition to the 

PreSQiptLons for mtain sheep habitat emphasis and mule deer habitat 

-is, particular species-specific Management Prescriptions should be 

devised to treat Management Elreas when an area dedication is inappmpriate 

(i.e. a habitat patch is too anall), but rare or sensitive species are lamwn 

or believed to exist. (2190) 

"E: Developing Management Areas for specific T&E and sensitive species 

muld result in many snall piecemeal Managmt Areas. These mld be 

difficult to manage. Instead we have written Standards and Guidelines for 

speci? managmt and have included additional direch 'on in the 

Prescriptions and Management Area Direction as needed. 

m: On Page 11-61, add to the first paragraph: 'I. .in consultation with 

the Deparbnent of Fish and Game, BIN, Department of Forestq and other 

collcemed agencies". The value of vegetation treatments including prescribed 

burning, varies by site, soil type, vegetatiun type and other factors: 

consulting with others would allow access to me information on success and 

failure of various methods. Euming will not necessarily f?nhance Great Basin 

deer winter range. Consult other agencies and run test plots before doing 

widespread bwmhg. (2170) (214) 

"E: 

needed. 

The Forest S-ce continually consults with other specialists as 

343 
WILDLIFE 

Fish 

COMQWC: Forest Gxl.s, Fish. change to: “. . .ensure that viable ppulations 

of native vertebrates and invertebxatates are maintained or improved.“ (2170) 

RESPONSE: Inverkebrates are covered under wildlife. 

cCf”T: Managfment Area #7 - Upper Owens fiver. For fish, add: “Manage Hot 

creek habitat as described in Hot creek Management Plan.” (2170) 

RFspoNsE: The Hot Qm?k Managfment Plan that you refer to is in draft form 

at present. If the Forest Service sip the plan, we will follow it. 

cCf”T: 

its staff. (139) (281, 1236) 

RESFCNSE: Currently, the Forest hydirolcgist spends approximately 50% of his 

time in fisheries managemat. Fun3h-g constraints preclude a full-time 

fisheries position. 

The Inyo National Forest muld benefit fran a fishery biologist on 

a”?r: End put-and-take fisheries. (266) (298, 934, 1781, 2101) 

RESFQNSE: This is the responsibility of the California Deparbnent of Fish 

and Game. 

cCf”T: Favor restoration of golden trout habitat on the Kern Plateau. 

Cattle grazing, ORV use, and other cnnflicting uses of the Forest should be 

eliminated or sharply curtailed. Water quality and spawning grounds should 

be upgraded to benefit golden trout. Hatchery-stocked fish should be 

“barriered out“ of the South Fork Kern River above Kennedy Meadow 

camp3round. Golden -trout should be restored to the South Fork Kern River at 

mche Meadows. (1738) (139, 281, 319, 1193, 1248, 1269) 

“E: Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines provide direction for the 

manag-t of rangelands, fisheries and watersheds. These standards provide 

for acceptable levels of resource protestion on Forest lands while protecting 

the integrity of all resources. changes in resource managmt will 

be altered if the standards for the natural resouTces are not met. 

Manag-t feels that extension of the golden trout beyond its present range 

(above the Schaeffer Barrier) is inappropriate until full stocking of the 

depleted mation is ccmplete. This is rot anticipated until the start of 

the next planning period. The Preferred Alternative does select an extensive 

watershed and fisheries restoration program. 

-: 011 DEIS IV-41, dfy a~ foll~: “Although overall grazing 

nlrmbers vary by alternative, all increases are projected for lands located 

away fran sensitive fish habitat. Actual grazing nu” will be dependent 

344 
WILDLIFE 

upn the results of the GAWS stream waluation on a case-by case basis.“ The 

increase in impacts to fish due to a 9% increase in range outputs is 

unacceptable. (2190, 1617) (294) 

RESPQNSE: Forest-wide Standanis and Guidelines for fisheries and riparian 

resources have been modified. AUMs do not increase in the Final Plan. 

COMMENT: The EIS should analyze the impacts of mgmt of fish species 

that are managmt indicator species. While sweral species are identified 

intheAppendur ’ of the Plan, the impacts on these species are never 

specifically analyzed in the EIS, nor does the Plan contain objectives for 

maintainiI?q and inpmviq habitat for these species as required by Forest 

Service regulatioms, 36 CFR 1219.19 (A). These Cmissions should be remedied 

in the Final Plan and EIS to provide the agency with an accucate indicator of 

the health of streams and riparian areas. ( 1649 ) 

RFsPCNSE: These are found in the Fomt-wide Standards and Guidelines and 

Manag-t Area direction. 

they were not given this title. 

In essence, fish were treated as MIS even though 

CC”W: Plan A-1, paragraM 4: The Fish and Wildlife Service is I~DW 

develop- a draft rewveq plan for the mens tui chub. A technical review 

draft will be released in fiscal year 1988. (487) 

“E: We lazk forward to its publication. 

COMMENT: With respect to tui chub (Gila bicolor snyderi) on Page 

111-31, the DEIS indicates that, altbugh lui&-critical tui chub habitat 

lies within the Forest boundary, it is cm private land and, therefore, its 

habitat is not a mgmt c”. This se3xon fails to indicate that the 

tUi chub was found historically in Forest waters. This fact should be made 

clear. Pbxxmer, since recovery activity virtually always includes 

reintxduction into suitable habitat within the hstoric range of an 

enlargered species, the DEIS and Plan should make provision and “utment to 

such recwery actions as well as participating in deve1opi.q and otherwise 

implementkg a reoovery plan. Little Hot &e& would be an ideal location to 

transplant Owens Tui chub. It is within the mtive range and has suitable 

habitat. The snall dam imp- the waterfowl pOna is a suitable barrier 

to isolate transplanted chub fran the hybrids that exrst dawnstream. (2190, 

1267) (139, 174, 300, 487, 1248, 1269, 1295, 1411, 1569, 1634, 1749, 1776, 

1898, 2047, 2170, 2183) 

-E: The statement in the Plan that critical chub habitat is not on the 

Forest is correct. The Forest recognizes a responsibility to aid in the 

recove~y of the species. It is premature to select habitats until the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game canplete 

their reccnrery Plans to dei%?nNne ’ the best mas for recoveSy. The Forest 

will respcold to their recwery plans and be prepared to do our part. Little 

Hot creek is one of many potential .transplant sites available and will be 

analyzed with the others at the appropriate time. 

345 
WILDLIFE 

cci": since the Paiute trmt is an edaqex& species, prop3sed 

means that this drainage will no lqer be open to fishing. The Paiute trout 

is rat native to the Whites (they were planted in the North Fork of 

CottonwDod cseek in 1946) and there exist three other viable populations of 

Paiute trout in other areas of California. This will essentially eliminate 

the best and most heavily used fishing resxma on the California side of the 

Whites. In a perxaml annnmicatim fm a California Department of Fish and 

prcgram was described as a onqlete waste of limited Fish and Game nrmey. 

(1588) 

-E: The Pauite cutthrDat trout is threatened species. Tnea is an 

existing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Recovary Plan that sets Objestives for 

rnanagewnt of the Paiute cutthroat trout. Wing the pl- pericd, the 

Forest will prepare a Forest Recwery Plan that is tiered to the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Plan. Any change in remeatim use or other resmxe conflicts 

will be exambed by a site specific -tal analysis which will include 

full public irnrolvement. 

managenent of OottCBNJDod (seek Basin for recwery of Paiute cutthroat trwt 

Game aiployee, wty> wishes to remain a"s, the Paiute trout recovery 

CCtWENC: Regarding the expansion of the Paiute cutthroat trout to other 

1. Livestock use p&t& tbis Paiute intrcduction and have a prior and 

psessory right and interest in the water; 

2. Fish habitat should not be expand& beyona the North Fork. The existing 

fish ppulation and habitat should be used to stock other areas in the 

Sierra, not the White Mountains; 

The two major recreation strsmms in the Whites are Cottonwood and (3rooked 

Creeks. Generally fishemen would prefer a limit of snaller size fish 

rather than a few lqer fish. This would hap if the Paiute cu"at 

trout habitat was expanded and rainhaw, brawn, and brook trout were 

eliminated fm the "d . er of Cottonwood creek: and 

portrians of c3-m creek, the permittees feel: 

3. 

4. More documentation should be presented prior &I the expansion of the 

habitat. (2171) (174, 486, 989) 

RESPONSE: Seetherspmeatove. 

m: The Cbttcmwood Basin was originally barren of fish, mne of the 

present trout ppulations are "native". The Paiute trout is mre of an 

Eastern Sierra native than the brook or rainbm trout. Both golden md 

Paiute trout populations require isolation to remain pure with adequate 

nmtxxs to provide recreational fishing. The expansion of Paiute trout 

thoughout the Co-/Silver Nrg Basin would be desirable for the 

1. Local and visi- anglers would have the opportunity to catch one of the 

rarest and nnst beautiful trout in Narth America; 

2. The sizes of Paiute O&throat caught would be significantly greater than 

that of exim brook and rainbow trout; 

3. The diversity of fi- opportunities in the Owens Valley area would be 

enhanced: 

f0llcmiI-g reasons: 

346 
WILDLIFE 

4. As p3tentially the largest popllaticm of pure Paiute bt in existence, 

fish frun aOttcslwood Creek could be utilized to reestablish populations 

in their native habitats in Alpine county and achieve full recwery of 

Following recovery, these fish could be used as another "management tool" 

by the Department of Fish and Gam by being available for establishment 

in other suitable Sierra waters to improve recreational angling. (2190) 

(65, 225, 281, 487, 1617, 2170, 2171, 2213) 

this currently threatened species; and 

5. 

RESpaBIsE: Seeresponseatow. 

a"?f: With respect to the Owens pupfish (Qprhccbn radiosus) on DEIS 

111-32, it is classified as a "threatened" species. This is incorrect; it is 

classified as "endangered". (2190) (1411, 1108) 

RESpaBIsE: This change has been made in the FEIS. 

a"?f: Sum inbxduction of Labntan cutthruat trout to Glass CYeek 

Meadows with prohibition of road mns.truCtion or any other cannercial 

developnent there. (1898) (319, 944) 

RESpaBIsE: There will be a site specific envirc"ental analysis for any 

propxed ski area developmat between Mammth and June before developnent 

will cccur. Developnent in Glass Creek Meadow will be addressed at that 

time. The designation of the Upper Glass CYeek area has been changed to 

Manag-t Prescription #17 in the Final Plan and EIS. 

CXPPENC: Forest Objectives for wildlife and fish. If trout fi- is to 

increase 32% r3.r- the next 50 years, why is the average annual objective 

for total wildlife/fish user days lower for the 1986-1995 decade than at 

present? 

RESFCNS3: 

1.7 thousand WEUDs per year for the first decade of the plannirg period. 

This is an inconsistency that needs to be corrected. (2170) 

The Forest Objectives table in the Final Plan shows an increase of 

aX%WDXC: We com with the Forest's proposal to negotiate with utilities to 

rewater streams for resident .trout fisheries and to maintain instream flaws 

needed to support resident fisheries (Plan IV-21-22). These guidelines 

should be s-ed to specifically include a prohibition of any winter 

flow depletions ("ber-March) to prevent degradation of fisheries due to 

severe winter cxmditions. (1617) 

RESPONSE: It has not been proven that all winter diversions are detrimental 

to the fisheries, so we cannot support addkg a specific guideline as you 

suggest. In tbse streams where winter flw are important for resources, we 

will consider the specific situatim in our negotiation p-. 

347 
WILDLIFE 

CXME": 

Alternatives, although mention is made of a policy to make "efforts to 

rewater 15 miles of *am when issuing new hydroelectric licenses under all 

alt-tives", this statement should be expanded to include "The Forest 

of water rights for the restoration of fish habitat and associated public 

trust resources", and guidelines for "I flow conditions as we propose on 

Page 5 of our carments. 

G"hg the potential consumpticn of water by geothermal developnent, this 

section should acknmledge and incorporate the stipulation that has been 

attached by the Eureau of Land Managmt to leases in Blocks I and I1 which 

sets limits on the amount of water that can be "d by geothennal 

developnent. (1617) 

RESQSE: The Forest is OQrmitted to praVidhg instream flows to insure that 

water depndent resources are managed at or atxnre viability levels. This 

includes the recwery of natural resources lost through diversions to 

negotiatim to obtain the necessary instxeam flows. ccanrmptive use of water 

by gathemel plants will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The Forest 

Service manages natural resources through application of the Forest-wide 

Standards and Guidelines, which applied to all activities, should avoid 

adverse impacts and unacceptable degradation. 

RegardingthesectiononE%"ma tal conse4llences anlmn to All 

Service will pursue through nqhation or legal 'Ems the enforcement 

hydlroelectric facilities. The Forest will use legal mecharu 'STLS and 

CXME": A program to return all lakes and streams to pre-stocking 

conditions with the N1 range of indigenous fish species. (166) 

"E: Nearly all the lakes on the Inyo were devoid of fish prior to 

stocking. Sane lakes are being allmed to take their course in restoration 

to a pre-sw condition. The stocking program is ccoltrolled by the 

California Department of Fish and Game. 

CXMllNC: 1. We stxongly suggest a future emphasis on wild trout fisheries in 

streams and lakes that have high potential for maintaining viable trout 

populations. 2. Streams and lakes with marginal potential for maintaining 

viable trout populations should have all remaining nonnative fish species 

remxred and be allowed to return to a pre-stocking condition. 3. Streams and 

lakes which currently mtain m "native fish species should mt be stocked 

with such Species. 4. A stnxg emphasis should also be placed on studyirg 

habitat requirements, present ranges, and historic ranges of all fish species 

native to the Forest, especially those with threatened or endangered species 

to historically inhabited areas. (140) 

=ME: 

"gmt of the aquatic resources on the Forest. 

All of the abwe suggestions are being incmrprated into long-term 

CXMllNC: The fisheries outputs are mere left" provided by mitigatkg 

impacts fmn preferred Forest activitie such as timkriq and grazing. This 

default approach is a pmr way to manage, and it forces Caltrout and other 

348 
WILDLIFE 

groups to be staunchly protective of fishery values and fiercely critical of 

other resource uses. (2183) 

RESFWSE: This is not true. Strimgent Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines 

and Managmt Area Direction denmLstrate a CQrrmtrnent to insurq the 

integrity of aquatic systems and species dement on these habitats. 

m: Taking into ccolsideration the substantial effort and supplemental 

fundirg provided by the Deperbmt of Fish and Game to the Forest Service 

fishery program, it is difficult for us to understand the variability between 

habitat inpmwmmt level goals for the various alternatives. It appears 

particularly ironic that the lughest level of fish habitat irqmvemnt for 

m-threatened species is listed in the alternative for maximum cost 

efficiency. We don't understand why the Forest Sexvice is not 

the cost efficiency of that alternative be carried over to the Preferred 

Alternative. We don't understand why the higher levels of habitat 

improvement for threatened Paiute and Labontan cutthroat aren't included in 

the PRF. There are a "her of high quality trout streams in the Inyo, and 

we believe it is unfortunate that the Plan appears to de-emphasize their 

importance in managemnt planning for increased ccnm~& 'ty output. We believe 

the Plan sbould speak clearly to the objedive of maintaining high quality 

stxxams: that have the potential for supplemental s-. (17) 

RESFONSE: The different alternatives assume that there are Forest Service 

appropriated dollars available to run the prcgrams aphasized. If State 

Cooperative dollars can be guaranteed to wntinue to support fish and 

wildlife programs, then an aphasis mll be placed on those programs above 

the level shown in the Preferred Alt-tive. The Max Cost Efficiency 

Alternative assumes that mplies are provided solely fran Forest Service 

appropriated dollars. The Forest can't develop a long-term program on the 

basis of state-supplemented dollars because we can't be guaranteed of their 

availability. As 1- as they are available, we will restore or enhance fish 

habitat at an accelerated level. Direction is given for threatened trout in 

the Preferred Alternative to recover the species as specified in the Forest, 

State and U.S. Fish and Wildlife recovery plans. We believe this will 

provide for and maintain high quality streams for r-eq of the species. 

COMMENT: This river system once was, 

and could again be, one of the premiere trout fishiq areas of the nation. I 

believe the protection of this valuable recreational resouTce should be a 

major element of the draft Plan for the Inyo. (1785) 

RFSFONSE: The 0" River-CXcwley Lake fishery is alrmst entirely on 

m-Forest lands: we do not have managmt wntrol of this fishery. The 

Forest does manage portions of Hot (seek that have heen designated as wild 

trout waters. 

The 0" River-CXcwley Lake fishery. 

This area is carmitted to a recreational resource -is. 

CCtMWJ?: 

Sumner tourist indUStKy Of WQXI County. 

The Hot creek fish hatchery is vital to the multi-million dollar 

The proponent as stated in the EIR 

349 
WILDLIFE 

cannot guarantea that there will not be any adverse hipact to the hatckq. 

(2055) 

m: The potential inpacts are being studied in the site specific 

-tal impact report. This type of specific Momation is beyona the 

smpe of the Farest Plan. 

m: €i@m devalopnent an ploauctive trout st", excessive grazing in 

wet me- areas and timber cutllng that can have a detrimental effect on 

water flow and fish life should be taken into account when making the final 

evaluatim of land use. (1034) 

RESPONSE: These were ccolsidered in the FEIS and Plan. 

CXUa": we are very "ed that warm water fishkg is being offered as a 

substituts for the loss of cold water fish Witat due to hydroelectric 

projects. (2183) 

m: This is not true on the Inyo. Recent licensing and re-licensing 

negotiations and enviranental assesgnents for hydrcelectric power projects 

have all aphasized mt. 

m: The Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for fisheries shwld 

include overall water quality standards and guidelines for cci-~tml of lunoff 

and maintenance of streamflows. (1891) 

m: These appear in the water section of the Forest-wide Standards and 

Guidelines and are applied on all stream. 

CC"C: For the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for threatened and 

endangered fish and fisheries, add. "As a "I requirement, at least 

maintain water levels in lakes and reservoirs to suprt fisheries at 

existing levels". Include OFG's proposal that the Forest Sdce use the 

GAWS methodology in measuring streambank and channel degradation due to 

grazing or other stream disturbances. If GAWS studies show that streambank 

disturbance is degrading a stream and/or adversely affecting 

riparian-depndent species, action dmuld be taken imnediately. Such action 

shDuld include reducing or eliminating streamside grazing, timber actid*, 

or recreation activity when appropriate. AMP review and revision should, of 

ccp~zse, take place after GAWS results are available, to allow realistic 

evaluation. The Inp staff is dwhtless aware that the GAWS methodolcgy is 

presently (and successfully) in use by the Toiyabe Forest for Eastern Sierra 

streams. 

Also, in Standard and Guideline 3(A), it is asd that grazing is 

capatible with habitat essential to threatened and endangered fish 

populations, an assumption not borne out by the hdangered Species Act. In 

addition, this 10% "tranpling and chiseling" guideline is inconsistent with 

the prop3sed recovery plan for Lahontan cutthroat trout and Paiute cutthroat 

350 
WILDLIFE 

trout mentioned in #l. These fish presently have very snall populatims. 

This guideline should be modified to protect these species. 

Wfy Item 4 to include protection of fisheries and riparian areas by 

prohibiting wints flow depletiw and rest0ru-g a minimum flaw (at least 

mean historic mthly flow) dr- April-September. (2170) 

RESPONSE: Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines have been mdified that 

essentially address all of the afO~ti0ned c"s. 

CCtWBW: 

(mt 50%). (1522) 

RBPCNSE: 

Goshawk nest stand locations should be on slopes of less than 20% 

The 20% figure follam Regianal guidelines. 

CCtmEXC: nesting pairs of goshawks must be allowed. Acreage for 

feeding must be provided for in addition to that allowed for nesting. (1565) 

"E: The allocation made for gxxhaw!c3 in the Plan allows for 15 nesting 

pairs of goshawks within suitable areas for timber managmt. This equates 

to approximately 7500 acres per nesting pair, which is the hane range size 

based CUI omping research and the literature. Within these territories are 

stringent requirements for maintaining nest stands and adjacent foraging 

habitat. Outside of the suitable timber ccmpment, the Standards and 

Guidelines will assure maintenance of nest stands in relation to other 

practices such as recreation. Nest stand managwent on the Inyo 

exceeds the Regicmal guidelines for manag- this species. 

CCtmEXC: Goshawk "hers should be "ized. Before activities an? 

mdertaken that might impact goshawks, sufficient data to determine whether 

the goshawk Krpulation on the Forest is charging sbould be gathered. On Plan 

IV-40, goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) guideline (B) should provide for the 

establishment of 125 acre rather than 100 acre protected nesting 

territories. On DEIS 11-47 and Plan 337-41, the goshawk guidelines suggest 

that territories should be located in "unsuitable timber as long as high 

quality habitat can be found thexe." By placing territories in such 

unsuitable timber, the natural distribution of goshawks probably will not be 

maintained. Territories should be located to best approximate a natural 

distribution. (1738, 2190) 

"E: We an? currently collecting hcme range and habitat use data for 

Ws species on the Inyo. In addition, we survey lamwn nest sites annually 

for nesting activity and remctive success. This information is being 

used to mrdinate goshawk nesting requirements with timber managment 

activities. Changirg the nest stand requirements fm 100 to 125 acres is 

mt considered necessary. 

351 
WILDLIFE 

CXME": With respect to goshawks, cn Page 111-127 and 111-128, the secticn 

fails to describe the importance of aspen gruves to habitat requirements. 

Such a discussion sbould be presented. (2190) 

"E: Smal nest sites are within aspen stands, nwre typical of Great 

Basin nesting habitats associated with this species. These stands are not 

being allocated for timber managmt, thus stand structure should not be 

altered. Nest stands will be managed according to the Standards and 

Guidelines. 

CXME": The Forest Service has chosen the goshawk as the "MIS" dep?ndent on 

old growth. Haiever, the Agency's analysis suggests that the goshawk 

population does not accurately reflect the health of the old growth 

ecosystem. Thus, for example, the nunher of goshawks is expected to remain 

at current levels under each of the four altematives including the Preferred 

Alternative, despite the fact that old growth in suitable timber will be 

reduced by widely varying a"*: 59% (PRF), 91%, 38% and 59% under the 

different alt-txves (DEIS IV-167-168, Figures IV-46-47). The accuracy of 

these projections appears q"able given the large differences in old 

growth habitat under the various alternatives. We would appreciate a clear 

explanation of how these conclusions were reached. b-, if the 

estimates are correct, then the goshawk is apparently not an accurate 

indicator species for the health of the old growth forest. The Forest 

Service should include mther species as a MIS that My reflects the 

health of this ecosystm. (1649) (232) 

"E: Goshawks are a geed MIS in that they use a variety of habitats for 

nesting and foraging. Mature/old growth habitats are required for nest 

stands. As 1- as these stands are available for nesting habitat, then a 

diversity of other habitats can be present, and not reduce the potential for 

nesting territories. Jeffrey pine (which makes up the majority of the 

suitable timber base), ccmsists of naturally open stands. Old gravth Jeffrey 

pine on the Inyo is not synarrymous with old growth red fir, or west Sierra 

coniferous stands. Thus, mast of the old growth species found in those 

stands will not be found in old growth Jeffrey pine stands on the east side 

of the Sierra. This is why we also use diversity and other allocation 

concepts to insure that old growth habitats are maintained. In red fir, 

species such as black-backed wxdpwkm and pine marten are probably better 

old growth indicators than the goshawk. Since no logging is planned in old 

growth red fir stands, managment activities should not alter habitats that 

these species de@ cn. 

Management Indicator Species 

CXME": The Plan does not at all make clear how the managemmt indicator 

species CCBlcept can be of use in managing riparian areas. As far as I can 

see, monitoring of the yellow warbler would give 1s~ clue to the condition of 

the majority of other species that might be present (such as water snails, 

Apache fritillary butterflies, salamanders, mxllltain beaver, etc.). (910) 

(127, 115, 225, 2178) 

352 
WILDLIFE 

RFSECNSE: The managmt indicator species concept is just one way of 

addressing habitats on the Inyo. In addition, there are vegetatim 

cammities, vegetation structure, seral stages, snags, down logs, aquatic 

ecosystems, etc. Yellm warblers, per se, will not be rmnitored, but rather 

the habitats they mpy. If the integrity of their habitats are maintained 

or iqruved by applying the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, then the 

integrity of habitats of other species deprdent on these riparian areas 

should also be maintained. 

CXmEtW: S- the NFMA regulations specifically requre that habitat for 

each MIS is maintained and enhanced, the Plan should clearly indicate how 

this will cam for each MIS. The CDFG contends that the incidental effect 

of managmt actions aimed at other species or resources is insufficient to 

meet this legal requirement. The Plan should d-ate an affirmative 

approach to the maintenance and enhancement of habitat of each MIS, and 

especially those indicator species that are rare. (2190) (2178) 

RFSECNSE: NFMA does mt require that habitats of all MIS be maintained or 

enhanced. The law states that habitats of all species must be considered in 

resource allocation. 

m: The MIS list wntains no reptiles or anphibians. (1631) 

RFSECNSE: Adding reptiles and amphibians to the MIS was not considered 

necessary as Standards and Guidelines would insure protection for these 

species. Sprkgs in the southern Sierra, White and Inyo Pbuntams are 

crmsidered iqmrtant habitats for anqhibians. Application of Standards and 

Guidelines for riparian areas should msure protection for amphibians 

dep"t on those areas. 

m: Invertebrates are especially sensitive indicators. (2178) 

RES-: Invertebrates dependent on aquatic ecosystems should be protected 

by the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for riparian areas and water. 

Invertebrate ppulations are also cansidered when implementirg aquatic 

habitat asses-ts. 

m: Lewis' woodpecker for Jeffrey pine forest, golden crowned kicglet 

for red fir forest. (1548) 

RESPONSE: Lewis' 

the edge of open sagebrush areas. 

genexalist. 

aren't already mered by Standards and Guidelines or Prescriptions. 

are suitable for open stands of Jeffrey pine on 

Golden crown kinglets are mre of a forest 

Neither of these species contribute to evaluatm habitats that 

CXtMWl': All sensitive animal species should be designated as manag-t 

indicator species and require species-specific rmnitorng and manag-t 

353 
WILDLIFE 

plans. Therefare, habitat capability -1s sharld be develop3 for the 

spottea owl, great grey owl, golden eagle, and the prairie falcon. (1411) 

m: Sensitive species am "ally used as managmt indicator 

Species because of a viability concern and to insure that these species do 

not become federally listed. Sensitive species that potentially OCCUT on the 

Inyo include: Sierra Nevada red fox, pine marten, fisher, California 

Most of these species are addressed as MIS in tha Plan. Habitats of 

mIS/Plan. 

nauntain sheep, spottea owl, great gray owl, goshawk, and willow flycatcher. 

sensitive species will be protectea by standards and Guidelines in the 

Golden eagles and prairie falams are not sensitive species. 

a"r: 

of "I types and seral stages. Specific metbods for attainiq 

proteztim for Special cxn"Lties, which hclude the dedicatim of Research 

Natwal Areas and Special Int& Areas, and the darelOp3lt Of methods for 

mnitoriq the health and vigor of these areas Md be described. (2047) 

- -: Refer to the diversity section of this * . Forest-Wide 

Standards and Guidelines and Managemat Area Direcrmde specific 

wcajcirg with MIS furthermore will not prwide for the maintenance 

met.hods for protecting special habitats. 

UtWEWl': PrescriptioPl #3 - Bighnn Sheep Habitat Bnphasis should be applied 

to the range of the Mt. Langley herd. (1532) 

-E: Mt. Langley is the result of a reintxxiuction fran the Mt. Baxter 

herd. The estimated papulation is 30 animals. The herd sumners in the 

wilderness area and winters in Lubkin Creek. Intnductions of sheep into 

UMcCupieed habitats am made with the recgnitim of existing resource uses. 

If a viable population establishes itself in this drainage, then the option 

does exist to chaqe the management prescription. 

UtWEWl': Our organization is cancemed about the reintroductian of the 

bigi" sheep. While our organization is generally in support of such a 

concept, we are "xned that an overly cautious ahhistrator of the Forest 

will restrict significant porticsls of the backonmtry in favor of the bighom 

sheep when there is 1y> proven need for such action. The bighom sheep 

generally live and forage in areas where horses and mules would have a 

difficult time traveling. Also, we have been told that bighorn sheep are not 

actually detrimentally *acted by the presence of humans or horses and 

mules. We are therefore concemd that unreasonable restrictions may be 

placed upon extensive areas nm available for travel by hikers and stock 

users. (1666) 

-E: Current findings on the relationship of sheep/human interactions 

show that sheep are mt as alarmed as previously thught. These findings 

will be taken into account when revising or writing new muntain sheep 

managemnt plans. Current restrictions will be analyzed and modified 

354 
WILDLIFE 

accor&irgly to lift any restricticms that are not needed to protect the 

-P. 

m: I recQrmend the following vi"J be added. "Allow trail construction or designatia only where 

bighom will not be adwxsely affected." (1433) (2170, 2190) 

RESPONSE: This is in a facilities element of the buntah Sheep 

-iption. 

Managment Area #13 - White Mountains. 

m: The Draft Plan states, "establish no roads or helipmts where they 

would conflict with bighorn sheep." You have already delineated those areas 

used by the animals, so a more appropriate rule would be to ban "stzuction 

of roads and heliprts in these areas. (1598) 

-E: No change is necessary. This is mered in the Plan. 

m: prescriptiOn #3 should be applied to the portion of the native 

range of the Inyo Mountain Nelson bighorn sheep herd which occurs outside of 

the proposed wilderness area. (1522) 

RES=: 

used by these sheep is under Prescription #2 - FTopsed Wilderness. 

time, changiq the mnaidng area to prescription #3 is not warranted. 

This ppulation is estimated at 30 animals. Much of the habitat 

At this 

CUWENJ!: Prescription #3 - Bighorn Sheep Habitat -is. Wilderness 

designation uxxlld allow greater protection for bighorn sheep. No trails need 

to be constructed in bighorn sheep habitat. (1634) 

RJSECNSE: This is not necessarily true. Wilderness designation could 

amskain habitat impmenst opprtunities for mountain sheep and also 

restrict transplant opportunities. 

m: Prescription #3 - Bighorn Sheep Habitat Emphasis. change the 

energy element to permit m new energy developnents. Charge the facilities 

mnpcawt to pennit ra new mads or heliports. (2169) 

RESPOEISE: This prescription clearly sets the preference for -tab sheep 

in relation to these activities and addresses these activities. No change is 

neceSSary. 

CUWENJ!: In Prescription #3 der protection, there is need for some 

pmvision for an wentual natural fire. I suggest a "let-burn" prescription 

within bighom sheep habitat as discussed in my reports on the Sierra Nevada 

and the White Pbuntains. (1097) 

355 
WILDLIFE 

-REspoNsE: The Forest Service has the option of managing unplanned ignitions 

using three stxategies: Ccolfinement, mtairnnent and control. These can be 

used as one means of The 

Inyo Forest is preparing a fire managmt plan which will provide additional 

wildlife habitats using fire as a tool. 

directian regarding fire management. 

COWE”: prescription #3 - Bigl” Sheep Habitat -is. I suggest an 

additicn under range to include: “Pennit xn new allofmmts if transmission 

of disease frcm livestock is shown to be deleterious to bighm sheep.“ 

(1433) (230, 449, 1097, 1532, 1598, 1603, 1617, 1649, 1664, 1836, 1857, 2048, 

2170, 2171, 2190) 

“E: The following element has been added under range: “Pennit m 

increase in livestock use if the increase is shown to be deleterious to 

mountain sheep populations.” Standard and Mdeline #3 for mountain sheep 

addresses disease -&Assion fran livestock. 

CXBMWl’: Ch Plan IV-39-46, I reccmnend that Stat-t C be changed to: 

“Permit m increase in livestock use. Eliminate livestock grazing if 

ccnptiticn for forage or trdssicn of disease is shown to be deleterious 

to bighm sheep populations. (1433) 

FlESFONSE: Language will be incorporated into the Forest-wide Standards and 

Guidelines for mnmtain sheep that states the health of established mountain 

sheep will be maintained. Avenues to re“ livestock on existing mountain 

sheep habitats will be pursued if tramnission of disease is shown to be 

deleterious to the sheep. 

aX-EWT.: I approve the PRF objective to reintrduce Sierra Nevada bighom 

and to protect the Nelson bighorn. If potential recreation stock could 

tramanit parasites to the Nelson bighom in the White Mountains, why muld 

stock mt do likewise to the Sierra bighom? This point needs clarifying. 

(0952) 

RFSFQNSE: This is addressed by the previous respmse. 

m: Management Area #2 - Lee Vining. I support the statement in the 

range element that Cormits the Forest to manage the Lee Vining Canyon area 

for bighom sheep. I reccmnend the following additional statement to the 

wildlife element: “Should reintroduced bigt” establish themselves in 

drainages other than Lee Vining Canyon, then explore ways of eliminating 

danestic livestock allotments in be areas.” (1433) (1279, 1608, 1617, 

1988, 2170, 2190) 

-E: The following statement has been added to the Forest-wide 

Standards and Guidelines for mnmtain sheep: “If reintroduced msuntain sheep 

establish themselves in drainages outside the reintrduction sites, take 

advantage of opporturu ‘ties to extend mnmtain sheep range, consistent with 

other resource activities.’’ 

356 
WILDLIFE 

m: I supprt all of Management Prescription #3 which includes no 

increase in AUMs within bighom sheep range. In particular, I support the 

remmal of portions of Perry men, 'IYes Plumas, Cotton- creek, and 

Med oreek allotments fran grazmg. This is an exceptional 

recarmendation! (1549) 

Arm- respcoldent carmented: "The proped exclusion of portions of four 

existing cattle allotmnts to protezt bighom sheep habitat is not 

defensible. No documentation exists which will substantiate a serious 

conflict between bighom sheep and cattle. The actual cause for the crash of 

the bighom sheep ppulation in the Whites between 1966 and 1968 was a 

peumnia infection with a predisposhg high lungworm infection and high 

population density. That cattle may have been the source of the pnewnia is 

speculated but not documented. (White Mtn. Bighom sheep, John D. Wehausen 

1982). " (2171) (1588) 

RESFCNSE: After further research on this issue, the range dmection for 

Management Area #13 - White b"tains, has been modified to read: "Exclude 

portions of the Perry Aiken Flat allotment fran cattle grazing to protect 

muntain sheep habitat. " 

OZ&M3?F: Increased priority should be given to the study of former bighom 

sheep habitat, especially the Nelsan bigt" of the White and Inyo 

Ivbuntains. A specific timetable should be set for the ocmpletion of studies 

of former range and the feasibility of reintrcduct2on. The timetable should 

cover the implementation of any feasible reintrcducticm. (1664) 

RESFCNSE: A recovery plan similar to that developed for the Sierra Nevada 

mxlntain sheep p3pulatiun will be developed for the White and Inyo 

Mountains. Such a plan will prioritize transplant sites and be used to 

inp1-t direction in the Forest Plan. 

CC3WEW: Continued use of the Barcroft Road and Labratory and related 

research activities will prevent any movement of sheep back into original 

habitat in and aruund Mt. Barcroft and Sheep Mountain. (1977, 1980, 1982) 

Weha- documents in numerous places the extreme conflict between people and 

bighom in the type of high alpine e"ment typical south of White 

Ivbuntain. Weha- also expresses concern over the probable mbction of 

a White Wuntain M '&ail in the event that the area north of White 

Plxmtain Peak is designated wildemess: "Developnent of a trail along the 

crest of the White Wnmtains would pass through mch important sumner bigbm 

range. Assmrkq that such a trail wuld lead to an increase in human use, 

there is a high probability that it would ultimately cause displacement of 

bighorn." (2171) (1977, 1980, 1982) 

RESFIXSE: Refer to the first facilities element in Prescription #3. 

CCtM3?F: The Mt. Baxter herd of Sierra bighom sheep spends a significant 

portion of the sumner seascol in Kings Canyon National Park and the primary 

357 
WILDLIFE 

ewe/lirmb range is in the Park. This is not foLtnd in either the Plan or the 

DEB. Further there is a ccaperative agreement between -the Naticmal Park 

Service, the Califda Departmat of Fish and Game and Inyo Natirmal Forest 

for the management and rein+zductl ’cm of Sierra bigl” sbsp to varicus 

lccaticrs in the southem Sierra Nevada. Both of these points should be 

noted in the final dxument since they have an influence on what the Forest 

can &I regarding management of Sierra bighoIIl sheep. (487) 

RESKNSE: The Sierra Nevada I3iglyn-n Sheep RecaveIy and Qnservatian Plan to 

which you refer is listed in Plan Appx%x A as a plan that is incorprated 

in the Final Forest Plan. 

m: Would like to se8 bigbm sheep intxd~ced into the vicinity of 

01- Peak in addition to the areas outline2 in the proposed Forest Plan. 

Would like to b why the 01- Peak area was left out of pmposed Sierra 

Nevada bighxn sheep management Strategies prop3sed in the Farest Plan. 

(1738) 

RES-: Rein- ‘on priorities are addressed in the Interagency Plan 

for recove~y of Sierra rmuntain sheep referenced above. 

CXMdIWF: The outputs are in numbers of bigl” sheep when, in fact, we 

should be dealing with nu” of Populatim. It is through the existence 

of multiple populatim that we will have a buffer against s~ne catastrophic 

lass of native ppulaticms. It is entirely possible that these populatiom 

are each genetically unique. They should all be treated as such: thus the 

approach of the Sierra Nevada re~very and conservation should be used in the 

Forest Plan for pslpllatiom in the Sierra Nevada, white and Irryo bbmtains. 

This would best be hcorprated into the Forest-wide Standards and 

Guidelines, and I wxld suggest the fo1lcmh-g wording for Plan IV-42, 8A: 

“Lmg term viability of papulaticms of both California and Nelson bigl” 

will be accanplished through maintermma of existing bighorn habitat and 

establishment of additional papulatim in historical habitat in accordance 

with principles in the Sierra Nevada bigl” sheep rewvery and cans-tion 

plan. ” ( 1097 ) 

RESPONSE: 

incorporated as part of the Forest Plan. 

The Sierra Nevada Big- Sheep Recovery and Conservation Plan is 

ca”: Appndlx ’ B on Plan B-4 shDuld have added at the bow: “mnitor 

appropriate Nelson bigbxn ppulaticns as potential rein.troduction stock.“ 

(1097) 

RESPONSE: Information related to nunitorirq will be addressed in nhitoring 

plans that are species specific. 

358 
WILDLIFE 

CCt.”: Management rea #9 - mth. Under wildlife, add: “protect and 

enhance deer migration and staging areas. Wfy Prescription #12 boundaries 

to Prescription #4 sauth of Mamma, including creek Road, to protect major 

mule deer staging areas. (2170) (1433) 

similar to ycur suggestion. 

WSRX’SE: We have made Wording mes in the Management Area direction 

We made rn change in Prescription boundaries. 

m: The acreage allocated for mule deer under the wildlife option is 

less than the Preferred Alternative which is not designed to specifically 

benefit wildlife. We think this wildlife option should have considerably 

mre -is on mule deer areas. (2190) 

RESPONSE: The acreage applied to the We Deer Prescription #4 is 

essentially the same for both the Preferred, the Amenities, and the 

Wildlife/Recreation Alternatives (118.4, 117.6 and 118.3 tbusand acres, 

respectively). 

m: Rpal -is must be 

given to the miad of wildlife species that do not serve any utilitarian 

purpse such as hunting, fishing or even aesthetics. (1634) 

Too mch -is is placed on mule deer. 

RESPONSE: Actually the highest priority is given to recovering threatened 

and endangered species, followed by insuring that sensitive species do not 

becane listed. 

CCtMZW: ”ache Meadows should be charged frcm Prescription #17 to 

Prescription #4 to mize mule deer habitat, and to avoid increasing the 

damage to resource values by stirrmlating day use. Though Prescription #4 

-izes mule deer habitat and key fawning areas, insignificant amxnts of 

key mule deer surmw range have been identified in the Preferred Alternative. 

(128) (1738, 2170, 2190) 

RESPONSE: Mona& Meadows is designated under Prescription #17. This 

designation will maintain the integrity of migration corridors, holding 

areas, and smner habitats for deer in this area. One of the purposes of 

this Prescription is the maintenance of important wildlife habitats. 

-: A mcentxated recreation site in Uppr Deadman muld be in an area 

which funnels mLgratozy mule deer, thus creat5-g a likely unnitigable 

problem. Reserve Concentrated recreation use in this area to en7argj.q 

existjng facilities at Layer Deadman. (2185) 

RESFONSE: An estimated 1,ooO to 1,500 deer migrate over various passes on 

San Joaquin Wage. Minaret Sumnit, Deadhuan Pass and Glass Creek Pass are 

359 
WILDLIFE 

thought to be the major c~~ss-over points. Migration corridors and impOaant 

passes will be managed to maintain the integrity of these areas. In the 

WIS/Plan, major migration cmritkxs, staging areas and important fawning 

habitats will be identified in the M4 directr ‘on, and protected by adding a 

wildlife ctksclx ‘ve for Managanent Areas #8. In addition, wildlife direcb ‘on 

in management prescriptions 12, 13, and 14 will be strengthened to insure 

protedicol of these important habitats. 

CUW”: Managwent Area #8 - mth FGcaqmmt. Include the following 

statement: “Allow M new roads, road inp-ts, ski facilities, or other 

habitat alteratiuns that would adversely impact deer holding areas or 

migration routes.“ (2190) (54, 59, 1617, 1988, 2170) 

m: This Management Area ccsltains the Sherwin staging area and 

Solitude Canyon/M”th Pass migration CofiidoTS. Appmxuna ‘ tely 3,500 to 

4,000 deer use the area for staging: 3,000 of these cross the Sierra over the 

aforementianed passes. Management Prescriptions #4 - Mule Deer and #17 - 

Semi-primitive Dispersed Recreation are applied to the stag- area. In the 

Final Plan and EIS, the des;cripticol of Managanent Area #8 has been modified 

to include this information. Wildlife ‘on for this Managmt Area has 

been strengthened to maintain the intqrity of important migration corricbrs. 

In addition, wildlife direcb ‘on in Management Prescriptions #12, #13 and #14 

have been to insure pmteztion of important deer habitats. 

tXM4”f: Managanent Area #11- convict--. In order to make certam ‘M 

degradation to this migration mute occu~s, a wildlife section should be 

added to the Management Area Direction which reads: “Allaw no new roads, 

mad imprwements, or other habitat alterations that would adversely impact 

deer holding areas or migration routes.” (2190) (2170) 

RESFtXSE: This Managaent Area ccoltains the major migration corridor for the 

Sherwin/Etuttermilk deer herd to and fmn the staging area, and the southem 

portion of the staging area. The imprtanca of this area for migrating deer 

is described in the Management Area description. 

aM4ENC The Preferred Alternative deletes the majority of critical 

migration routes fran the Me Deer Prescription #4. To realistically 

“aphasize the integrity of mule deer migration mutes”, the preferred 

Altemative should expand the Mile Deer Prescription as shown on our PRF map. 

(2190) (54, 1433) 

m: Recent research has dananented several migration routes and other 

important deer habitats that were not !u” when the Draft Plan was 

prepared. These relate primarily to the She” ’ , Buttemilk and Casa Diablo 

deer herds. The integrity of deer migration corridors, stag- areas, winter 

rarges, and fawning areas will be maintained by inplementjng the Standards 

and Guidelines, Management Frescriptiuns, and Management Area Direction. 

the California Deparhnent of Fish and Gam. 

Management Area descriptioas have been upaatea us* infomtim Subnitted by 

360 
WILDLIFE 

a": Managmt Area #14 - Rock Creek-Pine Creek. Please add: "Acquire 

through land exchange, the private land used by the Shwsim Grade deer herd 

for winter range or migrabon mutes." Allow no new mads, mad 

improvements, or other habitat alterations that would adversely impact deer 

holding areas, migration routes, or winter range.... Allow m mcreases in 

grazing where this might adversely -act deer habitat. " (2190) (2170) 

RESIQISE: This Managmt Area includes a portion of the winter range for 

the Sherwin/Buttennilk deer herds and important canponents of migration 

corridors used by these herds. Important habitats used by deer are already 

allocated to Managmt Prescriptions #4 and #17. Direction exists to 

acquire lands iqxrtant to wildlife. The other two torments are addressed in 

the management prescriptions and management area direction. The description 

of this managmt area has been revised to include recent research findings. 

COEIMENT: Management Area #15 - Bisbp Creek-Buttermilk. Please add: 

"Acquire, through land exchange, private lands laaown to be -&ant to 

deer. Allow m new roads, road improvements or other habitat alterations 

that would aaverSely impact deer holding areas, migration routes, or winter 

ranges." (2190) (1433, 2170) 

-E: Refer to previous Czmnent. 

C!C"W: Management Area #16 - Coyote. A range section should be added 

stating: "Reduce or modify grazing if it adversely affects wildlife 

habitat." (2190) (1433) 

RESPOWSE: This has been added to the Fml Plan. 

ClX4EN2: 

to "mule deer habitat aphais." (1638) 

RESPOUSE: Deer frun the Sherwin Buttermilk herds migrate through this area. 

It is not considered a part of the Sherwin stag- area. Management 

according to the Standards and Guidelines and changes to prescription #11 

will insure that habitat alterations in this area will not be detrimental to 

wildlife. 

Please change the designation at Tobam Flat fm "range efip3has~.s" 

COEIMENT: 

Ros semi-primitive non-mtorized to help protect the deer herds. (278) 

RESPOUSE: This is an u~ecessazy change to this Prescription. RqAasis m 

Prescription #4 areas is on deer. 

All of the area marked Prescription #4 on the map should also be 

COEIMENT: Clarify the timber element. What exactly is meant by leave 

vegetation necessary for thermal cover and hiding? (2169) 

361 
WILDLIFE 

REsp(*IsE: It is defM 

as the a”t of vegetaticn that hides 90% of an animal at a maxinann of 200 

feet. Tbmlal cover ref0I-S to overstcay vegetation that is used by an animal 

for thsnao-legulation pnposes. On the Inyo Forest. thermaz a3ver is an 

ilqmrbnt ccnpment for &ear on sumner ranges. 

Hiding a3vBr firnctians as Exeenig for an animal. 

a”w: Management prescriptioll#4 - We Deer Ehghsis. mder facilities, 

add: “DO mt upgrade existing roads.“ under mqe, charge the first part of 

the sentence to: “&&ce ?.Ws or eU”te 1ivesbx.k grazing.. .” or add “and 

decrease grazing if this will benefit deer populatim.“ Under recreation, 

add: “Allow m new dewlopent that would adversely impad deer.” “Key mule 

deer habitat” as mtioned applies to “suitable winter range, ~“FX range, 

fw areas, &/or blding areas...”. This description should include 

migration routes, a cxucial amprent of the annual habitat requirements. In 

sunnary for P”ipt3on #4. (2170, 2190) (430) 

m: The -is in prescripticgl#4 is mule deer. other resource 

management activities will be allowed only if they maintajn or enhance these 

areasfordeer. Additicmaldirecti on that - these czrmxns will be 

ixorporaw into this prescription in the Final Plan and EIS. 

the DEIS 11-48-55, add ‘‘n@E~tbI rauteS” to the fW pmagraph under the 

a”w: Management Area #a - June Lake Loop. I recarmend the follmiing 

addition under the descripticm: “Portim of this area are important as 

sumner range, migration routes, and holw areas for the Casa Diablo deer 

herd.“ A wildlife element should be added under Management Area Direction to 

read: “enp3hasize the hq”0 of this area to the Casa Diablo deer herd.“ 

(1433) (54, 2170, 2190) 

-E: Telm&q data has demmstrated the area between June Lake and Lee 

Vinirq as being hpxtant sumner habitat for the Casa Diablo deer herd. A 

wildlife element refle-zting this infonnatim has been added to Managmt 

Area #4. 

m: Managesent Area #12 - Ekntm-Casa Diablo. Add: “Allow 110 new 

roads, road iqmwmnts, or other habitat alteratim that dd adversely 

inpact deer holding areas, migration routes, or winter ranges.” (2190) (2170) 

m: This Manag-t Area is the winter range for the Casa Diablo deer 

herd of tely 1500 deer. The winter ranges for this area am 

addressed under prescription #4. The larquage under facilities in 

prescription #4 will include the atow mpts. Specific migration 

corridors in this Managmt Area will be addressed in the management area 

description along with dire&ians applicable to these corridors. 

m: This is a major deer 

herd migration area. I -think the continued expmsion of the Mammth-Ju~j 

Airport has already damaged this area to the extent that if anything else was 

dcne here it would be devastating. (1433) 

The Doe Ridge area should llDt be changed. 

362 
"LIFE 

-E: Research on ~oe Ridge suggests that this area is not a critical 

miwation corridor for deer. Approxin?ately 30 deer were ohserved on a daily 

basis. A greater is the ptential for impacts on --game species 

andthecwenstuichLlb. 

C€MENl?: Managgnent Area #5 - GI.- -tai.n. The description for this area 

sboeild be charged as follm: "Sane important deer winter range occurs at 

the extnms eastern end of the Management Area. &-I impoaant migration 

corridor exists a19 the southern slope of the Glass Mountains. Various 

locations within this area prwide slrmner-range for deer." Add to the 

wildlife portion o€ the Managmt Area Direction: "Maintain value to deer 

of e.xistiq winter range, sumner range, and migration corridors." (2190 (54) 

I(EsP0NsE: This Management Area is the main migration corridor €or the Casa 

Diablo deer herd tihi& passes around the south end of the Glass Mn"ainS in 

the Wattexson ~rmgh and Watterson Canyon areas (Managmt Area #12), and 

parallels the Owens River at the base of the Glass bknmtains (Manageaent Area 

#7) to the staging area in the Arcularius Ran&/Bald Mountain vicinity 

(~anagement Areas #5 and 7). Another migration corridor crosses around the 

rorth end of the Glass F4nmtains and is used in light "fall years. 

Approximately 1250 deer (out of 1500), migrate a1cn-g these corridors to 

sumner habitat. The descriptions of Management Areas #5, #7 and #12 have 

been modified to include this infonnation. 

cammr: Managmmt #18 - Inyo Mountains. I recQRnend that a wildlife 

element be added that states: "Water sources will be developd for mule deer 

and other wildlife where possible". (1433) 

=-E: We have added an element similar to your suggestion. 

(DftENr: There is not enough cmsus data on mule deer tn set population 

gcals in the Inyo and White Mn"ains. In essence, managmat goals cannot 

be met until this occu~s. population estimates have been formulated and used 

in hamest managmmt decisims since 1982 and goal populations were set in 

this same year as published in the !%xeralda Resource Area Habitat Plan. The 

current ppulation estimate for the White Mountains (1985-86) is 400 deer (92 

bucks, 202 does, and 107 fawns) in 240 square miles of habitat. (0282) 

RESFQNSE: Population estimates wera derived fran the Inyo-White lvlxlntain 

Deer Herd Management Plan which was cooperatively prep- between the Forest 

Service and the California Departnh?nt of Fish and Game. 

OBNE": A major Cmission in the DEIS is any discussion of the impacts of 

future alpine skiing developnent on the deer. An increase m SAOT for alpine 

skiing is proposed to be achieved by placement of developnent within major 

deer migration corridors. If this occu~s, it is very likely that deer 

papulations will decrease much more dramatically than estimated, as the 

wmter-balancing range improveaent policies are so weak. (1631) 

363 
WILDLIFE 

-E: This is discussed in the COn.SKpenC%S Section for 

wildlife in the EIS for the Preferred Alternative- which recognized a 2% 

deaease in mule deer an the Forest as a result of human intrusion and 

potential devel-t on portions of deer habitat such as migration 

wrriibrs, fawning areas, and holding areas. The majority of deer fran the 

Sheniin/Euttennilk deer herds cross the Sierra and sumner on the west side. 

migration corridors associated with patential ski area developnent. In 

additim, app"ate1y 1250 (out of 1500) fran the Casa Diablo deer herd 

migrate to the June Lake area. Appmxma ' tely 250 of these ~106s the Sierra 

through potential ski area developnents and sumner on the west side. The 

nxahing deer fll~~nar on the east side of the Sierra, mostly between June 

Lake and Lee vining. Many of these also cross areas that are being proposed 

for ski developnent such as Hartley Sprirgs and portions of June muntain 

slated for expansion. The Forest is carmitted to pte&ing important winter 

ranges, migration CoTridoTS, holding areas, and habitats. 

Modifications have been made in the Standards and Guidelines, Managemnt 

prescriptians, and Manag-t Area Direction Final Plan and EIS to underscore 

this Camitnent. 

App"tely 3,000 deer (50% of these animals) use h3ldiI-g areas and 

CUW": In the preferred Alternative discussion on DEIS 11-61, change: "Do 

not increase cattle grazing on key deer Winter range" to "Do not increase 

cattle grazing on key deer winter range or other critical habitats." (2170) 

( 1638 1 

RFSECNSE: The Plan does not recormend incrasiq cattle on weant deer 

habitats. The Final Plan "wds mainbinkg AUMs at the current level: 

them will be no increase. 

Ccmma?: In the h-eferred Alternative discussl 'on DEIS 11-62, afy the 

Preferred Alternative so that the Planned reducticol does not OCCUT. The 

planned reduction is inconsistent with (1) the theme of the PRF (DEIS 11-60), 

(2) the objective listed on Plan IV-14 of Wirg deer 20% in the Inyo by 

1995, and (3) the Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines for mule deer which 

state that the Forest Service will "maintain or enhance the quality and 

integrity of key wjnter ranges, holding areas, migration routes and fawning 

areas for mule deer." (2170) (65, 351, 487, 1634, 2190) 

-E: The Fo-t has a dht to IMhtaining or enhancing the 

quality and integrity of key winter ranges, stagirg areas, migration mutes 

and fa- areas for deer. A slight decrease in deer "hers is anticipated 

as a result of "ation oriented dwelopnents that will OCCUT on habitats 

that am not cansidered important for the majority of deer but are used by 

deer at lower intensity levels. The increase of 20% is an FGA goal that is 

used as a cunparisan for the altematim. This goal exceeds those set in 

the deer herd "cut Plans. 

insure that habitats are managed so that deer pqwlaticms remain at existing 

levels and to inpruve the buck/dce ratim where necessary. Mxlifications in 

the Standards and Guidelines, Managanent Fmscxiptions, and Managmat Area 

Diredions have beeu made in the Final Plan and EIS to underscore the 

"itment to protect importan t habitats. 

The goals of most deer herd Plans are to 

364 
WILDLIFE 

C"!: The statement that "wildlife habitat would be managed with the 

objectives of "3.2- the Forest-wide reduction of deer habitat 

capaci ty..." (DEIS 11-58) is unacceptable. Eight managenEnt plans have been 

develop3 for herds on the Forest. These plans call for maintaining or 

increasing deer ppulations, i.e. maintaining or irrrprWing habitats. 

Accordirqly, the preferred objedive for deer habitat should state: 

"Maintain or increase the Forest-wide deer habitat capacity." (1617) 

mF+"SE: The deer herd plans are incarprated as part of the Forest Plan. 

C"!: All deer herd plans call for increases in deer numbers and use, yet 

hunter use of deer frun induced habitat inpmawnt projects remains at 0 

days (DEIS 11-66, Figure 11-4). The larger the deer herds and better the 

habitat, the more the use will be. We mider the'munt of time spent III 

the field greater than your prediction. The source of the Forest's low 

figures should be cited. (2190) 

FtESFCNSE: The deer herd plans, for the nwst part, call for maintainkg deer 

nrrmbers at current levels. The major goal on the Inyo relative to deer is to 

maintain or enhance the quality of winter migration, stag- and fawning 

habitats. The main factor that will increase hunter use will be increasing 

the ratio of bucks to does, and hence hanrestable Since manag-t 

direction for harvest is a Department of Fish and Game responsibility, the 

Forest Service has m ccoltrol over this facet of managemmt. 

CXiWml!: We request that the statement dealing with cattle damage to fawning 

habitat be charged to "range manag-t practices that prevent cattle from 

degradiq specific fawning areas will be instituted." (Plan 111-24) (2190) 

"E: Refer to the Standards and Wdelmes for range. The allotment 

management plans will provide specific methods to prutect fa- areas. 

CCM": This setion (Plan 111-39-44) states that these herds rely most 

heavily on Forest lands for winter range. This is true for only sone of the 

herds such as the Goodale Herd. Other herds, such as Casa Diablo and Mxm 

Lake, rely almost entirely on the Forest for sumner range. (2190) (176, 1433) 

mF+"SE: The EIS Affected Environment chapter has heen updated to include 

additional momlation. 

aEMENp: Manag-t Area #3 - Walker-Parker. The follow- statement should 

be added to the description: "Fortions of this management area are important 

as sumner range to the Casa Diablo deer herd." Also, please add a wildlife 

section under managemmt area dinxlx 'on that says "qhasize the importance 

of this area to the Casa Diablo deer herd. Management decisicns will reflect 

that inprtance. " (2190) ( 2170) 

365 
RESHNSE: 

research f-. 

The descxipticn for Management Area #3 will be lldified to include 

A wildlife element &mile to your suggestion has been 

added*- . inr”atArea#3. 

-: DEIS IV-164 (wildlife hdicators). Recent research of the Casa 

DiablO dear herd indicates that many, if not nast, of these animals sumner on 

the ~n-est. The same may also be true of the Mcaro Lake and possibly East 

walker hards (.“h upxdng). TNS fact indicates the impoaance of 

farest slnrmer raqes for caeer, large areas of which are found to be aegraaea 

for deer use by livestock. This should be mti& in the DEIS eon on 

wildlife indicatms. (DEIS IV-164) (21903 (54, 2170) 

“SE: This is reflected in this section, in the Affected BWirmmnt and 

directcon for specific management areas. 

CCM”: The fcarecasted 2030 enviroemerrt igmres the impad on deer 

migration due to sherwrn ‘ Bowl alpine ski devalcpmnt. (351) 

m: The -tal chlsequ- se42tion states that the estimated 

2% decline in deer is fm developed recreation Le. possible ski area 

developnent. The Plan has a ccmnitment to main- or hpmvxg . impartant 

habitats for dear. 

UM”: The FPA goals state that deer numbers should increase by 20%, yet 

the RPA alternative proposes a 47% decline in deer "hers On the Forest. It 

appears that this alternative does nat adequately ccmsider the 1980 RFA goals 

for wildlife, especially dear, and is mtrary to the intent of Cimpss in 

secticms 4 and particularly 5 (C)(l) of the Act. (2190) 

Amenities and the Wildlife/Recreation !+hphasis Alternatives. The FfPA 

mternative looked mainly at carmodity oriented resources. 

“SE: The RPA goal for increaSing deer by 208 Was displayed in the 

peregrine Falaas 

-: 

sunrival? (2178) 

REspoNsE: Paregrine falcon goals must be viewed in relation to the entire 

Sierra Nevada and the specie’s rqe. The Pacific Coast Recovery Plan for 

the American Peregrine falcon calls for 10 pairs in the Sierra Nevada 

Managemnt Area. The Inyo Naticmal Forest can provide a “m of 2 pairs, 

and possibly 4. The Inyo has had an aggressive ham program to rewver 

this Species on the east side of the Sierra Nevada and has exceeded the 

requirements set forth in the Recovery Plan. 

How can only two peregrine pairs be indicators except of their awn 

366 
WILDLIFE 

c€tam?r: The Preferzed Alternative is hadequate for prokction of the 

endangered peregrine falcon, as the Alternative plans for cmly two pairs in 

the fifth decade, whaxe3 alternatives F!" and AMB Plan for four pairs. (744) 

(225, 232, 1108. 1565, 2190) 

m: The Pacific ooast Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan allocated two 

nestjrq pairs to the Inyo. (xlrrent managemnt activities could result in 

four nesting pairs, but for pupses of the Preferred Alternative, we 

displayed two pairs. 

am": Incorporation of the guidelines fran both the "Pacific States 

Recovery Plan for the American Peregrine Falcon" and the "Pacific States Bald 

Eagle Recovery Plan" as they relate to the Inyo Natiml Forest. (1108) (74, 

225, 1411, 1532, 1566, 2047, 2178, 2190) 

m: Having these cited in the Standads and Guidelines for these 

species is adequate. The Inyo is currently exceeding the mts stated 

in these recoveq plans. The Forest has taken an role in the 

reintrcduction of the peregrine falcon into Fastem Sierra Nevada habitats. 

We've also mnducted mual mid-winter bald eagle surveys in cooperation with 

the usm and are insuring ptection of winter foraging areas and loost 

sites on the Forest. 

c€tam?r: Peregrine falcon. 

of the eight fl&iglings that were inbxduced in 1983 and 1984. 

is potential nesting habitat? (1634) 

RESmE: 

1986 Westem Section TYansadions of the Wildlife Society. 

Office in Bisbp has documentation of potential nesting habitat. 

The pblic should be informed as to the status 

Also, where 

Status is dDcumented in a written report that was published in the 

The Supenrisor's 

am": With resped to Peregrine fal-, on Page 111-127, the DEIS 

indicates that the species is Federally listed as an endangered species. It 

should be added that this species is also a State of California listed 

endargered species. (2190) 

"E: This has been added to the Affected Ehviro-t section. 

a"r: cl"q ' sage gnxlse, I reccmnend that Section A should be 

changed to "Allow m vegetation treabnent in sage grouse habitat that might 

adversely affect this species." I also recccrmend that 170 occupancy or 

surface disturb* activities be permitted on a lek (strutting ground) and m 

ocapncy or surface disturbing activities OCCUT within one-half mile of lek 

fmn March 1 to May 30, annually. (1433) 

367 
WILDLIFE 

REspaarsE: The Standards and Guidelines for sage grouse have been changed to 

address your first carment. The second statement will be added to the 

Standards and Guidelines with the date changed to March 1 to April 30. 

a": Your planning for a 50% decrease in sage grouse is unthinkable. 

(1648) 

RESFQNSE: This is an w. Since the inception of the Plan, the sage 

grouse population has nearly doubled. hplementation of the Plan should not 

advwxely impact sage grouse. 

a": Recent field work (1983-86) indicates a papulation estimate of 400 

sage grol~se for the Nevada portion of the White Momtains including the 

Wal County portion. It is felt that excessive grazing in all areas of 

the White Mountains inhibits suzvival of sage grouse young. Additionally, 

captition for water and succulents near isolated springs and seeps is a 

factor wntributirg stress on adult sage grouse. Euming as a management 

tool in the bottan of -trail and middle canyons has cancatrated livestock 

grazing and impacts to sage meadows nearby to the pint of eliminating 

sage grouse use and causing seocoadary watershed damage in the form of 

erosion. To further carq?ound the sage grouse habitat pmblems, the northem 

White Mountains were designated as a wild horse unit, and, as such, the 

horses cause considerable damage to meadows. (282) 

RESFQNSE: Grazing impacts and fire suppression are thought tn be significant 

historic inpacts on gmuse in the Eastem Sierra. These wntxibuted to 

inneased browse densities, decreased herbaceous cxmpnmt in the 

understories, and an increase of annual exotic invaders. Currently, 

livestock could rem3ve UnderStoIy vegetation important as food or mer for 

nesting and brccd rearing habitat, but a larger concern are impacts on 

mnmtain meam for sumner habitat. Research has demxstrated that light or 

moderate grazing can enhance species ccmposition in these areas for grouse. 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for sage gro~~se and riparian areas 

should insure that integrity of habitat for this species wi': be maintained. 

m: Suspect the ""rm habitat capacity" for sage gnxlse (1,500) is 

too low. With improved range conditions and less grazing, I believe the 

ppulaticm could swell to many times that. Nineteenth century qualitative 

accounts suggest there may have once been tens of thousands. (1548) 

RES-E: Suitable habitat for this species was Unaoubtedly higher in 

hiskric times than at present (see previous omwnt). Under current 

conditions the estimated ppulation is approximately 2,000 birds. Decreasing 

grazing would probably mt result in a dramatic increase in birds unless 

accanpanied by large scale revegetation projects to provide shrub/steppe 

annumities that were thought to be here historically. 

a": In the wildlife element for Management Area #7, rather than 

"maintain productvity.. .vegetative manipulation", grazirag should be 

368 
WILDLIFE 

abolished fran areas inhabited by sage grouse. Regardkg the ptection of 

important sage gnmse stxutting and wintering grounds, how do you intend to 

do this? I ca"t find amphere in the Plan a detailed description. (1634) 

( 140 ) 

"E: See abme carments. Forest-Wide Standards and Management Area 

Direction for areas occupied by sage grouse should insure that integrity of 

habitats used by this species is maintained or inpoved. 

a"J!: Management Area #7. Under the Management Area direction for range 

should be included: "Undertake Vegetation manipulation activities that 

benefit grazing only when such work will mt degrade sage grouse habitat." 

(2190) 

=WE: 

diredion. 

This or a similar statement is being added to this Management Area 

CCWDlI!: The CDFG beliwes that for the Forest to canply adequately with the 

letter and intent of the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and in 

particular Section 1604 (G)(3)(B), the Plan must damnstrate the ability and 

intention of the US Forest Service to manage and preserve all of the rare 

animals and plant taxa presently fowd in the Forest. The indicator species 

chosen in the Plan do not adequately represent all rare animal species and 

mostcerkunl ' y do not represent all rare plants. All rare species must be 

accounted for in the Plan in a straightforward and positive manner. To do 

this, the CDFG recormends that the Plan address at least all species that are 

krxmn to exist in the Forest that are T&E (i.e. listed as rare, threatened, 

or endangered by the Federal gwernment or the State of California), are T&E 

candidate species, are listed as sensitive by the Regional Forester, or are 

de fact0 rare species (i.e. species listed in the California Native Plant 

Society's Inventory of Rare and mered Vascular Plants of California and 

not included in any of the above categories). By "address", we mean that 

specific quantified objectim designed to achieve viable populations of 

these species should be set forth in the Plan in accordance with Forest 

Service Manual 2672.31 and 2672.32. Specific mans for attaining these 

objectives, mcluding, but mt limited to, the dedication of Research Natural 

Areas and Special Interest Areas sbould be described. (2190) (1108, 2047) 

RESFONSE: Refer to the in the diversity section of this Appendix. 

Threatened, endangered and sensitive plant and animal species are given the 

highest priority in twms of "g-t action. Indicator species in the 

Plan include essentially all listed and sensitive species that managmt 

activities will impact. It is importan t to remember that MIS covers several 

broad Species sroups. For exanple, sensitive plants found on the Inyo are 

also MIS and are being managed as such. The dimity section describes the 

intermlatiomhips of MIS, diversiiq, and allocation of RNAs and SIAs to 

insure that all species on the Inyo, particularly thDse that are threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive will be protected. Standards and Guidelines, and 

369 
WILDLIFE 

tmmg”t Directkn for “gitq tl”0 SpeCFes set quantifiable objectives 

for managing both f€derally listed and sensitive species on the Inyo. 

m: The specific locaticms and sizes of amas to be managed for 

threatened, -, and Sensitive species Wd be disclosed. Because 

the alternative established specific dcrection which will reduce habitat and 

abwdame, the extent of habitat to be ratained must be st-rrwn in detail for 

each species. (2190) 

REspoNsE: 

~~scu~ces. 

The plan is designea to pruvide direction for the manag-t of 

The Plan quantitatively states changes for habitats or species. 

wbn dealing with threatensd, “geI&, or sensitive species, it may not be 

wise to disclose this infomation in a &ament that will be circulated to 

the general pblic. This may further jeopardize these ppulaticms. Specific 

infon~tim is located at the SuperviSar’s Office or at the Ranger 

Districts. Managemnt Directim in the FEIS/Plan will not reduce habitat of 

threatened, endangered or sensitive species. Direction in the Plan will 

inswe that habitats of these species are mainkired or improved. 

Site-specific debils are the Scope of the Farest Plan. Paruculafly 

tXlW3W: For the Species in which viability is a collcern (i.e. all 

threatened and endangered. candidate, sensitive and de facto rare species), 

neither the Plan mr the DEIS descxite exactly what a viable population is 

casidered to be in tenns of estimated n”x and distribution of 

reprcductive individuals. In rn case is there a description provided of how 

viable population levels are actually calculated or the assmptions, 

probabilities, and risks associated with that level. Because fish are also 

vertebrates, there sbould be a statement that camclts the Forest to 

maintaining viable populaticm of all fish species. (2190) (1097) 

m: There is a great deal of debate amiqst ecologists regarding the 

ccmcept of viability. Ths texttx@k m is that in order to insure the 

amtimed existence of a species (viability), there needs to be a “I of 

500 reparoducing individuals within a species or subspecies. The main concern 

far viability is threatened and endangered species. On the Inyo, these 

wte to bald eagles (winter habitat) and Peregrine falccols (nesting and 

foraging habitat), 0.m-1~ tui chub, Paiute cutthroat trout and Lahontan 

cutthroat trout. These species are being “aged at levels above those 

required in the prescriptive recovery plans, and cooperatively with other 

agencies. Other species of concern that are designated as sensitive are 

addressed with respect to the varims resources that could potentially impact 

thm. The Standards and Guidelines and Manag-t Area Direction were 

developed to maintain habitats for these species at levels abwe the Regional 

recarmendations. 

CCEUENR Rare anjmals. We are particularly concezlled that the Regional 

phi1mqd-y for manag-t provide the “I acceptable level of performance 

necessary to acccmplish objectives: neither mre mr less. (2190) (422) 

370 
WILDLIFE 

m: Management Direction for threatened, endangared and sensitive 

species is specific in that habitats for these species will be maintained or 

impmved. The Plan dmmsixates a ccmitmnt to xmverdrg feaerally listed 

ljueatened or endangered species, and to instring that sensitive species do 

not hecane threatened or endangered. 

m: Species-specific guidelines shxld include reiteration of the 

Regid guidelines which pIUVide for the management and WWion Of 

spottea owls (Strix occidentalis). (1108) (74, 225, 1411, 1532, 1566, 2047, 

2190) 

REspoNsE: This is not necessary. Standards and Guidelines state that if 

spottea owl territories are located, then they will be managed according to 

the Regia guidelines. (xlrrently, no territories have been located in 

habitats that will be placed under timber management on the Inyo. 

CiM": The Inyo Forest clearly is aware of the threats to sptted owl 

habitat throughout California and the Pacific Northwest (Plan 111-42). 

Further, it is stated that red fir stands have the highest potential for 

sptted owl nes- habitat. Neither the Plan rQr the DEIS specify areas for 

spottea owl mgenient areas. Without recognition of SCWAs, how can the Inyo 

develop the special managemat plans recognized by the Inyo as necessary to 

protect the owl? At this time, we urge the Inyo Forest to attempt to verify 

the spottea awl sightirigs mti- in the Plan and determine what 

constitutes preferred habitat. (1411) 

REspoNsE: Intensive spottea owl inventories are ongoing in the red fir belt 

near San J0aqui.n Ridge: we have not verified any spotted awl territories. 

The area that does have potential for sptted owl habitat is the area in the 

vicinity of Monache Meadaws. fran the suitable 

timbx base, in part for spottea owls. No management activity is being 

pld in these areas that would detract fm their use as spottea owl 

habitat. The mche area will be intensively inventoried in 1988. 

Both areas have been 

CtX+lmR mdify the first Standard and Guideline listed for threatened and 

endangered wildlife species (IV-39) to include making the Plan consistent 

with the recwery plans that have been develapea for the listed species .that 

mw ccau or have historically occurred in the Forest. Add a statement 

outlining a cannibcent to obtain needed baseline data and validate the -1s 

used to evaluate the impact of managmat activities on fish and wildlife. 

If gm3 evidence already exists sh"J that a listed or candidate species is 

currently in a declining or depleted state, prohibit activities that would 

keep the situation fran impruving until recovery is well underway. (2170) 

RESFCNSE: This is being done on the Inyo National Forest. Local recovery 

plans have been developed for the peregrine falcon and Lahontan cutthroat 

trout. These plans tier off of the USFWS recovery plans for these species. 

In addition, Managerent Direction for lands administered by the Inyo Forest 

exceed those required in the recovery plans for federally listed species. 

371 
WILDLIFE 

w: I believe it is a violation of 36 CFR 219.19 (A)(7) to give “lay 

priority” to 5nvenkn.y of bald eagle rc@&irg sites (Plan Fppendixes, 

Wildlife). (1634) 

m: 

imply that nosting sites will not be adequately my&. 

These priorities reflect anticipated bdget limitations and do not 

m: Chl DEIS IV-166, PleaSe COrreCt this statement: “No OpprhmitieS 

for increasing bald eagle habitat have been identified.“ The Lee Vinirg and 

Rush creek watershe&, since the recent restoration of mini.” flows, have 

been incxeasingly utilized by winteriq bald eagles. This habitat should be 

recqnized, and protection sbould be given to the waterfowl and prey base, 

ths ruc6t sites and the open water required by this species. (1617) (1638) 

m: This ccmnent will be passed on to the I%m Basin Scenic Area 

team. Up to two bald eagles have been observed in the winter using Rush 

would provide maqinal bald eagle winter habitat. 

(=reek. If flows are maintained in Rush CY€& and Lee vining creek, these 

m: With respect to bald eagles, first, the same ccmnent made regarding 

peregrine falw applies: add it as a California listed endangered 

species. Second, DEIS 1-6 lists the Bald Eagle Draft Recovery Plan. This 

should be updated to read ”Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (1986).” 

( 2190) 

m: These correCtianS will be included in the EIS/Plan. 

w: Cn DEIS 11-47, a Forest-wide Standard prohibiting new winter uses 

of remeat.ion developwnks witl-iin -25 miles radius of the “identified winter 

nmstirg area.” This distance would only be appropriate if a specific 

managmt plan for the bald eagle area were developed and it justified such 

a radius. However, without such a plan for the area, the Standard should 

provide for a ”I of an 800 mter radius prohibiting develapnent and 

intense human uses. (2190) 

RESPIINSE: -tly, we see 1y3 need to extend this distance. The Inyo will 

prcduce a winter bald eagle managmt plan. If during this pxucess, a need 

is identified to extend distance of winter Iwst sites to recreation 

developnents, then this will be displayed in that plan. 

CXM”: Four Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines are recited for bald 

eagles. Standard and Guideline #l.C. refers to wintering areas. To be 

consistent with the exist- recovery plan, this Standard should direct 

management to maintain existing winter habitat sufficient for 20-30 bald 

eagles. Also on the same page, Standard and Guideline #1.E. should be added 

to direct the Forest to implement the Pacific States Bald Eagle Recwery Plan 

prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service. (2190) 

RESPONSE: “he reference to the RecWery Plan is inClUded in the Final Plan. 

372 
CCMCD?E The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service presently considers Pbno Basin 

populations of mountain beaver as a candidate for threatened or endangered 

species listing. Imprtant to carefully evaluate the status of mountain 

beaver prior to making Forest management decisicas. (127) 

RESPONSE: Application of the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for 

riparian areas should ensure habitat protection for the sub-species of 

mnmtain beaver. This comnent will also be addressed in the Wno Basin 

Scenic Area Plan. 

EDI" COEIMENPS 

m: Range management guidelines for riparian area protection (DEIS, 

IV-109). I could not find the range managecent guidelmes. You must be 

talkixq about Standards and Guidelines? 

"E: Yes. 

(29) 

CCBMXV: To pmte true stewardship of the envkmment, the Inyo Forest 

should use only 1K% recycled paper in its official documents, letters, "os 

and other information. (150) 

RESWNSE: The Forest is required to use office supplies purchased through 

the General Services Mmhistration because there are existing contracts with 

specific suppliers that save taxpayer dollars. 

CCBMXV: The county sbmngly supprts the identification of long-term 

effects groundwater resources in the Long Valley Caldera (Appxbx ' B). 

As a g-al comwnt wading implementation plans, inventories, and 

research and technical data needs, the listing of future research should be 

prioritized and presented with set tima frames. Regarding the Appendur ' , it 

is suggested that the glossary of terms in the EIS Appndices also be 

included in the Plan Appenaur ' for easy reference. Regarding the Plan and 

EIS, all policy language contained in the EIS should be inmfprated into the 

Plan. The p"t fonnat is difficult to use and can result in this reader 

gainiq only a partial understanding of the Forest Plan's intent. (1638) 

-E: The Research and Technical Data Needs section is meant for use as 

a general list of needs. The times and priorities for canpleting these will 

be det- when the Plan is approved. We have incorpsrated the same 

Glossary in both donrments; have attmpted to be consistent with larguage: 

and have included Indexes to help the reader understand these documents and 

find relevant information. 

CUWlN!: The plan is long and the management direction to the unit manager 

seems to spread out, divided amrn-ig the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, 

Prescriptions, and Management Area Direction. All this direction should be 

czmslidated and simplified so a person can understand and use the Plan. 

373 
What applies to what land base will be subject to debate when a wnplex 

project is proposed. It would appear that scam r&"y is Occurring in 

the forest directi cn. For example, mdex Rqe (Plan IV-98). the direction 

could be cnnbhed with Standards and Guidelines. Them is nothfng unique 

aboot this directl 'on. (29) 

m: The Final Plan is mxa redwdant than the Draft because the public 

asked far similar lampage in various seei2ci-s. The format is mnsistent 

with Regicn 5 dlrezix 'on for the CCBlStrClCtion of all Plans in this Region. 

m: The four species that are state-listed as rare (DEIS 111-85) should 

be -ti- also 081 Plan 111-31. (1634) 

-E: !Ibis specific kind of information is rnt appropriate in the 

sunnary of the m. 

m: Tu say that the demand for habitat for these species is found 

primarily in the scientific is exhxnely ani3mpcenkic. Just 

because plants and animals canrot speak does not mean that they too do mt 

have demands for habitat! (1634) 

RJSFCNSE: The "demand" in this sentence refers to human demand. The plant and animal "mities have "needs" ,"re&"ts" or "preferences." 

CCtMENF: "Decadence" is a pejorative term that legitimizes the destruction 

of old growth, or virgin forest. This term sbould be replaced. (1634) 

RESPCNSE: It does not legitimize anything. 

It describes the dtion of a tree, a stand of trees, or a forest. As "young", "middle-aged" and "old" describe the omdition of a persm. 

"Decadence" is a forestry term. 

m: IV-47. Are we talking a "nn-dic ski area" or a "potential mrdic 

ski area" ? (1634) 

-E: This Prescription has been eljminakd. 

a#": IV-50, Range. What is FSM 2323.2? Please define. (1634) 

"E: FSM 2323.2 refers to the Forest Service Manual for Wilderness 

Management. We have defined it in the text and it will be included in the 

Glossary. 

CXMENC: 

themainFppendixvolume. (29) 

The pgpendix in the Plan sems like it would be better placed in 

374 
RESWXSE: 

reference by the public and has been deleted frun the Final. 

alppsmdtces are required by the Regional Offics. 

Much of the appendix material in the Draft Plan was included for 

Sane of the 

"I!: IV-1. "Should be" or "Must be"? Minir" Management R-t 

(luMRs), which are mandated by NFM4, help to determine the Forest-wide 

Standards and Guidelines. (1634) 

"E: 

staradards and Guidelines. 

Managmt Rqrkenw~ts are the basis for Forest-wide .. 

"I!: we recQrmend that the figures list within the table of ccoltents be 

modified to show tables and figures separately. We found it confusing when 

leaking for the map (only one is ir~luded in the text portion of the subject 

plan). Listing the table separately vmild allw quick inspection of actual 

illustrations. (25) 

-E: The document has been reformatted to impwe it. 

CUWBW: Is "9000 foot elevation'' a misprint (Plan II1-34)? Elsewhere the 

8000 foot figure is used (Plan IV-122,135) and I was told that it is this 

figure which is be- m. I am in favor of the 8000 foot 

restriction Wch will protect bristle" pine and other high zone tree 

species. (971) 

-E: The 9,000 foot figure is incorrect. It should be 8,000 feet. 

"I!: Plan 1-13 should list the 1977 Inte??3gency S-bile Use Map 

(revised)? (1099) 

"E: This map will be u@ated in the upaate of the Wtor Vehicle Use 

plan, which will be done when the Plan is implemented with full public 

involvement. 

:I 

a": Plan 111-26, 4th paragraph. This needs to be rewritten to 

incorporate the final Tawn of Marrm3th Lakes General Plan. (1099) 

RESFQNSE: Thishasbeendme. 

aM4E"P: On l'g. IV-107, 15,523 acres (including Sherwin -1) is designated 

as Prescription #14, yet the DEIS Appr&.x ' H-4 and H-5 declare a total of 

15,900 acres for Prescription #14. 

RESEONSE: 

What is the correct figure? (1634) 

14,229 is the final corrected figure in the Plan. 

375 
cct.tmw: Appndu * A - Needed Resource ImplementatiOn Plans and Inventories. 

A-1 

A-2 Please add under "Recreation" 

Please add Avalanche Management Plan under "Prote&im" 

potential ski rea ~ssessnent pian 

coordinate with 1- jurisdictions and general plans in the preparation 

of mcrseticn residence future use detemuna . tim Plan.. 

A-3 Please revise second geology inventory to include avalanches. (1638) 

RESFCNSE: The Forest is not in a pasition at the present time to prcduce an 

Avalanche Management Plan or conduct an inventory to include that 

infomation. Potential ski area developrent is addressed in the Plan in 

Prescriptions, chapter IV. Rsxeation residence future use determinations 

will be oanpleted in rexeation canposite plans. 

m: Fpperaduc ' A (Plan A-3) neglects the fact that an Interagency 

Recovery and -tim Plan already exists for Sierra Bighorn which is 

listed on Page 1-3 as Incarprated unchanged. (1097) 

-E: pspendur ' A in the Draft Plan lists those plans and inventories 

that are needed. A in the Final Plan lists both exid5x-g plans and 

incaprates the list of those that are needed. 

UtWlBW.: In the DEIS, the need for definition of unacceptable damage is 

ex+xemly important throughDut the darrrment for all lesource areas. (29) 

-E: Unacceptable damage is a subjective term that is site specific. 

Sane definitions have been included in the document when it is possible to 

identify them. 

m: The DEIS has so many figures that it is imp3ssible to oanpm. 

With almxt 4 pages of lists of figures, I question whether or mt all these 

are necessary. (29) 

RL5H3EE: Many of these are required . others are included because of 

specific requests or concerns. They are definitely difficult to oanprehend. 

cct.tmw: My name was inadvertently left off the list of those consulted 

(DEIS Chapter VI). I was consulted m a Nsnber of occasions by biologists on 

the planning team during the fonnulatim of the document in questim. (1097) 

RESFCNSE: We regret that your name did not appear in the Draft. 

m: Would want to see the 2nd paragraph on 

11-118 in its place (DEIS 11-61, 2nd paragraph). I also prefer the last 

paragraph of 11-118 to the last paragraph of 11-62. (134) 

I object to this outcome. 

376 
-E: Discussion to the potential enviromt in the year 2030 is 

intended to be a description of the objective or goal of the Alternative. It 

is speculation at best. 

a3f4EST: I'd like to make a few suggestions on kxi your DEIS could be better 

&=ne. An index and better titled. maps 

would be helpful too. Perhaps a shorter s"aq should be made available 

(30-50 pages) that would outline the specific Plan so such a v0lu"us 

document would mt need to be waded through. (2136) 

FSSPC2iS.E: Glossaries and Indexes have been added to both the EIS and the 

Plan. A sumnary of the Plan is available to provide needed infomtion in a 

much shorter and easier to understand format. The map package has been 

redCole. 

M3st impOaantly a Table of Contents. 

a3f4EST: The use of the word "timberline" reflects a single use of the 

Forest for sawlogs. "Timberline" is a colorful word premed. more for its 

ranantic camections than its accuracy. Timberline refers to the marketable 

quality of the wood which diminishes at high altitudes. The correct term is 

"tree-line". There is m timber at tree-line. (381) 

"E: "Timberline" is used in this dDcument in its true sense "the upper 

limit of arboreal growth in mnmtains" (webster's). It does not reflect 

sawtimber prduction. 

OXWRfI': The District boundary east of (3rrwley Lake is inaccurate on the 

Management Area map. (1099) 

RFSWNSE: We have eliminated District boundaries on the map because they 

were confwirg to the public. 

OXWRfI': 

-E: 

extremely costly to 

resource and mt others. 

A map showing Forest types and harvest areas is needed. (128) 

We have eliminated several maps in the final documents. They are 

and it is not appropriate to proauCe maps for one 

OXWRfI': The Managemat F"iption maps should have included all proposed 

and present OW trails, along with indications of locations of sensitive 

biological resources such as riparian areas and iniprtant wildlife habitats. 

(2170) 

m: The 1977 Interagency Wtor Vehicle Use Plan will be upfhted during 

Plan implemmtation. The public will be involved in this effort and a new 

map will be meed showing both winter and swmer OW/fXV mutes. It is 

mt appropriate to indicate the locations of sensitive resources on public 

maps. 

377 
CiXM5W: Series of overlay maps of sufficiently large We to sbow various 

ccnflictiq and anptible resources in the area - developed "atian, 

geothermal, ski, OW use, mad ne-, roads and routes to obliterate, 

soils, slops, vegetative types, earWqmke faults, volcanisn, urban 

developnent, fuel& areas, wildlife habitat, migration routes, and other 

reeamxs. (278) 

I"SE: This is not feasible, given the "bx of ctammts that are 

distrikuted to the plblic. This information is available in District Offices 

and at the S-'s Office in Bishop. 

m: Needed information: Map of forest areas by species subject to 

timber and fuel- cutting pcessure. (2178) 

m: This is not available. 

378 
P 0 

2 Hydrodectrlc development should be restrkted to those 

proposals which pace no possibility of adveree eZftcti3 on 

fisheries or streamside reereatha 

3 Large. ~hually obtrusive wind farms should not be allowed 

Limited applkathna of wlnd power 1x1 vlsually protected areas 

might be acceptable DotmIs Martfn 

fnya National Forest 

373 N Main Street 

Bishop, CA 93514 

March lid 1907 

4 Pagc 111-39 ehould include a recommmdatlon that there be a 

full EIS to a~me~e the comblnad impact of development wfthln the 

KGRA Site apccifie environmental revlawe must Include 

cumuhtivc impact analysee, Dear Mr Martin 

Thank you far the opportunity to comcnt on the draft Inyo 

National Porest Land and f?e~ource Management Plan B~lng jn the 

m5ddIe of adopting a General Plan for the Tam, WE can appreciate 

only too well the magnitude of the effort required to 

comprehensively plan for future uses of the Inya National Forcat 

We are pleased with most o€ the plan and look forward to its 

adopt ion Our speclffc tomenta are 1hted below 

2 Oancrally, the Fordmt-widc Standards and Guldclince for 

wildlifs are good and ue mupport them The bection on Mule Deer 

ahould help aalntaln bmslthy herds if fully implemented 

b 

4 managemant activity which advtraely affacta the Hot Creek 

Flab Hatchary or the Hot creek wild Trout stream ahauld be 

permittad 

l* All tha mrmu dmrlpnrtmd for high lava1 tlabcr management 

bttwaah June Lake rnd Hammoth, mat of 398, and mouth of Xndlaha 

Summit abould be lbdudsd withln Managcmant Prcaeription 9, 

HodAficd Tirbar Managarcnt 3 

management prtecr P pthn 14 [potential ski arm] 

The Hartlay S ringa and Yost Creek armam 8hould be changed to 

Hordic Skllng - ---- ---- 

1 The plan shouJd streaa that geothermal wel3,s and plants be 

2 
1 

cxccbt Number 4 

The Town supports all the polkies of Management Arum 9 

This ahauld be modified to permit expansion of 

Sha& Rest Park to the eaet, 

area 

Basin area 

4 The Ton would llke to see the donation, acguieitfunt Specla1 

Use Permit or land exchange of area east of Shady Rest Park, 

north of Highway 203, ur eouth of Highmy 203, aaat of Mmldian 

or the area eaat of the South Gatcway fur a possfblc golf COIA~~G 

The area would cover appraxlmately 170 acme 

area 

- 

This area could be utilized far a combinntion park and - 

c1vAc center area, a swimming pool or othsr uses naedmd by the 

Tom This area shou3d bt connected ta the Mammoth Creek Park 

and extend from 203 to the Mammoth Creek Road, covering the area 

between Town and 395 

3 The Town would like to see the donationr and exchange or 

acqubfthn by the Town a€ the area of land between the CammUhlty 

Center and Minaret Rwad (Highway 203) Thls area im north of 

Forest Trail and south and west af Mlnaret Road [Highway 203)* 

1 In the Inyo National Portst, there is no nrtnth'l of the are~ 

to have thlm area designated to bE malntainad a3 3 historical 

BlfE 

known a8 tha Mammoth Conadldated OoIdmlnc* The Tom w*uld like 

ststaaent 

uc-c=--- 

LBU (Budget Reduction) - 

have been -I 

afforta are not funded+ 

Page IIXv69r paragraph 3, atatee that akA area US* ham 

3 4 
ch) 

co 

Page IV-70, paragraph 6, lrrplhm that mll Wordlc mkling in 

diapermcd recreation Parthermore, it implies that all Hordlc 

aklers have the mame nseda This lm not tht eaat The 

experience prauidcb by a rccrort of thc type propbsrd far the Dry 

Crrck area 1s more akin to the experience at an Alpina resort and 

wlll dIIrhish apportunitica for crams country mkiarm hoking for 

an undeveloped setting The EIS ahodd Beparate the two group 

and emnsidcr the dlffermt needs of Each group Thle comment 

applies to page 111-74, paragraph 3, as mll 

Pmge 1V-41r first paragraph, necda to carraider the impacts 

of increasd runoff beeawe ai coamunlty growth, a# "11 am 

lncrbaaed demand 

Thank you for your considerativn 

5 
W 

z 

March IS, 1987 

Deet' ML Martin 

MWTH COUHTY WATER D 1 STR1 C7 

c I. 

c) 

5 

-3- -4- 

I 
-5- Marth 23, 1987 

Mr. Dennrs Maxtxn 

Forest Supexvis &on 

Inyo National Forest 

873 North Main Street 

Bishop, Califorma 93514 

.TC 

Dear Mr, Martin: 

Inyo Natamal Forest Proposed Ian 

and Resource M+naqement Phb, (Ph 

Thank you for the opportunity ta m"t an the 

released Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEXS], 

The comments contained herein supplement the general ctmrrts made 

by Mr+ Charles W, Montoya at the public hearing held in Bishop on 

Jhbuary 26# 1987, 

The Power System af the LOS Angdes Departments of Water 

and Power IDWP] operates numerous facilities in and adlacent ta 

the Inyo National Farest, As the Plan is intended to provide 

management direction for all forest lands and resources for the 

coming 10 to 1s years, we are concerned about any effects it may 

have on the operations af DWPSs Power System, We have reviewed 

the Plan and recognize that a great deal bf effort and concern 

went into the formulation of alternatives and the analyses used 

for the Plan, 

The Power Syatem comments are directed toward utility 

corridors and geotherma 1 resources 

in a key poBxtian with respect to power transmission from energy 

~ources in the Pacific Northwest and Intermountain states to 

Southern California, As the energy necde of the hm Angdes Basin 

continue to increa~e~ the need for additional transmission ayetema 

gxowa, 

corridors for high-voltage tranz"~8i0n linea in a more detailed 

manner 

The Eaaterrr Sierra regmn i3 

We believe that the Plan ahauld addrt33 the issue of utihty 

The Plan should consider ptentid cast-west Utility 

corridors and alternate north-south utility corridors that cross 

Inyo National Farest landa, We racognha that it is appropriate 

to specify mitigation ma~urea to ac-ny u utility corridor 

designatmn in specific areas where valuable re530~rc~s are emphasized 

in the Plan. Minimal mad constructton through areas of speciai 

concern is one measure DWP would be receptive toh Our specific 

xecontmendations, including two maps for the Plan, are enclosed, 

0 
I 

If you have any questions regarding our comments, 

please call ML James P, Mieding of my staff at (2131 481-8637, 

We are grateful for the assstance provided by hyo National Farest 

look forward to your response to the DWP Power System commts. 

staff at public meetings and through personal comunicatums, We 

Sincerely, 

tlr, Zane G, smith, Jr, 

Regional Forester 

Pacific Southwest Region 

630 Sansame Street 

San Francisco, California 94111 

EDWARD KARAPETIAM 

Engineer of Environmental and 

Governmental Affairs 

Mr. James S, Mornson 

8lshop Resource Area Manager 

Bureau of Land Management 

873 North Hain Streetp Suite 201 

Bishop, California 93514 

Hs+ Patrich HcLean 

Ridgeerest Resource Area Manager 

Bureau of Land Management 

112 Eaat Dolphin Street 

Ridgecrest, California 9355s 

Mr- Sam Dennis 

Land Management Planning 

US, Forest Service 

973 North Main Street 

Bishop, California 93514 

Off 1cer 

Mr, Dale &, Woodward 

Senior Right-of-way Agent 

Southern California Edisan 

Company 

P.0, BOK 410 

hmg BeachF California 90BOl 

Mr. Steve Pa Younkfn 

Sierra Pacific Power Company 

e,o, Box 1OlQO 

Reno, Wevada 89520 

Cfty of LOB Angdea 

Department of Water and Power 

Power System 

General and Specific Cbmmsnta 

On the 

0 

-l 

fnya National ForeBt 

Propoged Land and Resource 

Management Plan 

Mnrch 1987 

. 

t 
Los Anqeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) 

Power System Camtnents on 

Inyo Natkonal Forest Proposed Land and 

Resource Management Plan (Plan1 

Gencral Comments and Concerns on the Plan 

I, Introduction 

DWP1s Power System is responsible far provadmg the ehctricai 

needs of over three million people in the City of Lo5 Angeles, 

Historically, the bulk of electricity for the DWP's Power 

System was provided by hydroelectric generating plants, 

until the early 3940s, approxmakely 95 percent of the power 

serving Los Angeles came from ths source, The phenomenal. 

increase in the City's population following World War XIs and 

the gradual reductmn in new hydro-development sites, re~ulted 

in a shift to fossil-fueled thermal plants located within the 

qeneratxm accounted for up to 80 percent of the Cxty's power. 

The 1970s brought substantxai increases xn fuel oil prices due 

to the 1973 Arab oil embargo, as well as increased concern over 

air quality within the basin, In hght of these eonsideratkons 

and the continued increaae in demand for eleckrxcity, DWP 

aggressively began particqmtihq in facalities outside the 

basin and is anticipating future power generating sources to 

be located outside the Los Angeles Basin. In 1985/1986, 

approximately 30 percent of Los Angeled energy was generated 

in the hs Angdes Basin, and we see this percentage dropping 

An future years, These ~ources xnclude not only projects in 

which DWP is a partuxpant, but a180 economy energy purchased 

from other utilitha, Since 197OP power generated in the 

Pacific Northwest has been delkvexed to the LOB Angeles Bash 

via the Paczfic DC Intertie (Celrlo-sylmar Tran8mission Line] 

which cr05ses portions of the Inyo Nataonal Forest, DWP muet 

maintain a strong transmx~sidh system into the ftbs Angelea Basin 

ami also expand this aystern when addithmal energy sources 

become necessary, 

existing and potential transmassfon line corridors which cross 

portions of the Inyo National Forest. 

Up 

Lo3 Angeles 5a~h. Durkng the 19605, fOsSll-fueled electx~cal 

Our concern3 regarding the Plan center on 

IL Proposed. Plan. The following are elements wfthxn the propwed 

Plan with which we are concerned. 

The Plan states that additional aorth-sauth utihty 

lines and future corridor needs paralleling the existing 

Pncif ic DC Inkertie (Celilo-Syh" Transmhsmn Line] 

will be considered in any future linear land occupancy 

dedsions, 

rights-of-way will be awoxded by consolrdatlng compatible 

utilities to locations that have the highest potential 

Proliferation of separate linear utility 

for corridor designation, 

utility rights-of-way WLU be used wherever feasible to 

minimize the creatxon of new rights-of-way and to reduce 

impacts on other resources + (See R~ghts-af-Way-Grants, 

Plan IV-24+] 

Fxisting public or private 

The Plan states that Inyo Natmnaf Forest lands will be 

provided for exploration and developmenk of geothermal. 

resources cmtmensurate with other resource values. 

Applicable regulations, operatmg orders, and notices 

shall be followed and geothermal leases issued pursuant 

to appropraate authority, Envh"nta1 documents will 

be prepared prmr to leasing and also prior to explorationp 

development, and productxm phases to analyze impacts 

and specify mxtlgatxon measures where lease saIes bave 

occurred or are proposed, Energy leaaing will be authorized 

when prqects met establxsbed visual and water quality 

objectives and cultural, wildlife, fisheries, and riparian 

resource ObjectiveH, (See Leasable Minerals - OaL Gas, .s. .- 

and Geotherkl, Plans IV-25 aia IV-26.1 -. T 

u utility Corridors 

As the energy demand of Los Angeha "xases, DWP must 

look for new anergy sources, Currently, coal-ilred 

generating ~tatians in Nevada are under consideration, 

In addition, geothermal resource3 are being developed in 

Nevada. The moat feasible transmission line route 

alternative to delfver thfa power to Southern California, 

COhBidering environmntal, topographical, and land USE 

conslrainta, ia by way a€ an east-wegt utility corridor 

leading to the Paeifzc Intertie {Cehlo-Sylmar 

Tranamiaaion Line) corridor, The Pian addresses the 

heed far a corridot paralleling the Paclfic W Intertier 

WE CD~CUE with thiB, However, the Plan does not designate 

this corridorc nor does it identify any potential. 

east-weBt corridors, For this reason, we have identified 

several utility corridors and aevtra1 alternate utilxty 

corridors for incluafon in the Plan a~ described in 

Section IV# Recomndat&ons, m 

IWP i8 comitted to developing ulttrnathe energy 

sources to meet current and ptojaetad energy demanda, 

The prapoaed Plan haa idantifi~d meveral areas within 

the Inyo National Forest whare geothermal. development 

would be allowed, In other areu3# though, it is not 

clear whether geothermal energy develop-nt will be 

permitted, Addatianally, we have not been able to 

-1- -2- 
determine whether low-vdtage power lanes required for 

geothermal devdopment are compatible with certain 

rerommendations which address these ambquittes are 

contained in the following Section lVa 

management prescriptions or area directions, DWP 

IV, DWP kcomendations 

~ 

IIWP recommends that the Plan inckude and designate both 

utility corridors and alternate utilzty corridors for 

high-voltage transmission lm~ea shown on the map 

entitled "DWP Recm"nded Utility Corridors for Proposed 

Inyo National Forest Plan. It 

b 

The Plan should include and designate the following as 

uklhty cCWrU3tXs: 

l* The Pacific DC Intertie (Celilo-Sylmax Transmiasion 

 ine el - A north-south corridor paralleling existing 

transrrriss11on hnes. 

2, Brg Pine-Deep Spring8 - An eaat-weat corridor 

providing access from the Deep Springs area to the 

Pacific DC Interhe corridor south of Big Pine. 

Further, the Plan should include and designate the 

following as alternate utility corridors should the 

proposed utility corridors or porkions of those utility 

corridors be unusable: 

I* Montgomery North - An alternate to a logical eastwest route through Montgomery Pass an Bureau of 

Land Management OM) lands whicb avoad3 developed 

areas and most view sheds ih Chalfant, Hamill, 

and Bentaa Valleys, 

2. Banner - An alternate far a portion of the Pacific 

DC Intertie avoiding BLM Wilderness Study Area {WSA) 

010-077[202), WSA 010479r WSA 010-080J WSA OIO-OSl, 

and WSA 010-082. 

DWP is aware that these recammended utility corrxdars 

and alternate utxlity corridors include areas where 

recreational and wildlife reeources are emphasized, 

However, we belaeve a well-planned transmission line 

which includes mmimal surface dAaturbance in crxtical 

area3 is compatible with forest resources, 

o Geothermal Resources 

vm Conclusion .. 

For the Plan to be an adequate planning document, It should 

recognize the need for future utility development and designate 

locations for potential expanmw~ The proposed Plan needs 

to consider additional uhliky cuxradors beyond the Pacific 

DC Intertie CorrAdor. 

c 

-_ 

DWP believes that the Plan should recognize the need for 

lower voltage power lines specific to each geothermal 

project wherever geothermal resources are drscussed. 

-3- -4- 

t 
I 

Department of Water and Power's (Power System) comnatible with the mule deer habitat 

- Specific Comments on the Plan -. 

This prescription alhwa energy exploration 

or development, but does not specifically 

is developed, a means of conveying that 

energy is required, 

should be modifled, 

permAt a utAllty rlght-of-way, If energy 

The Lands Element 

7 

8, 

91 

10, 

llm 

la XL8* (11-9) Throughout the d~cuments the hlgh-voltage 

IV*F* (IV-lOO] direct current (HVDC) intertie could also 

IV Fa IIV-1011 be referred to as the Pacifxc., DC Intertie 

instead of the 750-HVDC Oregon'-Syh" 

Transmissmn Line, This name would be more 

appropriate, eluninatmg some confusion 

about the operating voltages vf the 

transmission line which have been changed 

in the last few years, 

A Lands Element should be added to 

prxption #ll and should read: Permit 

on measures 

2, III*C* [11142] It 1s not clear where utility transmission 

line access or patrol roads fit into the 

mLleage totals given. I€ they are 

tminventoried roads, closed to the public, 

please state EO+ IV,E. {ZV-B2,93) A Lands Element should be added and should 

Prescription #17 rights-qf-way 

of the -which - d- o-ict with - 

recreation and wildlif e obiectives. 

ed characteristics 3, III+C+ (11147) Fourth 

The route 

paragraph, 

parallehng 

third 

the 

sentence 

malor intemtate 

ahould read: 

-_ . c) 

right-of-way for the Pacific DC Intertic 

First paragraph should read: The purpose 

is tu allow roads to be constructed or 

upgraded to facilitate vehicle access for 

mineral actwity, range managewnt# utility 

n~eda, and recreatumal use+ 

- 

IV+ E+ (IV-84) 

Prescription #18 

4* III.C+ (11149] Third 

read, 

paragraph, 

Although shallow 

fifth sentence 

subsurface 

should 

testing b 

G) - 

has occurred, and four to five deep, 

-been drill ea * 

*f - the-ce, ed -to bett&r--define 

Second paragraphr second sentence should 

read: This preaeription supports use of 

mineral range and recreational resources 

and maintaining an *open roadn policy for 

accesa to mineral areae, range allotments, 

utility- facil~tiee, and for motorized 

recreation, 

- 

5* XKD, (TV-24) 

Fore Bt-Wide 

Standards and 

Gu fdehnea 

Under Riqhts-of-.Way Grants, {4+1 should - - c I - 

A Land3 Element ahould be added and should 

rerPernit -_ ne utility rights-qf-why. 

Proposed Inyo National Forest Plank) which 

6m 1V.E. (IV-56# 571 A 

7 

Lands Element should be added to 

Prescrlptim #4 Prescription #4 and should read: Permit 

-5- -6- 
I 

-7- 
PLANNING OEPARTMENT County of 

Page 2 

January 2L 1987 

F*rest Supervisor 

~nyo Hational Forest 

B73 Norkh Hain Street 

Bishop, CA 93514 

Re: Inyo Hati~nal Forest Management Plan 

Dear Sir: 

The Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan for the Inyo 

National Forest has been reviewed and considered by the Inyo 

County Planning Department, 

First, we would like to congratulate you and your etaff for a 

complete and detailed analysia of the existing reeourcea of 

the lnya National Foreat and the preparation of the varLoua 

management plan alternatives to utilhe these res0urere3, The 

evaluatlan of over 2,000~000 acres within the Fbre3t 

kundaries; the formulation of eighteen U8) management 

prescriptions: and the establiahent of twenty (201 

management areas was a major undertakingm 

information and pxeaent it in a relatively easy to read 

format is to be commended, 

To complile that 

By and in largee the Preferred Alternative (PRP) h supported 

by the Planning Department, It represents# to a large degreer 

the continuatmn of existing policies and programs of the 

Foreat Service. However, we do have a number of comment3 

that we keel should be considered prim to the adoption of 

the Final Plan, These cments consi~k of the following: 

1, Approximately 03% of the Inya National Forest lies 

within Inyo and Mono Counties and of all the timber 

harvesting as well BB over 90% of the recreational 

activity occurs herea The local conm my of our two 

Counties 1s highly dependent upon the recreational 

visitor and, to some degree# the extraction of 

natural resources from the forest fiem timber, grazing 

and mining)* In 196546 over $350,000 wan returned to 

Xnyo County for school and road purpose8 from the 

retreat€onal and timber receipts collected by the Inyo 

National Forest, 

The Preferred Alternative provides for additional 

recreational use of the Porest beyond that which is 

pxesently existhg, or provided for in the Current 

Alternative (CUR), This we strongly support 

We do have a coneern over the proposals for future 

timber harvesting in the Forest. Presently 10a5 MMBF 

are harvested annually while the Preferred Alternative 

proposes a reduction to lO+Q MBF in 10 years and 9+9 

MMBF In 50 yeare, 

Even though this reduction may aeem msignifkant we 

encourage the projected harvest be maintained at 

primarily the Inyo-Kern and Garderville sawmi11s, 

present timber harvests will be continued into the 

futurel The additional timber could possibly be 

obtained from uneven-age timber management within the 

future recreation and ski areas fieg around Inyo 

within the Monache Meadow area proposed for Limited 

Acceae should be re-evaluated for Timber Management, 

the 10,s WP figure in the Plan+ This will ensure, 

Craters 1 + In additLon, appr0xU"ely 10 p 000 acres 

If they are reconmended for wilderness at this the we 

atronglg suggest that the area between Badger Plat and 

Papoose Plat, including the atem around Squaw and Side 

Hi11 Springs be excluded, Them area8 contain numerous 

roads and are utilized for cattle grazing, hunting and 

other recreational aet~v~ths. The road between Bndger 

Flat and Papoone Plat provides a kmp road connedfng 

the communihes of Big Pine and Independence. It 113 a 

locally popular one day el~eutahn without having to 

retrace bn&8 route. 

3+ Management Premxiptian MWmr 4 (Mule deer Habitat 

20 (Bishop Creek-Buttermilk, mnm Valley EBcarpment 

and South Sierra) may result In the prohibition of 

vehicular access into these areas during the winter 

months = 

EnphaSisl OCCUring wlthln lh~14-11t 15# l7 and 
Page 3 

Thank you €or the opportunity to cment an the Foreat Plan. 

Roger-De Hart 

Planning Dzrector 

JNYQ 
ll! 

COMEHTS 

THAT WE FEEL SHOWLO BE CONSIDERED PRIOR 70 YdE AbOPTIW 

OF THE FtMAt PLAN, THEW COMPWNTS CONSIST OF THE 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

e 

9 

IO 

11 

12 

13 

14 

a5 

16 

17 

18 

19 

2b 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

APR 

At tochmcnt 
Deparkment of Fish and Game Detailed Comments 

of Inyo National Farest Land and Resource Hanaqeramt Plan -2- 

I* Page 111-22-23 (Fire Hanagementl We are phased to see 

that the Inyo National Forest [Forest) is considering a 

revlslan of 1tS Elre control policy The revision would 

allow natural fires to burn in some areas, and enable the 

Fomst ta consider the use of prcscrlbed burnxng to benefit 

wildlife habitat We look forward to warklng wath your 

personnel to designate areas where thLs would be btnafzcial 

to wildlife+ 

2, Page 111-24 [Ranqe]. We agree that it is not masonable to 

attmpt to increase the production of red meat by the 

national goal of 46 percent on the Parest In fact, 

considering the damage by grazing to fi5h and wildlife 

habitat already oeeurrrng on public lands in California, this 

arbitrary goal seema unrealistic, especially as the DEIS 

states on page kv-110 that 90 percent of the wet meadows an 

the Forest nhave been damaged or are threatened with damage 

triggered by the miamanaged grazing of 30 to 100 years ago- m 

This section also states that the rad mat deaand is 

projected to increase ovcr the planning period. 

flowever, aut understanding is that this demand la actually 

decreasing an a national basis+ 

should be reexamined The demand for grazing as 

distinguished from the demand for red meat, is high and will 

arc all probability mcnafn high regardless of the dtmand for 

rad neat itself because of pricing policies which reflect 

lass than fair market value charged for thc grazing rwmuree. 

PtrhapB this statement 

To be consistent with statements elsewhere in the documeat 

(e+g page 111-30)# we also believe it important that the 

statement Hgrazing in riparian areas may be deferred or 

redirected where necessary to prevent or repair damage to 

riparian resources' be changed to "grazing in riparian 

amas will be changed or eliminated to prevent or repair damage to riparian re~arirces~ Aha, ne reque6t 

that the statement in this section dealzng with cattle damagc 

to fawnmg habitat be changed to "range management 

prachces that prevent cattle from degrading specific 

fauning arean wall bt instituted. n 

3c Page 111-26 [Recreakion-Alpine SkIlng) It is eIIco11raginq to 

learn there is an appartunity to revise the agreement contained in the draft Town of Mammoth General Plan, TRa t 

agreement, which wc think is premature, states that 

development o€ the Sherwin ski aeea will be considered 

before other potential sites As ne haw stated in previous 

corrcspondmc~~ all potential ski areas should be examined m 

detail so that their suitability for skiing and tharr 

probable environmental impacts are thorouyhly documenbd 

before a deci51011 is made to develop any of the areas Also, 

both CEQA and NBPA appear to require examination of the 

cilmulakive impacts of all similar past and roasonabl'y 

foreseeable future 5ki developments before pcrmils could be 

granted for a Sherwin Bowl pro]ceL Thks seckion should be 

changed to state that a thorough ev"mtmn of the potential 

impacts of all such ski developments in the Mammoth area uill 

be completed before any am permitted, 

4, Page TI149 (Riparian Areas)- We agree that an inventory of 

riparian habitat on the Fore3tc including habitat condition# 

would be most beneficial, We applaud the ~taktaant 

that nre~~uc~~~ dependent art riparian areas receive priority 

wtr other resources where the two come into conflict', 

We request that this plicy be reiterated in other sections 

af the Plan such at3 those for range, hydroelectric 

development, and wildlife. 

b 
- 3- 

Page IVd4 (Fish)+ This section should be modified to read 

and invertebrates are maintained w 

ensure that vmbh populations of native vertebrates m 

6, 

II 

7, Page W-20 tEnergyL This ~eckiorr should include the 

evaluation of energy developments with respect to cumulative 

impacts, particularly of hydroelectric projects, on fish, 

wildlafe, and reereatzonal resaucces We concur with the 

3tatements 1n Item 3 The State of California small 

hydroelectric policy supports small hydro development as long 

as no degradation of riparian or aquatic resources results 

from such projects, 

e, Page XV-21 (Threatened and Endangered Fhh) The wording lh 

Number 3 should be changed from "Manage all stream reaches 

reaches of essential. habitat In addition, Item 3a+ 

pre~upposes that grazing 16 compatible with habitat 

m~cntial to thmatened and endangered fmh populations, 

Thh &upposition does not necessarily follow the letter or 

intent of the Endangered Specie3 Act, Instead ue suggest the 

fQl1bWhg WOdhg+ Dct not allow any livestock-related 

degradation of the stmambank if U S, Forest Service fish or 

wildlife biologists, the Vast Fhh and Wildlife Servicec or 

the California Department of Fish and Game belrevs that such 

habitat degradation is detrimntal within any given stream 

reachl and this belief is supported by data which results 

frae the use of the General Aquatic wildlife Survey {GAWS) 

af dmsignated erikical habitat + 2 to "Ranage all stream 

methodology n 

Ld 

-I and 3 for utanagmw" a€ State designated wild trout wuteca 

91 Page XV-22 Fisheries) + The criteria prapasd in Items 2 

and resident fish waters appear to be arbitrary and are not 

substantiated + Instead, where grazing may affect fish 

habitat, we strongly rect"snd that the Fdrh6t adopt the use 

of the GAW methodology incorporating information frm the 

stream cbannsl stability rating evaluation These surveys 

should be conducted in cooperatlan with, and utilizing 

applicable information f mm other agencies where possible, 

on a111 stream exposed to livaskock grazing ot ather 

potential stream disturbances, The results of the GAWS 

sucvey~ should then be utilized La dettrmhe the magnitude of 

impacts from grazing or other perturbation on an aquatic 

system in order that pioper corrective action can be tapen 

If outputs from the CAWS andisate that a streambank 

disturbance is detrimental to the frshery a€ a Stream system, 

appropriate action should be initiated to correct the cause 

of the problem; this should include a reduction or 

elimination of streamside grazing if justified For this 

rea~bn, the rwww and revision of Allotmmt HanagemPnt Plans 

[AHPSI should be scheduled to follow the GAWS SO that th05c 

results are available for USP in the AMP waluation, Xt 15 

not in the beqt interests of the pubhe or Lhe DFG, 

e5peeiaHy If Skate funds are to bn utlhzed, to attempt to 

restom degraded habitat if the cause ef the degradation 

"tins uncorrected Following the GAWS, a hydmhgie 

analysis should be canduchd to determine the most effecthe 

mans of reslormg and enhancing dcqraded aquatic habitat, 

including the feasibility and desirability of streambank 

stabrhzation and/or instream sttucLures based upon the 

hydrologic nature of the strean, We would appreciate an 

opportunity ta participate with Forest personnel in devising 

a 5-year aekim plan which will define priority waters to be 

worked on* Such a meeting would allow the DPG and Forest to 

coordinate field aetrvities 50 that required information can 

be obtained for the GAWS surveys in a timely manner When 

appropriate measures are determined, appropriate funding can 

be justsfled based upon GAWS results to conduct the work 

required to reduce or eliminate the problems The use of 

GAMS in subsequent years dmuld ah0 be made a part of the 

monitoring plan to document the magnitude of str" mcweryt 

the tffectivmess of the corrective actionc and determine the 

haad fm further work. 

The GAWS methodology has bean adopted by the Taiyabt 

Matianal Pomst for use on eastern Siarra st~eam3~ and ham 

already bean utilized by that forest to effect changes in 

asmagcmtnt for sevr~al aquatic systems, we believe that the 

adoptzon of that p~oecdurc recommended above will reeult in 

consistency in the U Sa Farest Service evaluation of 

potential management schemes for all eastern Sierra aquatic 

8y8te1Nb, result in management decisions which are bhhgically and economically Justifiable, and pravide a greater 

bmefit/cast ratio for stream restoration and enhancement 

projects. We €eel that the Proposed Plan should commit the 

roseat to adoption of the GAWS system, 

Page IV-23 (HBrdWOndS)e Oak3 play important role for 

uildhfe aptcias, The only guideline for hardwoods is the 

protection from wood gatherers. There 1s a need to protect 

these pocket areas from detrimental grazing, insompatrble 

recreational use3 and davdopmcnt, Maither the Plan nor DEIS 

addresses hardwood management by alternativesm 

cnviranmental considerations were given to hardwoods in each 

of kha alternatives? 

what 

1u Page rv-25 (Minerals, Leasable Hhera~a-Qilp Gasc and 

Geothetmal]* This 5cetitm should reflect the need ta:assess 

the cumulative impacts of energy development, parkiculacly 

geothermal projects, on fish, wildlife and recreational. 

re30urces 

11, Page IV-27 [Range]. The wording on atatament number 6 should 

be stronger, WP suggest: When unacceptable damage [as 

defined in Farest-Hide Standards and Guidelines For Riparian 
-6- 

121 Page IV-30 (Rfpmhn Areas] We concur with the statements 

here that give riparian resources substantial importance, 

particularly those nuabezed 1, 2, 3, 5# 6, and 7. Rowever, 

we believe that warding in statement number 4 should be 

similar to that auggsstrd in our comment regarding Range 

{above 1 Also# atatemcnt number 8 (earth disturbance 

standards) is somewhat unclca~ HE request that earth 

disturbance ht defined and the extent of the area (away froa 

the stream) be described, 

Thfs need is pronounced in regards to the red fir fartat 

aceas between Mammoth and June takes, particulacl the upper 

wry high, Current dear and "main lion research has 

established the hLgh value for these species in the red fir 

forest along $an &"in Ridge and vicinity. 

forest valuea act high; substantial public sentiment it3 

being cxpmssed to retain the natural values in that foresta 

Also, rad bir stands have the hzghest pottntial far spottcd 

owl nesting habitat on this faraat, as stated in the DEI% 

page S-35, Therefme, we recommend that to preserve old 

growth habitat, habitat for deerF mountain lion, ather: 

wildlife, and the high scenic values of the red fix forest# 

wide-scale harveEt O€ red fir in the San Jnaguh Rfdgc area 

should not be allowed. 

Ghas Creek drainag0 where wildlife and scenic va f UPS are 

Old growth 

14 Page ZV-39-46 (Wildllf*]. We agree with the warding in 

the mjmity of the Parest-Wide Standards and Guidclhes Ear 

maintenance of wildliftz habrkat and hnbztat for threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species, and emphasls species. 

The DFG particularly appreciates the degree of cooperation of 

the Enyo Forest m accepting our sugqpstions for wording of 

Standards and Guxdelhps for the maintenance of critical deer 

habitat, Perhaps the most important of the statements m 

this sectiont 2nd those we €eel. are most essential far 

retention in the final document: are a, and b which commit 

the Forest to maintain key areas for deer and to no6 allow 

deuslopments that: might impact deer1 

b 
-8- 

lS+ 

17m 

18 + 

3-4 down logs (2OW x 20' or larger) per acre should be 

retained CXOO+ cubic €eet3+ On k~y wildlife areas a higher 

number should be considered, with lags yarded to position 

providing maximum ef feckrveness as wrld1.3 f e babi kat + Woody 

debris (slash) should also be whined on at least 10 percent 

of the timber harvest area, Consultation with a wildlife 

biologist should be required when a management activity will 

potentially reduce down log densities, 

Page IV-50 (FTanaqement Ptescription - Designated wtlderncss)+ 

We suggest the following be added to the section on 

VrotectiorP: Work with the Cepartment of Fish and Game and 

other interested groups to devrrlop plans for prescribed burn 

atrta~ to allow fire to assume a more natural role end to 

restore wildlife habitat, c, we believe that only understory 

fires should be peimitted in sensitive forested watershed 

amas such as the South Fork Kern, In lacge forest areasc 

fires should not be allowed to burn out o€ control, In the 

saction on "Range" we request that a brief description n€ the 

admhistratba of the grazing program under FSH 2323+2 bs 

providedPage IV-50 (Proteetian), Under the purpose far the 

management prescription (Page IV-48 1 wild lands are 

protected for their vilues o€ natural ecdogzcal mtcgrity; 

yet all fires will be contained within SO acres. Wild€ ices, 

especially lightning-caused firesr are a nakural clement in 

wilderness conditions and should be allawed to burn unless 

they pose a threat to life, property or high resource value 

areas 

Page IV-53 [Managemant Prescription - Proposed Wilderness), 

The same statemmt canctrniny burning to improve wildl€fa 

habitat we suggested for t&signntcd wllderneas should be 

included here, He concur with the statements both here and 

in the 3ection on Designated Wilderness that careful 

considecation nust be given prior to placcmnt of trails in 

bighorn sheep habitat, 

Page IV-55 (Hanagemmt Preseciption - Bighorn Sheep 

Habitat Emphasis) - A needed addition to the seetmn on 

Range is aa €oUows: *Permit no new grazing allotments or 

expansion of existing allotments wthin bqhorn sheep range, 

and eliminate allotments Inmediately if transmission of 

disease from livestock is shown tw be deleterious to bighorn 

sheep. Also, we support your strong statement that nbther 

management activities will be eurtaklcd ii: they present 

unresolvabh conflicts with bighorn sheep management objectives- n 

Page IV-56 (Hanagement Prescnptian - Mule Deer Habitat 

Enphass), We concur with the statement that 

*other aanagement actrvities will be prohibited or reduced 

if they present unrssalvabk conE1rcts in these key areasH 

(that xs# key seasonal ranqes and migration routes), WE 

suggest the following additLon to the Range srction + + to 

the fallawing sentence should be included, 'tAllow no new 

developments that would adversely impact deern 

In addition to these wording changes, those amas 

designated as 'mole deer habitat eiphamsn should be 

enlarged, These needed changes ate based on extensive 

recent radio telemetry results and we have dmwn them on 

the "preferred aLternative" map [attached)* 

19, Page IV40-71 Inanagesent Prescriptton * High Level Timber 

Management One of out greatest concerns about the effects 

of timber harvest on wildlife habitat is the disturbance 

factor from the large number of mads created by a timber 

operation, The final document should include Lhe atipulatbn 

that all unneeded roads be physically obliteraked after 

lagging occurs. Our map, showing how the preferred 

alternative should be changed to Benefit wildlifep designates 

a portion of that area now devoted to "high level timber 

managementw to deer habitat emphaszs", we believe this 

is nceesEary to protect known key areas, No wildlEfe element 

is included in this prescription- Smee areas of known kEy 

deee habitata are found within ita a wildfife element should 

be addad which would provide general guidelines for 

mamtenancc at these key deer arms 

20+ page rv-72 I#anagt"t Prescription-Range Emphasis). 

Increased AUM~ should be allowed only when it LE clear that 

such an increase will not be at the expense of ather 

CGSOUTC~ values. To provide for this, the following wording 

should be added+ 

a] nAllow livestock to utilize up to 40 percent of available 

palatable forager within one-half mile of water developmmts, 80 long as wildlife hubitat is not adversely impacted. m 

b) "Rejuvenate and type-convert suitable range to increase 

forage production or to maintain foraga production 

at hzgh levelss but only after a deterahatton 1s made that wildlife habitat will not be deqradad, k 

e) We suggest that a wildlife element be added stating 

Some of that area 

Vonaider the potential effect of any range improvement 

propet on fksh and wildlr€t habitatm Authorize only 

those that are not detrimental, 

designated as "Hange Emphasis" has been shown by recent 

I 
-9- 40- 

research to be critical far deer- AS with other 

management prescriptions# our map shorn changes we 

believe shodld be inchdcd a5 thc preferred alternative 

22, Fage IV-76-77 (Hanagement Prescription - Potential Alpine 

Ski Area). he following should be inserted as a third 

paragraph: nSmcm several areas are being seriously 

considered for dcvekopmtnt as new alpine ski sites, all, will 

be fully examined b~€or:e permits are ailowed for any om 

site ' We believe this XE the only way to suitably ch~osc 

the be3t sites, with the least impact: to wildlife habitat 

and ather resources we atso believe this reqtirrement is 

made clear in those sections af CEQA and NEPA deal€ng with 

cumulatiw impacts of projectsw WE bdiwe that a Fish 

demenk should be added which skates that nn development will 

proceed in Glass Creek Headow in mder to assure the 

protectmn of essential habitat for Lahmtan cutthroat trout 

propasad for introduction+ we also request that the Timber 

element describe the plans (i€ any) for old growth red fir 

harvest in the vicinity of Glass Creak Headow. 

We strongly support the statement8 included In the wildlife 

dement of this prsseription, but believe the fallawing minor 

change is needed, The first sentence should be; Loca te 

base €aexlrties ar ather developments away from deer fawning 

areas and outside of mala dmr migration corridors. Recent 

work on deer migrathn routes, supported by U, S+ Forest 

Service, Bureau of and Managemant, Department of Fish and 

Game and others, has shown that portions O€ both the Sherwin 

Bowl and San Jmquh Ridge areas are vital to migrating deer 

herds, Consequently, our map showing needed changes In 

managemnt prescription area boundaries include6 changes of 

small prearr from 'pokential alpine ski area emphasis' to 

Mmuh deer habitat emphasisn* 

We also generally concur wLR the dement dealing wth fire 

s~ppress~on~ but €eel the following wording should be added 

"After consultation with U s Porest Service and Department 

of Fish and Game biologists, develop a plan describing 

let-burn site5 for wsldllife habitat rmprovmm", DL 

Regarding the Rmreatian element, the following statlemeots 

should be addad: "Allow OW use only on designated roads 

trails, and obliterate other roads and trails where 

feasible Aha* 

tw-whed drive or four-wheel drive aec~ss, 

aa~evdop no addikmnal parmnnent, public, 

n 

We agree mkh the management direction of the statements in 

the Trabeg element and those in the wildlih element, but 

feel one mhoc change is needed, The following statement 

5hould be added, 

enhance fawning or other fish and wildlife habitat 

Vmprove riparian areas where necessary to 

M 

24, Page rv-84 [Management Prescription - Open RoadEd)+ 

In general, this prescription can be expected to be lass 

effective in maintaining wrldlife values khan a prescription 

prohibiting the construction of new roads, However, the 

fbihwBng Ch~llg~~ dl1 for more pZt?ta&tbn To the 

Facilities element should ba added: "Allow no new road 

emstruetron that would degrade Important wildlife habitat: 

The following stakement should be added to the Protection 

e1"nt + 'After consultathn with W+S Forest Servicc and 

Department of Fish and Gam bhlogists, develop a plan 

describing let-burn sates for wildlife habitat improvement, 

ll 

aa 

Phase add the fallowing sentence to the Wfldlrfe sectfan: 

"Should raintraduced bighorn establish themselves in 

drainages nthcc than Lee~inmg Canyonf explore ways of 

eliminating domestic sheep allotments in those areas+ n 

26 Page XV-92-93 (Management Area Dirccthm No. 3) To thp 

Description should bc added the atatemfit: "portions of 

this management area are important as summer range to the 

Casa Piablo deer herd, fl ~lso, pleim add a Wildlife 

Section under management area direction that says 

'Enrpliasne the importance of this area to the Casa Diablo 

dmr herd Management dccrsrons will reEluct that importance w 

b 
f 

42- 

b 
-13- 44- 

routes, A Wildlife section should statel wAfllbW na new 

roadsr road improvements, or other habitat alterations that 

weukd advermlg impact deer holding areas, migmtaon routes, 

or winter range, A Range Section should be added as 

follows: 

adversely impact deer habitat, We request that the 

Watershed sectim include the following 'Honitar the 

tungstm mine tailings and insure that these are either 

ultimately removed or SO st~bilized as to not advereely 

Vhl1.o~ no increase5 ~n geazrng where tlus might 

inpact the water qualfky or streambanks of Pine creak* IW 

3L Page IV-126-128 (Hamgw"t Area Directfan - No. l5Ia We 

eoncur with the designation of much of this aanagemtnt ag:ea 

a6 vary important to the Buttermilk deer herd, 

Land8 section which states: "Acquke, through land exchange, 

private lands known ta be inportant to deer, 

h grazing where thfa wauld degrade fish or wildlife habitat, 

and modify IX decgaasa grazing whtm fish or wildlife habitat 

i8 being adVtrSdy affaCh& 

included which states: n&ll~~ no mu roads# road 

improvements, ctt ather habitat aftemtions that wauld 

adversdy impact deer holding areas# migration routas, or 

winter zangcs, 

of the South Park Bishop Creek as a wild trout fishery as 

proposed in the Fish section, 

Please add a 

A Range secthn should be included a3 follaust 'Alhw IIO hlCreaSa8 

A Wildlife section should be 

We concur with the camidmation of pattima 

3L P&ga IV-129-130 (Management Area DkQCtiOn - NOm 16)u A 

Range section should be added stating: "Reduce or modify grazing if it can be denanstrated that grazfng i~ degradlrng 

Also# please add under Reereatson: Wo not upgrads existfish or wildlife habitat, particularly fn riparian areas+ It 

hg four-wheel drum roads to two-wheel drive, w 

38, Page IV-131433 (Hanagtmnt Area Dimetion - Mo+ 17Im We have observed st" ssverdy aver-grazed madowa in thb 

management areal 

*Reduce# modify, Or eliminate grazing where degradation to 

fich or wildlife habitat can be 

with the managemant o€ upper Tinemha Creek for Lahontan 

cutthroat trout an pmposed in the Fish section, 

Please add a Range section stating: 

We concuc 

39+ Page ZV-134435 [Flanagcment Area Direction t40+ 1BL 

Please udd a Range section which raadse 

diminate grazzng where degradation to fish or wildlife 

habrtat can be demonstrated 

included under waldlife: 

posslble for deer and other wildlife. 

'Reduce, mudify, or 

Ahbr the following should be 

m~evelap water sour'ceg where 

I) 

Page xv-137438 (Hanaqement Area No. 19 1 Hanagerrrent Awa 19 

contains numerous deer fawnin9 areas Allotment plans should 

be revised to reflect the need to maintain quality fawninq 

habitat Lor the ttonaelie deer herd Flexible on and off dates 

should be included in these plans 50 that yearly variations 

in range readmess can be used to determine actual grazing 

dates each year, 

@40+ Page IV-136438 [Management Area Direction - No+ 19]+ We 

believe the following statement should be added to the 

Range portion; 'Reduce, modify orN if ne~tk55ary~ eliminate 

grazing in those areas (particularly riparian zones) 

where grazing 1s shown ko be detrimental to fish or wildlife 

habitat. n 

Page 1V-130 (Fish) This section should include the measures 

needed to cestme fish habitats and prevent further 

degradation. Haasuces needed include the management of 

liventack, recreation user controL and masums designed to 

pr0vent soil disturbance and aasodated stream siltationa 

Paga IV-139 (Hanagemant Area Direction - 2O)l Banache 

Headma h a critical, hi h-quality fawning uma in addition 

to bshg a spring and fa1 1 holding area. Thu Hanncht area ia 

integral part af the golden trout habitat in the South 

Fork Kern River drainage. Pfapoad management in this area 

us11 impact golden trout, Restoration maaswe= are needed in 

light of the potential designation of the Rem as a Wild and 

Scanic River, livustmk should be managed in this area in a 

manne~ that will allow for the restoration of stream habitat, 

ahould be eonaistent with maintaining or Improving stream 

habitat, The contmtion that m(ORV users) have a vested 

interestu in using this area should not be used to justify a 

continuation of aetivitfaa that am adversely affecting fish 

and WiXdlffe habitat, He believe uses of the national 

fomst8 are privfleg~~s, rather than vested rights, and the 

privilcgaa should not extend to activities which damaqc the 

basic productivity of the land. 

the South Fork Earn ~ivar and its tributacy streams, In 

Off-Cnad vehicle {ORV] use and timber harvesting activities 

page IV-141 (Gencrzsl). Because of the importance of this 

area to the Honache dear herd, additional prescriptions need 

to be added for the protection and enhan~trhnt of the deer 

hctd, The area of particular cmcern in the South Saerre 

Wilderness, where na treatment of 8ummer range vegelaklon 

will occur far the benefit of deer, The 1981 Clover Fir13 has 

Shawn that €ices in tbi5 area play an important rule in 

rqemrating native vegetation to the benefit of dear and 

other early succe~s~mal stage wildlife= There is a need t~ 

have apprvpriate management actions listed in the dmr heed 

plan 
45- 46- 

42+ Page V-6 (Monitoring Plan by Kcsource]+ The Additional 

Annual Cost figure should bp increased 10 reflect the stream 

evaluation pro~edure utilizing GAWS as recommended by the 

DFG 4 

The followhg are specific comments on the DEISr 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Page S-13 (WiltdliTe and Fish). We qUcstian if deer 

actually receiving priority over Livestock in the prefeccad 

alternative, when livestock gra2ing 1s slated to iilerearsa 

In factp 

am proposed, the preferred alternative deletes the caajocity 

of critical migration mutes fcom the nula Deer PrescriptionM 

To reahstieally Vmphasize the integrity of mula deer 

rigratinn routes", the preferred altecnative should expand 

the ~ulc ~cer Prescription a6 shown an our preferred 

alternative mapm 

9 psretnt and deer numbers to decrease 2 percent+ 

3+ Page 5-27 (Alpine Skiing) The DFG favors revision af The 

Forest Scrviee-Tnwn of Hammoth agreement that Sherwin Bowl be 

evaluated a3 the initial ski area, We suppoct the view that 

all potential ski artas should be assessed in a c~mpr~hensive 

environmental document, designed to compare relatxve impacts of the altcrnatlve sites, In addition, we behewe that na 

ski area should be approved unhl the Plan 1s approved and 

adopted + 

In Listing the factors lmiting ski area development, the 

DEIS fails to mention natural resource values, Factors such 

as visual quality# wildlife habitat, and water quality should 

be listed and grvcn primdry consideratmn, 

of the preferred altcrnatwe, by reeagnrzing reductions of 

critical habitat components: Rule Deer: 2 percent, Old 

Growth- 59 persent; Early-mid ~uc~e~sion brush: 32 percent 

wet neadms: 17 percent, Snags No change, our pasrtion Is 

that khese ms~urces could and shouid be Improved# not 

degraded, a6 a result of this Plan. The rationah for such 

imprawmant can be found throughout the DEXS. For example, 

an page S-28, figures are given for RWWs expended an 1982 

for fishing, deer hunting, and other wildlife related 

activities, These flgures total 49L,OOO BUD%, indicating 

high demand for these rts~urceta, En fact, it appears that 

tha planned reduction of wildlife habatat capability is 

contrary to the principle of iultiple use af all forest 

rU30urce# and the principle of maximizing net publie bunefit 

~la)or point8 for wildlife reaouc~e protection and mhanct"nt 

warm Incorporated into the final Plan, that a HWQ~S~~ of 

thh planned detarioration of wildlife habitat could bm 

schisvad 

as skated h the DtXS page 1-1. We believe that if OU~ 

Page 11-58 [Preferred AItsrnathe), The Statnntnt that 

%ildlffa habitat would be Managed with the ab~cet~vts of

capacity is unacceptable to the OPG+ Eight management plans have been developed bar herds on the Porest, 

These plans call for maintaining OK increaming dear 

populations; Lev# maintaming or irlpcoving habitats, 

Accordingly, the preferred objectivr far deer habatat should 

state; Vfaintain or ancrease the farest-wide deer habatat 

minimizing the facest-wide reduckion of deer habitat s 

capaci tp, H 

b 

1 
-17- 

B+ page 11-59 Waeilitfesl, The proliferation of mads 

degrades wildlife capability, visual re~ources, and sail and 

water quality. An allowance should be mads for a reduction 

of road miles through closure and oblitecakion, 

Acmsdinglyr a statement should be added stating HReduce 

road access where dEsxrabh to protect wildlife* Bcenic, 

soil and water resources; mad closure or physical 

&literatim may be u5ed H 

Page 11-60 (Riparian Areas)* The high value of riparfm 

maas far water quality and fish and wildlife, shauld ba 

recognized in the stated direction for management of these 

typms, The statement should tea& Vroktibat any activities 

in riparian areas that would haw unacceptable long-term 

effects an water quality, fish, other aquatic fauna# 

uildlife or water-dependent plant Iife, 1) 

Page 11-61 (WildLife) The value of vegetation treatmanta, 

including prescribed burning, varies by sit@# mil type# ucgctation type* and other factors, The IMG would 

like to participate in planning any vegetation kreatmcrrta 

far wzldlifc oc range benefats, Phas~ include the 

statE!Ulmt* a** in conaulkation with the Departmenk of 

Fish and Game, EWrsaru of band Hanagcment, Department of 

Forestry and other concerned agencies, 

wl 

n 

In addition, we believe that habitat fur chukar partridgep an 

important harvest species on the Forest, can be signi€ieantly 

improved by fim+ 

allowed by a statement such a8: Ynvestigate the possibility 

of improving chukar habitat through contrdhd burning, in 

emynetion with other managemtnl: prugrzu". 

Provision13 €or such improvements could be 

we especially mppoct the direction not to increase cattle 

grazing on key deer winter range, to protect fawning 

habikat, to ptohgbit ar modify ski, geothermml and timber 

management to rainimize impacts to deer migration mutes and 

to allocate a substantial nest stand for tach nesting pair of 

goshawks + wc haw elsewhere recommended 125-acrs nest stand3 

for goshawks, and the Farest drrection is closer to this 

standard than any other Plan to date 

We urge that goshawk nesting sites should be allocated 125 

acres rather than 100 acresm 

Page 11-131 (uildlifd, Timber harveet ahauld be modified in 

key fawning area8 and holding area#. 

standards are needed, nalntaining crnly 20 percent of 

suitable timber in older seral atageB IS eBstntially a 

timber-orrsnted optmn and not neces~~rily beneficial to 

wildlife, It seems unreasonable that the optron identified 

%sttsr dcad-and-down 

b 
-19- -20- 
-22- 

-21- 

The statement 'No land allocation objectives wouLd prevent 

preferred altcrnatiw is unclgac in view of the Forcat 8 

staked objectives to maintain key wildlife habitat, water 

quality and other valuable natural res0urct3+ 

of this statement is needed, 

under the 

Clarification 

tl 

or modify the development of alpine skiing .++ 

18 Page IV-109 (Riparian Areas) We agree that livestock graze disproportionately ~n riparkan habitat ThAs fact tepresants 

the most deleterious aspect of livestock grazzng where 

would be wildlih resources are mncernd+ 

with the m€erm~e that grazing impacts + . associated with the 1,000 to 2,000 acres of wet meadows 

found in areas on dnch grazing insrpascs under some 

alternatives, 

The narrative continues 

r) 

This assessment fails to recognize the 

cx€sting abuses to and needed restoration of riparian habitat 

and aspen types, especially along khe base of the Sierra 

escarpment [ i +E Bohler canyon area, Parker Bench vrefnity), 

and in the G~BB "mkains, both locations where deer 

other wildlife habitat is heavaly degraded. 

b 
-23- 

Departrent of Fish and Game Detailed Analysis 

of Inyo National rarest Land and Resource 

Hanageatnt plan and Draft Environmental Impact Skatement 

NONGAME-HERITAGE PROGRAn/ENDANGERED SPECIES STAFF 

I 
-2- 

I 

-3- 

Furthermore, specific means for attainlng these objectives, 

including, but not limited toc the dedication of Research 

Natural Areas (RNAs) and Special Interest Area8 (SIAS)~ should 

be described, 

issue merely by formulating plans to retain a certain 

percentage o€ majar vegetation types In described seral 

stages + A6 the leastt the direction should contain a minimum 

percentage of the total Fortst acreage that will be maintained 

In each vegetative type and seral stage based an an ecological 

analysis of the Forestf thc actual acreage a€ uncommon types 

and their stages to be retained, and dimctim regarding how 

to actively manage the 'Porest to attain these objectivesa 

~ortovm, neither the ~EIS nor the Plan provide3 a eonparison 

of baseline diversity, irees thu current relatimahips between 

vegetatfve types and seral stages and astiertatad "natural' 

diversity# Legt the prasettlment relationships, and whether 

thia represents an ccohgically sustainable situation, In the 

went that the Pore4t is skewed toward ddec seral stagem am a 

result of fire suppression {ace page 111-22 of the ~GxS) it la 

doubtful that mintmanee of 5 p~rcent: of each timber type and 

10 percent of each shmb typ fn each sera]. 9hqe could bear 

Thi4 cdmparkm dmuLd be made and retcntxon standerda far aaral 

stage6 of naturally divtrae vagetatfve types Should be 

designsd to address existing deficicneics, 

It is not sufficient to address the diversity 

rucb maentblanee to an historically diverse condition, 

2, ANIHAtS 

Go~~8-a~~_-pbltcti~es Regarding the Plants goals listed on 

page fV-6# the goals pertaansng to threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species, provide that habitats of such anamals 

Should be protected or hprcwed, 

explicitly melude threatened or endangered plants (lrsted by 

This goal shmeId also 

either the Pede*al governmenh or the Statc of Califorma) a5 

well as animals, Moreover, this pal should contain a 

provision which demonstrates the Farest'$ corrrmtment to 

identifying critical habatat of T & E species, and to 

development of specific measures to prevent destruction or 

adverse modification of such babltat as required in CFR 

Section 219J9 (71, 

cn 

b 

u- -- 
-4- -5- 

Indierrta~-Sp-~cies. On pages 111-124 through 111-131, the DEIS 

drseusses nmanagemcnt indicator 5pecie~' (MIS), and identifies 

the species chosen for managmmt emphasis, Three comments 

are in order- Firsk, the list of species ~h05en as HIS should 

inelude all rare plants and animals in additmn to those 

errtimating the effects of managewant activities un wildlife 

habitat in eneraP (emphasis added), a5 contended an page 

r1142U+ -* [A sa see below sectam 3 of these comments 

pertainmg to plants=) This lht of HIS should inelude 

aquatic animal species as well as t~trestrkal arrxmal species. Second, same the NFM regulations specifically require that 

habitat for each HIS is mahtmned and enhancedc the Plan 

should elearl) indicate how this will occur €or ca,ch MIS. 

WG contends that the incidental effect of manclgcmdnt: actions 

aimed at other species or LT~SOUCCEB i~ iaauffrcicnt to meet 

this legal requirement3 the Plan should d~manatrats an 

affirmative approach to the maintenance and enhancement of 

habitat of each MIS, and especially tho$@ indicator species 

indicates that if the Preferred Alternative is chosen# there 

will be a decrease in theapabillty for 4' of the 7 MIS 

habitats over the SO-year life of the Plan+ 

undesirable from a wildlife standpoint by itself but it 

violates CPR 219.19, which in part rspuiran the maintenance 

and impmwment of habitat of all ME$. On page XV-113 this 

decline in habitat is attcibutmhe reduction in snags and 

older seral stages o€ conifer habitats on actas managed for 

timber and ripatian habrtak on areas managed for grazinq an8 

recreation, The DPG recommends that timber, grazing, and 

recreation management acreage and practices bu adjusted to 

permit the plan to comply with CFR 219J9 

listed, It is not necessary that all HIS be %saful + far 

The 

khat at~ rare, Third, page IV-167 Of the DH5, Table 4-46 

This is not only 

Fish and wildlife habitat shall be aanagad to 

maintain viable papuhtions of axhtlng native 

and desired nonnative vcrtabrate species in tho 

planning area4 Par pianning pucposes, a viable 

population shall be regarded as one which has 

the estimated numbers and dlstributim of 

reprwive indivlmnsuce its 

eonkinued txiktence i.5 Gel1 distributed in the 

planning acta + + , Ieapharsis added) 

'In order to manage habatat to mahtaan viable populations, the 

above-quoted regulation very clearly indicates that specific 

quantities of reproductive individuals must be distributed in 

a manner appropriate to insure the eontnued existence of each 

T c E, candidate, sensitive, and de facto rare Species)r 

neikh~r the Plan nor the DCIS desEibe exactly what a viable 

taxon+ Foc species in which viability 15 a concern [z a1 1 

population is considered to be in terms of estimated numbeg8 

there a description provided of how viable population hvds 

are actualky calculated or the assumptians, probabilities, and 

risks tmsoeiated wMt that levex, The Plan should contain 

Such Information, Also, an puge S-5, the DEIS indicates that 

fish habitat uill be managed for recreation and recovery of 

threatened trout spccics, ~ecause flsh are alm vertebrates, 

thme should be a state" that commits the Forest to 

maintaining viable paplations of all fi4h species, 

and distribution of reproductive individuals, In no case 1s 

In response to thi8 regulation, the Plan, on page V-10 atatsa 

that annually, the prsscnec of HZS uiU be campared with the 

pramnce of the epacicra they ace intended to teprasent, The 

PLan indicates that this will be accomplished for $6000. 

Thare are 400 tsrreatrhl vertcbratas found in the FoceBt [389 

of which are planned to be represented by MISL 

average of $15A2 for each 3pnehsc We thhk this is 

unrealisticl Thfs cmparis~n~ along with an revsew of habitat 

Mica abilit tcands and related surveys, in aeant to eomprym CPR Saction 219+19* Ta ensure viability, it 

is mcmmry to monitor carefully paplatian tcanda of all 

rare species, Therefore, all spaefas far whhctr viability is a 

m"rn should be spaeificslly named and monitored by 

conducting direct counts m emtablishsd sarpl+ pluts, 

The presence 

each of them spacJcs~ will thuu be determined fog an 

With respect to peregrine falcens, on pa m XZX-U7f thtbEls 

mdangersd species It should be addmd that this Specie8 is 

also a State of California listed andangered specits, 

indicates that the mpecica i$ federally I hted an an 

with respect to bald eagles, flrmt, thm mame comment made 

regarding pertgrins falcons applies, Sscand, on page 1-6 the 

OEIS Ifst5 the "Bald €agh Oraft Recovary Plan, Thrs should 

bc updated to read Vacifle States 8ald Eagle Rtcclvery Plan 

(1986) Third, on page 11-47 the DEIS establrshes a 

lorest-vide standard prohibating new winter use5 or recreation 

-I 

b 

b 
I 

-7- 

tb 

ti0 

3te 

755 

11 

b 

I 

t 
-8- 

In eonelusion, the DFG recognizes that ",ha Poreat has expended 

a great deal af effort in the preparation of these draft 

planning docum"* While this IS lakdab1es we fat1 the 

natural. diversity issue, especially the treatment of rare 

considerably more attmkzan than zk has received to ensure 

that the mmzmum legal requirements will be satisfied, ThO 

OFG stands ready to assfst the Fortst in reviewing our 

~oneerna and responding to the comments provided above 

plants, animals, and natural cm"itit2s, requires 

e 

ay J 

b 

t) 
J 

2 
I 
STATF OF NEVADA 

DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFf 

1100 VallPy Hoad 

PO Bo# tCW8 

R*rm Nevada 895211 0022 

(?021 789 I)MO 

Reqh HI II 1-87-087 

State Hailroom Complex 

Las Vegas, NV 89158 

February 23, 1987 

Mr 01 ivw Sapousek Land Management Planning Offh 

Inyo Hational Forest 

873 North Main Street 

Bishop, Ca 93514 

RE Inyo National Forest Plan end €IC 

The draft of the Inyo Hatlonal Forest Plan and EIS have been reviewed 

by Habitat, Game and Ftsheries personnel in La3 Vegas AI1 are In complete 

support of the bocunmt and sincerely believe that ff the standards and 

qufdelines itre implemented it$ stated, wi?dllfe in the hyo Forest cannot 

help but benefit A few cumntS were received from the field biologist In 

charqe of the gam resource 1 n €smralda , and, It 1s hoped that these 

comnt5 will be beneficial to the planning effort for the Nevada porthn 

of the forest 

b 

1 It was hoped that the Hevada portton could be separated somewhat 

in Order to secure wildlife managemnt obJectives, identify important 

that the Forest planners did not have access to Hevada Department of 

Mildlife plans or BLM planning documtlt5 for adjacent area5 

heal issues or assess potential environmental wpasts It also seems 

2 

d~cumnts adequately spell out mule deer habitat needs and objectives 

but there is not enough C~SUS data on mule deer to set population 

goals in the Inyo-Whites, and, In essence, mnagemnt goals cannot be 

mt until this occurs Hellcopter survey$ were conducted in 1980 and 

1985-86 in the White Mountains and int~nsIve ground observations were 

The overall Snyo Forest Stanbards and guidelines section of the 

-2- Feb 23, 1987 

made from 1982 through 1984 

and used in harvest management decfslons since I982 and goal populations 

were set in this saw ymr as published in the Esmralda Resource Area 

Hab1ta.t Plan- Thg current population esthte for the Ch.ite Muntafns 

(1985-861 fs 400 deer (92 bucks 202 does and t07 fawns) in 240 square 

miles of habitat, Uithout a doubt, the preferred alternitth "AM8" or 

''Emphasize Wildlife and Recreationn would be the best for mule deer 

habitats and populations in the Nevada portjon 

Populatfon estfmates have been formulated 

3 Recent fjeld wrk (1983-86} Indhtes B powhth estfmte Of 

400 sage grouse for the Nevada portlons of the Mte buntaim tncludlng 

the Mineral County portion. It fs felt that excessive graz-lng in all 

area5 of the Uhfte buntaim fnhibits survbal of sage grouse young Add1 ti om1 ly cmpe ti ti on for water and succulents near i 501 a ted sprf ngs 

and seeps 15 a factor contributing to provfdh rtress on adult sage 

grouse Burning a5 a mnagemnt tool In the 1% bm~ of Trail and Mlddle 

Canyons has cdncentrated livestock grazlng and iqmcts to Sage grouse 

madm nearby to the point of eliminating sage grouse USE and causSng 

secondary watershed damage In the form of erosion 

the sage grouse habftat problems, the northern Uhlte huntains were 

destgnated as a wlld horse unit, and, as such# tbe horses cause considerable damage to madaws 

Mountains horse herd should be reduced to less than 40 horses and maintalned at that level 

To further cqound 

It Is felt tbat the Mevada portion of the mite 

4+ No pclpulatlm for blw grouse wits gWen fn the Plan/EIS Based on 

1986 observation and hunter reports, that population I$ believed to be 

250-500 

riparian area5 caused by livestock and wild horses also pose a threat to 

blue grouse populations 

the exces~ive grazing Impacts on high dewtion madms and 

b 

G) 
Mr Oliver Sapousek -3- Feb 239 1987 

Thank you for the opportunity to comnt upon thts document whrch will 

be the guidelines for the Forest krvice for 50m time 

cmnts wfll be uf assistance to you and your efforts 

question or require additional input3 please feel free to contact the 

Region 111 office of the Department at (702) 385-0285 

Hopefully, these 

If you have any 

COP/lg 

DHAFT LAND AND RtSUURCE MAHflGEMENT PLAN (PLAN) AND UHAFT EWKONMENTAL 

IMPACT STA7EMtHI (kI5), INYO NATIONAL FOREST 

Uear ML Martin: 

GEHtHAL CHENTS 

1 Pesticides are proposed to be used as part of an Integrated pest 

management program, and Iierbtcfbes may be used for reforestation, 

chaparral management, and othw forest pr~ctice5~ Any cheriiical 

application within the Lslhontan Region should be done with awareness of 

the Heylorrid bdrd'5 general surface water standard which yrohibi ts 

concentrdhn of pesticides ?I3 waters uf the regb greater tbm the 

lowest detectable concentrations usiny the anat recent detection 

procedures aval I ab 1 e, 
U~~TIIP Martin 

March 13, 1987 

Page 2 * 

I 

I 

2 

3 

4* 

5t 

bm 

7* 

8* 

9* 

The Plan and E[$@ indtcate that new mineral extraction, geothermal 

energy and hydrodestric power plant dwelopment activfties may occur 

We wish to review and consider issutng waste discharge r~qulre~~nts for 

my new mi rli ny rMi nera 1 extract 5 on ge-othenna? energy or hydroe 1 PC tr i c 

power plant development achwty withln our regton. 

The Water quality Control Plan for the South lahontan Basin contahs 

waste discharge prohibttlons for variou$ areas within the Inyo HatlmaI 

Forest+ Any wastewater recIamation/reuse within a prohioi twn area 

could only be allowed after an exemption for a specific project was 

yranted by the Kegiona’l Board+ 

it must be demonstrated that the reclamtion/reuse wou’ld not 

andwidual ly or collectively, directly or iridfrectly affect water 

In order to obtain such an exemption, 

quality+ 

The potentral impact of the continued or expanded use of off road 

vehicles [DRY) on water quaitty should be adequately addressedw 

use of OflV‘5 in or near surface waters may resuft in increased eros10rr 

and/or sedlmnt at t on + 

The 

Wanye use iwpacts on water qual I tyr such a$ grazftrg, should be 

adequately addressed, 

with other limftlng factors when Uetermlning range uses for the forest+ 

Mater qual i ty objecttvcs should be cons.ider& 

if substantial changes are made in the preferred alternative in the 

final €IS, change5 in water quality impacts should be analyzed+ 

We thank you for khe oppor‘tunity to "writ or, the draft Forest Plan and 

draft E& 5houTd you haw any questions or cmwnts coacerniny the above 

referenced matter please contact Ted Sad or Ken Cwter in our Victorvilk 

Of ICE at (619) 245-6583+ 

Yours truly, 

Ken Carter 

Sen $or Engi mer 

ccm Rcglmal Board Members 

I 

I 

I 
Hr Dennis Martin 

Forest Supervisor 

Inyo National Forest 

873 N Main Street 

FEB 2 7 19R7 

The Callfarnla State Board of Forestry [Board) bas completed the 

review of the rnyo National Forest Draft Management Plan 

Several areas of concern were identified during tbla rcvicw 

process Based nn thaae canccrm, the Board approved and 

supports several recommehdationa which we believe need to be 

addressed in the final management plan for the Inyo National 

Forest 

By law, the Board is charged with rcpreaenttng the statel9 

interests In federal 3and matters pertaining to forestry 

The Board has approached thp pIan in the belle€ that the ~nyo 

should be positioned to meet the needs of the people of 

ralifornia in thp coming decade Our analysis indicates that 

dem” for more recreation, a relianerr on the forest for 1oeal 

r~venue, and a well-protected blohgical base are all part of 

that position 

The Inyo Draft Plan and Draft Environmental Statement were 

compared with the five issue areas developed at the Board of 

Forestry% Centemla1 Conferences of March and December of 1985 

The issues identified are 11 rural economic etability and 

development, 2) protection and maintenance of the bidoglcal 

base 31 social pressures on the rural land base, 41 rights and 

reaponslbil~tle~ of public and private ownershjp, and 51 

eoordlnatim~ and plannltng 

As a result, tm areas of concern were identified far this region 

of the state These areas are 1) recreation 2) water 3) 

capable, aualhbh, and suitable lands, 4) unevenaged management 

5) evchagcd management 6) red fir 7) firewood, 8 1 wild and 

BC~R~C rivem 9) budget and 10) aggregate revfew Thcae ~SSUPS 

were uacd by the Board to pvaluate each alternatiuc and to help 

Mr Dennis Martin 

Page Two 

February 17# 1987 

determine which alternative would best meet the needs of thh 

region of the state The results of thh analysis and the 

Board‘s rccammendatfone are llsted below 

2 

The Preferred Alternatllve (PRF) was dauehpad to provide the 

best balance between eomadity outputs, rmmurca protection, 

and reaponst to faauea and conctrnu, The PRF reaponda to 

the Increaafng demands for recrsatlonml oppartunlties 

rccQgniXea and attempt8 to alhwi&ft and cafrcct rfparlan 

habitat prablcaa, 

which is affecting future community growth and atream 

reea~rce val~te, 

to the many iammm and coneerna While tht PRP data not 

provide all the beneflta dcsirtd by any one group, it mema 

to provide a rbaaonable balance between amenity and 

suppart the Preferred Alternative Several canedrnm have 

been Identified, and mm a rtmlt, we have proponad 

recommendations which ahotlld bn inearparatcd into the final 

mnlectsd alternetlue Thoae r@commndathns am 11mtcd fn 

the subacqlrant remmmmdationa The result of Incorporation 

of theme rccommtndathna fnta the fhml altarnatlve would be 

to stabillza rural ecananfca, provide bcttar opportunities 

tQ iaintah the bhlagieal baat, br more rcaprreive to 

“A1 prteauraa and employment, and be more rempanah~e to 

the rights nf p~b1.k and prlvatc ownership 

racreati0aaI oppPrtun$tlea, protcetlon uf amenmf UBIUhS, 

It 

It raspondm to a water abortaga problem 

The PRF aakea the beat balanced responae 

comodity outputa Far these Ft~BbIIa WE CWl rt!!&BOnably 

Racraatlon 9 -.y+ 

I 
Mr Dennis Martin 

Pap Thwe 

February 17r 1987 

I 

Mr Dennls Martin 

Page Four 

February 17m 1981 

the public need FundB mixst be appropriated to accommndatp 

inercasfng demand on an annual basis until such time as 

developmental and environmental limits are reached 

It i3 recommended that our caneern fur improvcd mtntenanee 

and facillty development be expreeaed at the highest leve1.a 

in support of the balanced racommsndatlann prwldEd In the 

Preferred Alternative Our recommendation includes 

increaaerd funding and paraomel if thh is required 

Addltlorral reviews, Invest$gations, research, lhventory, 

verifying andmapdating fs not needed Improved facility 

maintenance and development are the eoh1t3ons which wlll 

satlafy public concerns and future demands 

Early day practices of diverting aignifhant quantltim3 of 

water from the farest and riparian zants, and the adverse 

environmental caneequencea that occurred+ are no longer 

acceptable Approximately 50 milem af streams am currently 

dewatered for municipal. hydroelectrlc and Irrigation 

purposes Riparian aream and dependent remourctm have been 

adversely altered, Management of rfparlan reeaurclea could 

be further threatened by additional consumptive u3cs 

Management of fish, wlldlffe habitat. riparian uegetatlan, 

and the related scenk and recreational values, is central 

ta the rahshn of the Foreat Service and a currespondfbg 

state interest 

We recommend, 88 a way of supporthg the forset, an lmproved 

balance be sought between consumptivt and nonconsumptlvt uses 

of the limited wafer resource on the forest+ We support 

aetting Forth atipuht9oaa in appropriate mpccial-usc 

permits BO that impacted atreams are at least partfally 

rawatered in the future, and that new lnetallationa provide 

appropriate mltlgatlon meaaures fa protect in-atream uses 

One caution, however, waa noted concerning lncrtaaed 

pesldent UBE of the local area Thh ceuthn lnwohms what 

appears to be a developing water shortage in the Mamath and 

Owens Valley areas Mammoth Lakea already experlenme a 

uater sh~rtagc during 8ummer tnonthe 

nat diacuss the fapact 3 water ~hnrtage amy have on future 

expanshn of ak3 area8 and campground opportunities Thia 

inforration should be cohtalned in the final plann5ng 

dacurncn t s 

The draft plan does 

The Preferred Alternative calls for a reduction In the 

annual harvest over the next ten year period compared tu the 

Current (CUR) Alternative Thia reduction la from 13 MMBF 

down to 10 MMBF Thb prolpaaed reductla also involvm a 

reductlon In the number of acres on the Inya designated as 

sujtable for timber pmduet&on, La+, 3lOpO0O acrea down to 

69,000 acres Thc reasonm for theBe reductions were fuund 

to ba wlthdrawal~ as listed below+ Rteommtndatlona for 

reconmiderathn of these ulthdrswaIs are aJso shown, 

a bands ateepar than 30%, but leas than 60% were 

withdrawn and lntrolved about 21,000 aeree These lands 

were wlthdram because of potential croafan and expense 

of harvest Computer rune un the 30-60% category 

ahowed deficit sahn regardless of the apeeica logged 

Howev~r, It was noted that the 30-6UR category was 

probably tab broad ta analyze hgglrrg cmta accurately 

b Land In Mohache Meadcw wmm withdrawn and anountcd to 

4.500 Berm* If aceama em be coatrdltd, we euggest 

that thia area bt remcaminad for paaaibh incluaIon 

into the aajtablc land bane far tlmbcr production 

b 

6) 

I 
Mr Dennis Martin 

Page Five 

February 1L I487 

It is remmmended that these area be reconeidered for 

possible Irrclusian into the suitable land bast far 

unevenaged timber management 

In general, the PRF called for UBE of only evenaged 

management techajqueB, but we encourage the USE of regulatpd 

unevenaged managamchf in aream rescrved far vlaual quality, 

reereation aremB, the Mmaehe area, and stream~fde zones in 

order to manage these area8 and provide protection and 

malntenance of the biological base 

We are concerned over the UBE of evenaged management umiag 

20 acre elearcuts in the Jeffrey plnt type Soma of then* 

pine areaa such a3 the Glass Mountain Management Unit, are 

heated In arid reglans with a very cdarse and undeveloped 

PUlniCE 80il Large openings cuuM result in mfcrocllmate 

changes which would require large expenditwee af funds to 

regenerate, The Jeffrey area haB historically been logged 

using a aeleetlon type of management and it may be advisable 

to eontfnuc we af the unevenaged techniques in the anre 

arid portions of the Inyo 

It waa noted that the Xnyo plan d3d not discus^ any 

alternatives which used the unevenaped management 

9mffeuJtural prescr3ptlon We recommend that if such an 

analysig has been run on computer medel~, the Infarraatlm 

resulting from much an analyela ahould be revealed in order 

to determine the effect of timber harvest yields using this 

met hod Thh information should be made public before 

selection of the final alternative 

We support the PRF In the proposed management end harvest of 

red fir areas on the Inyo These area3 cantah avermature 

and alstlctoe infested timber and, jn artier to prntaet the 

bidogieal base, planned entry should be made over the next 

decade Into them stands Reforemtation jn the red fir type 

has not been ah" to be a problem on the Inyo in the past 

using evenaged techniques, but unevenaged management in red 

fir ahauld aho be practiced in are83 such 3s those 

designated for visual, developed recreatian and potentia3 

and existhg ski areas 

We found that the PRF proposed a reduced firewood harvest 

over the CUR, The reduction for the flrst decade wa3 from 

13,000 cords per year down to 10,000 cords per year and was 

further reduced in later decades While ~~mt of the 

reduction 3n later yaara wa~ found tn be n~!ce~~ary due to 

factors auch an convsraion to younger age classam of tree8 

and an end to the current need far thinnlnp actlu3tlea, the 

negative impact on local economlts and the stability of 

rural areas is intvltsble if fuelnoad harvesta are allowed 

to fall draatJ,calIy slaee the communitiee such an H4rroth 

Lakce and Blshap are highly dependant on firemod for hame 

energy needm Plnyon/junlper are438 east of Mono take may be 

subatitutcd, for example, for thE loss of lodgepole aream 

which apparently wlll not require addltlonal thinnang In 

latar dccadaa Use Qf unevenaged management aa suggested 

earliar, would alaa help increaae flrtwmd avaIlabillty 

relative reduetian In fuelwaad might be preventable A 

We recaaaand that full dlacloaure af the ~canbmk and 

cultural conaequensaa of rrddithn of these rIvcrs tu the 

wild and scenic river aymtara be made publlc before 

approval of the final plan, 

Fundlng im probably the mat critScr1 haue In the nmth" 

forest planning proccBS Each fafaat ha3 indicated that the 

proposed plans present only targetm that the forest fedm 

b 

I 
Mr, Dennis Martin 

Page Seven 

February 17# 1987 

Mr Dennis Mart3n 

Page Eight 

February IL 1987 

I 

could be attained if fundhg were avalleble Further, most 

planners appear to be in agreement that forest9 do not have 

any obllgatfon to maintain productlan at proposed levcb if 

there 1s hsufflcient funding It la impossible to 

determine what the long-term effects wll1 be on the people 

of the State of Callfornla given USFS budget constraints 

The Preferred Alte~nathm budget of $12 4 MM 18 $2 4 MM or 

24 percent over the Current Alternathe, or 32 5 MM (25 3 

percent) over the base year This h a substantial lncrease 

that the Inyo Nathmal Forest w311 not reach full funding of 

the choaen alternative 

considering the present budget cutting environment We fPd 

It is recommendEd that the find plan fully explain in 

detail the intended fall back podtioh and define minimum 

commodlty and nm-commodity outputa In the event that the 

stleetcd alternative is not fully funded Uur recommended 

pr1or3tieBp given hwer dollars, would be to 1) protect the 

biological base 2) provide for increased recreational 

oppertunit5eB and 3) enmure a stable flaw of commdlty 

out puts We believe that the final plan ahauld reflect 

these priorities at a reduced budget level 

Thank you far the apportunjty to eommehf on thls draft plan which 

the Board ronslders to be a good plan and one of the better plans 

we have reviewed 

cc Zahe G Smith 

b 

The fareet does not exist fb matiafy only the intarsat of 

the impact counthm and their publice, nor thoma amma 

beyond which the foraet fs readily accessible The impact 

of the forest has a much larger hofizon, Ita: commodity and 

non-commodity mtputa, when added to the other national 

foreet3 ln California, arc in demand and used throughout the 

atate and beyand Demand for fareat products, furmgm, 

water, and recreational opportunities wlll continue to 

increase to the planning horizon The impact counties 

contain several other national foreatsa including the Tolyabt 

National Forest headqumrtered In Sparha, Nevada ln the 

Xntermountain Region Thmm Pbrcat Servlcc landa have m 

significant hpact on these eaunths The inability to 

review all forcet plans sfmultansously is a significant 

Iierjtation became aggregate effectB of the flnal plam 

Could be sfgnificant This la a significant major 

ahartcomlng of the present forest-by-forest plannjng 

prbC45" WE suggest that in order to resolve thia concern, 

aggregates of plane by economic reglon be rewiewed publlrrly 

before final decisions an preferred alternatives are made 

for 1ndlvIdual national forests 
December 23, 1986 

Dennis W Martin Forest supcrt~lsor 

Inyo Ila*hnal Forest 

873 North Main Street 

Bishop, CA 93514 

Dear Mr Martin 

Re Inyo Hatianal Forest Draft Plan 

The Southern Forest District Technical Advisory Committee forma a 

subcm" t tee of three members who met wlth the represent at he^ from 

the Inyo National Forest an December 8 19$6 Following the meetihg, 

the SFDTAC d~velopcd a position statement as indicateo below 

The Inyo Hatiunal Porcat Hanagemant Draft Plan ham been 

revlemd by the SPDTAC, Our corrants are baed on the varmus 

land use activities CmtainCd in the Inyo Hation31 Forcet Draft 

Plan- The c"ts of the Corrittee rerbms took info account 

the lnterest and ccmctrxm that were aumrariztd in the 

CPntennlal Action Plan as follQu8 

Tv 

- 

w 

I Rural acnnomic stability and devclaprent, 

1 

a) Lands with steepness over 30% and less thmr 60% were 

w3 thdram and hwolved near 21,000 acres These lands were 

withdrawn because of potential erosron and expense of 

harvest Computer runs on the 30%-60% category showed 

deficit sales regardless of the speties 30gged~ Hmuever, 

the SFDTAG noted that the 30%-60% category was probably too 

broad to analyze logging costs, Very possibly. sowe hands. 

especially In Jeffrey pine In the lower ranges of this 

slop category. could be logged economically and safely 

from an envlronrental standpint An analpas should be run 

the timberland the Inyo was said ta occur on moderate 

sh~pes. BO it hi pbesiblc that a signlfkant prcentage of 

the 21,000 acrc~ in the 30%-60% category would Occur in the 

reaches bel- 45%- 

on the ~OUEF categories, especially from 30%-45%, Much of 
The, SPDTAC does aupprt the PRP 5n the praped management 

and harvest of red fir areem wh the Inya These areas 

contain overraturc and mistletoe infested timber and, in 

order to protect the biological base, pf,annPd entry should 

be made over the next decade into these stands 

RPforestation in the red fir type has mat been ah- to be 

a problem on the Inya in the past using evtn-aged 

techniques, but uncven-agcd ranagerent In red fir should 

also be practiced in areas such a6 thoet dcaignated fnr 

visual, developed recreation and potential and eximfing ski 

areas 

I 

I 

b 

I 

+ 
future water diversion needs and other opportunities to um~ 

the res0ur~e3 an order tu provide raxlmur protection and 

oppottunJt3es to maintain the biological base found In 

these two F~WW ~t~etehes 

be approved until the cumuhtIjve effect of all the Plana 

can be studjtd+ 

cc SFUTAC Members 

Norman W Cook 

Alternate Secretary 

b 
I 

Mr, DEnnis b Hartin 

Foreat Supervimr 

Inyo National Porest: 

873 North Main Street 

€3iBhopr California 93514 

HC-CA 

WE have reviewed the Draft Envird"enta1 Impact Statement (DEXS) and the prapo~ed Forest Management Plan, and offer the following 

comment: 

The "proposed plan* discus~est several proposals that would 

increase the we of foreat land [mining, lumber, and public use), Hawever, there LE a very minimal 13iscu381m of the type of 

impacts these action= will have to the eriating highway syatem, 

The California Department of Traneporkation (CaI trans} have 

identified several locations where there are mme major problem8 

ko khe existing facilities, 

hbj* PROPOSED FOREST LAND AM? RESOURCE MAWAG€HENT PLAN ET At FOR INYO 

NATION41 FOREST 

FEB2 M37 
FEDERAL A GENClES 

I1 Ill IV V I I1 111 IV V 

L 

I 

Total acres II 579.789 425.032 1,142,7001 0 

of wtential I 

425 

0 216.257 376.288 1.yIZ.040 173.036 0 

IA 

le 

I : 

IC 

A1t 

1: 

Alt. 2 

IO 

12 16 17 0 d 0 0 16 58 0 

27 2 40 0 1 4 12 7 0 

8 2 40 0 0 0 8 1 0 

53 BO 75 0 0 99 95 6 34 0 

: 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 6 

16 2 30 0 2 5 8 1 

29 I 45 42 0 0 54 58 341 17 I o 

55 I 52 40 0 0 45 36 521 23 1 0 
3 4 

P 

0 

n 

Sincerely, 

5+ Tk backgrwnd sectton af Mherals+ Locst&le (page 11147) ne& 

further ~~SCUSS~PII an hf~tory* One conhnsed sentence does not truly 

reflect tk actual past+ Sfnee past mtning actfvfty Is Important and 

long standing, a &tailed dfscusslm is necessarya 

mtnhg districts, mjor past pducers, and cmdlty Identifiers 

cou'td be included 

seetfon, a crmparhn tD the Reweatfort wethn [pages 111-61 through 

111-78) Indicates 17 pages as an anproximite mwk, 

A figure fnsludfng 

In or&r to suggest length of the expanded 

L Me mmnd that the ffgures Ifst withln the Table of Contents be 

modiffed to sku tables and ffgures separately, 

hen looking for the maps (only one is included In the text portfon 

of the subject plan 

Inspxtjon of xtual I1 lustratlons. 

I& found It confusfng 

tfsting the tables separately would allw quick 

mi I 

1D 

Sincerety, L 

b 

I 

7 

March 5* 1987 

knnts Martin 

Forest Supervisor 

Inyo Hat lonal Forest 

873 Nm Main Stmet 

Bfshop, CA 93514 
remudl and er0510n caused by grazlng rpsults in serhs degradation of 

str~am5 Fencing and provrsfm of natermg areas outside the rfparbn 

zone could provide Important habitat improvements to the Inyo Natfonal 

Forest's streams+ 

riparian areas is well-stated rn the DEIL 

of these issues could lead to even better management practices* 

The Forest Service's recognition of the importance of 

Ue beltwe that chrificatwn 

OEIS 111-w33e The document states that hydroelectrfc devchwent wtthln 

the hyo tuat4mal Fgrest is expected to Increase witb possible 

siqn?ftcant effects on the fisheries and ripartan habitat of the Forest 

Htm bdlew thdt the Inyo Hationa'C Forest should consider developing d 

Fur~st-wibe hydroelectric power mnagemnt plan that could lead to a 

better assessment of the cumlathe impacts of these projects, Ab, 

cwrdjnated r-wl~w of hdhidual Federal Energy Regulatory Cw"n$slon 

IFERG} appllcatfo~ with Interlor could hcr~ase opporturtl ties to provide 

better habitat protection through FERC'f processes, 

lll-I.5 111-48 AHD HI-49, Geothcrml plants have the potmtial to produce 

slgnffkant amaunts of effhmts, Plans should be developed to raftjgatc 

the df$posal of any brhs and cooling tower blondom generated by such 

power plants. 

- -* 

mar or withfn the borders of the hyo Hattonal Forest, &uplnus< dedeckerae 

should be referred to fn the FEIS a5 - e, padre-croHleyi+ 

b 

3 2 
Cal ifornla Hatwe 

behind the Forest Service's protectfun of the candidate [sensWve) fIora 

Is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

objectfw of the Plan ?S to prevent these cdhbfdate plants from becoming 

federally- I 15 led SPEC ks 

society, we mainfdh that &he prfmary stimulus 

As Indicated on page IV-33, the 

Plan A-2, p aragraph 6* 

plan for the SmsTtIve Plant Program by 1987* 

page A-4 of the Plan that the sensitive flora should be thoroughly 

Inventoried and pw"nmt mni torhag marker5 estab? ished for all 

sensftlw plants 

We support the call far a resource Implementatfan 

MQ~EOVW, we agree with 

Genwallyw WE Belfeve that the resolution of i55ues involuhg actfons 

that may adversely affect listed spectes ts best achfeved tbrough the 

noma1 Section 7 consu? tatlon process on a project-by-proJest basis uhen 

51te specific infomation $5 avallable toficernlng potentfa1 pmjett 

impacts Therefore, we recomend that the Forest Servtce fnltlate formal 

corrsr~l tation an those components of the selec&ed a1 ternathe that may 

ddWrTely affect lfsted $pedes at the the Such projects appear on your 

planning horizon, Wth respect to recwery actfms, we +mmr"d that 

the Plan be made consistent wlth the recovery plans that have been 

developed for the listed species that mu occurc or hlstorfcally 

occurred, an the Inyo fhthal Forest, 

Before the Fmmrt Servke comits itself to a plan that has high 

potmtial for serfausly al tcring habitat condfttons for 5evera1 Federal 

candjdate 1 Isted+ threatened and endangered species+ we recomnd 

that d greater comftmnt be mabe to obtalnlng the needed basehe data 

and validatlng the mdels that are used to evaluate fSsh and wlldltfe 

impacts, 

demonstrate that lkted or candidate species are currently In a decllnlng 

or depleted status* land uses that auld exacerbate the situathm should 

be auofded until recowry fs well underway, 

In sftwations where there Is already good documentation to 

m 

a 

4 

b& guest~~n the advfsabflfty of arty proposed ORV ball through the Inyo 

Hatlonal Forest This IS based on the potential adverse impacts that 

5 
could result from the proposal 

and muh? deer that seasonally inhabit both Park and Farest lands+ 

especially those affecting Sierra bfgborn 

In the event of such a trail being constructEd, HE believe that the 

continued well-being of uiwi0~5 populations of threatened $lema bighorn 

muld be SuffItient JustSfhtron to dcslgn an Interruption OT break in 

the trail, or route tt east tu the uScMty of Hlghway 395 wherever it 

would othwwise go mar existing ~r potential bighorn populations 

This would be especially true for bighorn wintpr ranges, 

Our lnterpst ~n these populations 15 based on the fact that all but the 

Yhdw Ridge hwd Sumer~ in part, withh Yosedte or Sequoja and King$ 

Canyon Matima1 Parks and the latter herd also will probably do SO when Its 

population increase5 sufficiently, 

a surplus for refntroductlon purposes IS the NL Baxter herd, Further, the only population that produces 

compatfble with park use$* 

proposed In the preferred a1 ternatwe that Mould have any slgni flcant 

effects on park resources, value$ or usesl 

be general and referenced to the Plan, 

In any cafeD there appear to bE no uses 

Therefore, our somEnts wilt 

Inyo Nattmal Forest wilderness use guidelines and lidfations are, alth 

a few minor exceptions, identlcal to the parks'+ 

through a cooperative agreement, Issue5 wilderness pedts for entry into 

all of the east stde trail heads, WE have establfshed an excellent 

cooperative rclationshlp with the hyo and other surrounding National 

Forests on wf lderness mndgerWnt ncakters 

In factg the Foresk, 

The Mt, Baxter herd of Sierra bfghorn sheep spends a slgnlftrant parth~ 

of the sump+ season frt Klngs Canyon Hational Park and the prhry 

ewe/lamb range fs In the park, TMs is not noted In elther the Plan or 

the DEI$ 

Park Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and tnyo Hatfsnal 

Forest for the management and reintroduction of Sferra bighorn sheep to 

uarfous locations in the southern Sierra Nevada, Both of these pdnts 

should be noted tn the final document since they haw an fnflu~nse on 

what the Fore5t can do regardtng management of Slerra blghqrn sheep, 

Further, there Is a cmperatlve agreement betwen the MatConal 

In additton to the above eoments pcrtrhhg to Sequola and 

Kings Canyon and Ymedte Hattonal Parks+ you my utsh to contact the 

staffs of both parks regarding air quality mnftorjng and research, Both 

have extensive experience and ongoing activity In this fleld, 

I 

6 7 
1- 

21 

a1 

I1 s 

b5d 1 

t to 

1 PFR 

e 

no new 

Ye 

for 

1 

A 

Id 

There are no map5 

to relate mtneral 
I 

b 
L me DEIS and Forest Plan indicate that the Eizist Hanagement 

Practices (BMPB) listed In the Farcat Service Handboak and 

Appendix F of the Foreat Plan are the means fox protecting 

water quality in the fhYo National Forest+ The 1981 

Hanbgarcrrt Agency Agreement between the State Water Rcaourcen 

Control bard (SWRCE) and the Forest Service certified that 

the BMPa developed fn the 5208 Plan would conatitUte aound 

wter quality managenant and thut implementation of theme 

practkcm would constitute complh~ee with Uubatanthe and 

procedural requhmcntu of utate water pollution control 

law Randated by 5323 Of P L 95-217+ It should be 

noted, howeverr that hplerentatbn of BMPa doen not conskiWithout 

mppropriate BMP&# creatta a water quality problem or emma8 

a standard8 viohtion, the State and Regional Baarda rttafn 

the authority to carry aut their responaibfliticm far mantote compliance with water quality atandarda tr me+ In 

the event that a Forest project, undertaken w FTI t 

agement of environmental quality. 

6+ T 

P 

P 

m 

W 

i 

t' 

b 

b 

b 

iii 
-3- -4- 

7* 

8+ 

9+ 

12m 

Page TI-7q of the DEI$ equates leasable minerals ufth total 

annual output by decade indicates that the total output of 

pmmr plants will herease from one during the firat decade 

to six during the ftfth decade, Does this mean ah power 

plants for the last ten years or s€x power plant8 for the 

fifty year period? 

power plants+ The FEIS should e~plaln this+ The estimated 

Page 11456 of the DEIS indicates thht under the preferred 

alternative the number of acres allocated to range decreases 

by 3BrUQD acres from the current alternative, The number of 

animal unit months (AUns), howeverp increases under the 

preferred alternative by wet 5,000 AUHs from the currenk 

alternative during the first decade, The FEIS mhould 

anplain how thh will be aeeomplhhed and how water quality 

and banafleial u~es will be maintained given the projected 

inteneified ~150 un a reduced reaource baee, If the laplela needed to accomdate increased grazing outputm, the 

effect of reduced budget on grazing level^, and/or grazing 

Impaeta ahould be biacuasedmentation Of range management praetieee [DEIS p+ 111-58) 

malitv Camantr b 

P 

I 

Marah 3# 1987 

Forest Superusnor 

rnyo Natmnal ForeBt 

873 North Mein 5t 

Riahap. CA 93514 

bar Sir 

While tbe expansion of the Paiute Trout rerovery prnqran tt3 

include all of Cottonwood Baain and Cabin Creek may be 

fn01 that again the PRF plan is providing an unnoccessary 

hardship on Esmeralda County reddentR whn us0 the Whitqa aa 

the only acc"!ib'19 trout fhhing area 3vailabIe to them 

Since the expanaim of the r~cmvery program nnuld n~~~~t3itate 

the closure of those waters to all fiqhing and diminat0 the 

bemt two, of a very limited number o€ native trout fisheries 

An the whites, ua f0el that the recovery program could be 

better aervnd in other area^ n€ California where the fish ia 

at hamt a native fit ia not in the White Mountaha having 

bean originally phnted thmr0 in 1996 and replanted in 1966) 

and where there are many mare recreetional fishing tedsources 

than in thO Whitea 

derzirabh from a rnaaarch or ~invironm0ntal atandpaint, We 
I I 

< 

The reaLritIt ~VS management policiea mandated by the PRF 

alternative will ala0 have a del~teriaua effact upon tb0 

acon~mlc wd’l-bdhg of th0 only publh a$rvFce facility 

located in Fiah Lake Valley, the local ator0 and sarvica 

mtation= Thm stare dependa upon increased activity during the 

~ummmr an? fall seauons by huntern# fisherman mnd aightmrsris 

(primarily four wbreel driveral to cmrry then through the slow 

winter season The dialnetion of vehhuhr aecemm to the 

memt side of the Whitee would hmve 8 direct negative dollar 

inp4et upon this rural stare and ita surround3ng community 

Thana tastriatsve nanageaent po3icAes would ala0 impede the 

growth vf this amall earanunity which laaks to eohthuad 

expansion of the poplatian through lot aalea baaed upon a 

healthy agricultural and mineral induatry and the 0aaiXy 

acpeomfbh hunting and fishing the White Mountains 

U0 uauld aupprt en Open Roadsd dmrignation for all those 

areass in the Writea which mre deatgnetmd Lfaited Accssa In 

the PRF alternative That area ds#ignatad &a wildarnasa in 

the PRF alternative ahould be the only Limited Accsnm 

dcwignatioa &n the Whites am it is currently unromda9d and 

cauld remain BQ under that daaignation while still baing 

fully utilized 3m m grazing and mineral reeourcm Hunt kng 

fishingr camping and nagbt stehg could continue on in 

harmony with the mining and cattle induetry am they have €or 

the ltmt EIEty ymsr-a- Long time realdentm of Firrh Lakn Vallay 

uill atteet that the White Mountafn3 have changed very lltt10 

if at all undmr the pa~t nanrentrictive management pdkica 

mhd they B~B no rearlon to change them, 

We ~uggent that the contint“ imp10mentaticm of the multiple 

ume concept in the White Mountain Dietrict of thm Inyo 

Netbnal Format would bn tha poltcg that would be nont 

Rmapec t f til 1 y 

BOARD OF COUNTY COMHISSIONERS OF FSMFRRLDA CDUWTY 

Leo La Varrghan II# Chairman 

cc File 

Page 3 Pspe 4 
March 4, 1907 

t, 

0 

0 
Page 3 

March 6* 1987 

Attached IS Mono County% response to the Propbaed Land and Resource 

Managemnt Plan for the Xnyo FIatI*nal Forest, We greatly appreciate 

the opportunity to review and ~omnt on the Plan, and we look forward 

to meeting with you to clarxfy and resolve some of the isaues brmqht 

out ~n our comnks. ~n preparxnq our ~"~nts, we halve consulted 

with Mammoth-June Mountain Ski rea, the California Department of Fish 

and Game, the Mono Lake Committeef the Town of Mammoth Lakes, certain 

Special Dhtrkta, our Planning Comission, the June Lake Citizens 

the comnts indicate, our primary concern is khat the Forest recognize 

the local planning process in the development and imphmentation of xts 

om plans, and that together WE work to preserve the recreational 

integrrty of the forest and surrounding areas, 

AdV13ory COmittEe, Moho LAPCO, and OUI Re~ource Polfcy CoMatteem AS 

WE recognize that our comments are made wfthout beneflt of the extenslue 

studJim reflected in the ores st Plan documents, and that certain assues 

w~ll bave to be dzacuased and darified, We consequently reque3t that 

prior to the €ha1 revision of the Planr the County be included III 

meetknge with other concerned parties to wxR out areas of conf1lcL 

In general, however, we are pleaaed with yo~r planning efforts and 

believe khat your staff shouLd be commended for preparing such a 

thorough and comprehen~i~e set of planning documents, 

appreciate your personal inkerest In khe ~BSU~B and concerns of our 

Countyr and we look forward to a continued cooperative effort in the 

revision and imphmentakion of the Inyo Forest Plan, 

We a150 greatly 

Sincerely, 
CHRPTER 1 INtRODUCtTOt4 

CHWTER I1 
CHWTER 111 

I 

I 

I 

I 

t 11-28 

UT -37 
CHAPT€R W 

IV-4 

t, 

RPtrPaf; nn 0 

Wa tw shed 

PV-i8 P 

cn 
I 

c, Fleaqe nddf I and lands threatened bv avalanche hazards 

Fatili ti e5 

IV-24 

IV-25 

XV-2T 
0 

0 

C 

z 

-I 

-e 

I 

3 

b 

IV-29 
1 v-77 

TV-82 I hitd Recess 

0 


SIERRA COUNTY 

brch 31, 1987 

Unfted States Departmnt of 

Inyo Ndtfonal Forest 

forest Supervi SQr 

873 North Murr Street 

Bishop, CA 93514 

Agrlcul ture - Forest Service 

Oear HL Martin 

Thank you far the opportunjty to provlde eorrments on the Inyo Hathmal forest 

Plan+ 

We understand that the inyo National Forest Plan presents sfx (6) alternatives 

and you have received extensive comment on the preferred alternative 

The purpose for thi5 Board offering cmmnt on the proposed plan is due to the 

extstehce of the Sierra Pacific hdustrles mill located adjacent the City of 

Loyalton, Sierra County. This mfll f5 the primary employer withtn $+errs County and depends on timber from fnyo Hattonal Forest as an Important part af its 

total timber supply, 

The Board of Supervfsors therefore supports thg posl tlm statement developed by 

the Alliance for Enutronment and RCSOWC~S [attached) as It would assure a conthud supply of timber frm the Inyo Forest 

Cwnty’s primary Industry and employer Wch tr~ turn serves the people of Sf~rra 

cw?ty* 

This wvld better serwe thls 

Thank you for the opportunity to “writ+ 

SfneereTy, 

SIERRA COUNTY 

BO@l OF SUPERVISORS 

THE JM JC 3/50 

cc Members, Board of Supervisors 

I nyo County Board of Superv 1 son 

Mons COUhty Board of Supervisors 

Red Emerson, Slerra Padfic Industries 

Gordon Van Vkk, Secretary for Resources 

Western Thbw Association 

CSAC 

The Mountah Messenger 

Sierra Booster 

R1 

P 

0 

I 

t) 

0 I 

t I 

z 

I 

0 

I 

s 
0 
P 
I 

I 

3 

I 

I 

R1 I 

I 

I 

4 

b 
January 3CL 1987 

Dennis Id Marth, Forest Supcmfsor 

Inyo Matfond Forest 

873 North Main Street 

Bishop, CA 93514 

Sincerely, 

TULARE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

< 

EEW-RT ke 

xc Building and Planning Departwnt 

r, 

2 
Senator Cranston 

Uctgber IOp 1986 

Page 2 

Senator Cranston 

October lov 1986 

Page 3 

I 

5, The general publk, hctudhg property ~PP fin 

Tulare Cauntr, who muld be affected have nor !wen 

afforded due pmm5s through publk herrfngs on the 

matter of designating the South Fork Kern Rfuer, as 

ua5 done on the Mwth Fork back In the early 1980's 

Similarly, opponents to the recent IegWWan for 

the krth and South Forks have apparently not been 

allowed equal tlm fn Washfngtm, 0 C to speak be= 

fore Congress an thts matter 

Sincerely, 

0 

I 
March l3# 2987 

Mrm Dennrs Hnrkfn 

Forest Manager 

Inyo National Forest 

873 Worth Main 

Bishop, California 93514 

Dear Dennis: 

Xn ~~ppoct of thie proposal, g want to point out that 

the federal RARE 11 b~lf fn recent years alao idenk5€ied 

the 5an Joaqurn Ridge ai3 a potential ski area. 

X support the cmsidexathn to designate the Sen Joaquin 

Ridge as a potential alpine ski area, * 

STATF CAPITOL ROOM Um! 1 SACKAMFMO 9581 Q (91 6) as 24n7 

DISTRICT OFFICE 31 E CHANNEL STRFET RQIIM 440 STOCHTON 95202 (209) 948 79311 
LIST OF RESFCNDENFS 

NWE ID "ER 

ABBEY. PAUL R . I1 ........................................ 3753 

ABERMITHY. M.B. .......................................... 1154 

ABBOIT. ALE3 ............................................ 2037 

ABLER. KEN ............................................... 3232 

AERO". C.J. ........................................... 3247 

ACCORDINO. BEVERLY J ..................................... 1380 

ACQSTA. RENE ............................................. 3914 

AClON. SANDRA ............................................ 31 

ADAIR. PHYLLIS ............................................ 4117 

AWtS. L ................................................. 3656 

ADWS. TCM ............................................... 4183 

ADDIS. TCM ............................................... 3924 

AD-. SIDNEY R ........................................ 62 

ADLER. ELISA ............................................. 1865 

ADLER. I ................................................. 3602 

ADLER. JAMES E . & RZTPHA ................................. 293 

ADLER. KEN ............................................... 884 

ADLER. MARSHA ............................................ 3811 

ADLER. SEyMxlR ........................................... 3253 

AGREN. CARL .............................................. 4271 

AHLBORN. J . DANIEL ....................................... 1570 

AICHELE. JON R ........................................... 1590 

AINLEY. DAVID G .......................................... 1749 

AKAWIE. RIQIARD .......................................... 2119 

ALBR". REINHOLD .................................. 714. 715 

-RIGHT. DOUG ........................................... 3907 

ALDEFfSON. EDITH .......................................... 976 

ALESHIRE. LINDA .......................................... 3120 

ALEXANDER. KAREN ......................................... 1529 

ALFXANDER. MARLENE ....................................... 3815 

ALISON-YOUEG. BARBARA .................................... 811 

ALL KNIGHT REALTY ........................................ 924 

ALLAN. KERRY A ........................................... 2024 

WAN. MARK .............................................. 4140 

ALmWAY. TOBY L . .......................................... 234 

ALLESANDT. MELVIN ........................................ 3633 

ALLBRITPON. PAUL ......................................... 459 

ALLDAY. JUDITH ........................................... 3192 

WEN. ELDRID R .......................................... 3872 

WEN. JIM ............................................... 1157 

ALLEN. KEITH ............................................. 1405 

ALLEN. LAUREL ............................................ 1568 

ALLEN. PAUL J ............................................ 1277 

ALLEN. SAM ............................................... 4421 

ALLA'. STEVEN R .......................................... 771 

ALLEN. SUSAN ............................................. 2024 

ALLIANCE FDR ENVIRONMEWP & RESOUFCZS ..................... 2179 

ALLING. R0IW.D D ......................................... 2021 

ALLISCAL. SHELLY A ....................................... 4460 

ALLISON. CINDY ........................................... 1157 

ALLISON. MWGWiT W ...................................... 1168 

ALLISON. ROD ............................................. 810 

ALMOND. STAW ........................................... 2024 

ALMOUR. DON .............................................. 3955 

464 
IDMlvBER 

ALPEEt. ANN ............................................... 1491 

ALTAFFER. W .............................................. 813 

MFRtC?,N WINE CLUB 1928. 2152 

AMERICXNMJroRcYcLE ASSOCIATION. DISTRICT #37 ............ 379 

AMERICAN MXOm ASSCCIaTION .......................... 68 

AMERICAN RECREATIa CQALITICN ............................ 1796 

AMES. ROB!IRT ............................................. 693 

............................... 

AMESBUKY. BFaK33 .......................................... 999 

AMISH. RGBA .............................................. 434 

Ab". N ................................................ 4087 

AMNEiE. "KMS ........................................... 1654 

ANDERSON. ANDREW .................................... 762. 4111 

ANDERSON. BILL ........................................... 1581 

ANDERSON. BILLY .......................................... 4391 

ANDERSON. QWRWITE ...................................... 3529 

A". ED ............................................. 356 

A". ELIZABETH ...................................... 1871 

ANDERSON. GLBW E ........................................ 3856 

ANDERSON. H.L. ........................................... 120 

ANDERSGN. .......................................... 1069 

ANDERSON. JUDY ........................................... 1605 

ANDERSON. KARK ........................................... 1869 

ANDERSON. W+RY ELLEN ..................................... 4109 

ANDERSON. PETER .......................................... 2024 

A". RAM"lJ E ...................................... 3849 

ANDERSGN. SHEILA ......................................... 1640 

ANDERSON. STACY .......................................... 3110 

ANDERSON. TOM ............................................ 3582 

A". VIDAR .......................................... 1195 

AND=. ALEX .............................................. 1692 

AND!3"Z. JAMFS ........................................... 3191 

ANDRE. JIM ............................................... 1180 

ANDRE. ram .............................................. 484 

A". BYRON .......................................... 1424 

ANDERSON. QCNDY .......................................... 824 

ANDERSON. JANE ........................................... 4390 

ANDREWS. PRESTON K ....................................... 1904 

ANNIS. JIM ............................................... 2011 

AWXNY. A ............................................... 3988 

A"I. SATYA .......................................... 1460 

APPLEGWE. DEKE .......................................... 3459 

APPRILL. JAMES ........................................... 3117 

ARCHIBALD. WILLIAM E ..................................... 3116 

AR-. KmmI ....................................... 1881 

ARDITPI. SARA ............................................ 2066 

ARMISTEAD. DONNA L ....................................... 2069 

ARNDW. GLEN & JUANITA .................................. 490 

ARJWLD. DICK ............................................. 1415 

ARNOLD. LINDA ............................................ 906 

ARNOLD. MRS . R ........................................... 903 

ARld3LD. W.G. ............................................. 4407 

ARRE. SlEW .............................................. 3065 

ARSEMUILT. DENNIS ........................................ 3326 

ARRIGO. MARY ........................................ 338. 964 

465 
NAME ID NLMBER 

ARTHUR. VIRGINIA ......................................... 1470 

ASHER. JAMES ............................................. 764 

AS-. M.F. ............................................. 4303 

ASKEVDLD. RUTH A ......................................... 2036 

A"S. ARTHUR ........................................... 865 

A'I"S. MARf33 ............................................ 767 

ATKI". AL ............................................. 1119 

ATKI". CLIm .......................................... 4458 

ATKI". LALJRENCE T ..................................... 1619 

ATKI". RALPH L ........................................ 1157 

AUJ" SOCIEZY ................................... 1411. 1562 

AUDUBON SOCIEm - EASTERN SIERRA ................... 1923. 2210 

AW" SOCIEZY - MIPA-SOLAND ............................ 1032 

AUDUBON SOCIETY - sAcRAMEWp0 CxWrER ..................... 1983 

AUDUBON SCCIFM - TULARE OXlNlY .......................... 1738 

AUTKY. BOB ............................................... 1756 

AVAY. GEORGE ............................................. 2024 

AVEDIKIAN. ED ............................................ 3766 

Am-. MIwI3R ........................................... 2118 

AVILA. EILEEN ............................................ 840 

AVILA. LUCY .............................................. 867 

AVILA. MERLE ............................................. 839 

AYAKA'IUBBY. GARY L ....................................... 3483 

AYERS. IECB) ............................................... 2196 

AYRE. SAYWARD J .......................................... 1532 

BAAS. MIKE. SUSAN & mERT ............................... 911 

BABB. CLARA .............................................. 968 

BACKES. MICHAEL J ........................................ 469 

BAcx)N. B.N. .............................................. 3179 

BAD3J.W. 

m. 

T.M. ............................................ 542 

L . RI- ...................................... 1505 

BAGLEY. MARK ............................................. 1589 

BAILEY. TME & GXXDCN .................................. 2024 

BAILS. TERI .............................................. 1157 

my. sm ............................................. 443 

BAIN. SOrrr A ............................................ 3744 

PAINS. WILLIAM H ......................................... 1893 

BAIRD. MARK L ............................................ 879 

BAKER. BILL .............................................. 1389 

BAKER. D0U;LAs L ......................................... 2024 

BAKER. GLEXW M ........................................... 850 

BAKER. MARK .............................................. 1640 

BAKER. MINGY ............................................. 3177 

EAKKE. CBlD W ............................................. 1436 

BALBQA SKI CLUB 395. 1812 

BALDWIN. JERRY ........................................... 1929 

BALES. TERZ: .............................................. 1888 

BALm. SUSAN E .......................................... 94 

BALL. GARY & BEITY ....................................... 2101 

BALLEN[;ER. CLARENCE R .................................... 1342 

BAGLENGER. m .......................................... 1301 

ASm. sm ........................................... 3975 

ASTER. PAUL .............................................. 923 

AXON. DARREN ............................................. 1640 

.................................... 

466 
BAUT;. lVlARIANNE N ........................................ 1975 

BAWPOLE. MWGE ..................................... 138. 1768 

EWDFIELD. STACEY ........................................ 564 

BANES. MICHAEL E ......................................... 3880 

WWiWF3. BRUCE ........................................... 1498 

BANKA. BILL ......................................... 458. 1790 

BANIA. CLIFF €i JUNE ...................................... 996 

BANIA. WN ............................................... 1764 

BANIAH. SYLVIA ........................................... 2024 

EARAGER. STEVE ........................................... 1592 

BARBEAU. C.L. ............................................ 3890 

BARBEE. JOHN ............................................. 531 

BARBER. HARLAN ........................................... 1283 

BARD. c .................................................. 1640 

BARIBAULT. SUSAN ......................................... 3462 

BARIBAULT. W.H. .......................................... 3469 

BARKER. ROBERT EDGAR ..................................... 724 

BARu3w. MR . & MRS . ARTHUR ................................ 415 

BARNES. D.A. CLARK ....................................... 892 

BARNES. LARRY J .......................................... 180 

BARNES. MYRA E ........................................... 1974 

BARNES. RICK NEIL, ........................................ 3846 

BARNES. RQBERT I ......................................... 1512 

BARNHART. BRUCE .......................................... 1474 

EARREIT. XAXINE .......................................... 3139 

"Err. ROBERT w ........................................ 3893 

EA". TKWS .......................................... 3701 

BARRIE. CAROLINE ......................................... 3692 

EARRW. DAVID ............................................ 166 

E?€". JUDY ............................................. 3760 

BARlXM. Bo8 .............................................. 1595 

BARRY. W.J .. TWLWNE MINWOK TRIBE ....................... 2054 

BART . FRAKES ............................................ 3356 

BARTH. ARTHUR W .......................................... 4169 

BARNES. MICHELLE ......................................... 638 

BARTLE?T. BOB ............................................ 2110 

BARTLE?T. DON ............................................ 2024 

EA". JANE M ........................................... 3508 

EAR". JC€lNA ........................................... 4093 

B". KENNEIW R ........................................ 4065 

B". LAVERNE .......................................... 1130 

BARTOS. PAUL R ........................................... 188 

EAR". ANDY P .......................................... 1018 

WS. Gus D .............................................. 4125 

BAMIELDER. .................................. 796. 902 

BATES. DENNIS E .......................................... 815 

BAKH. STEVI3l B .......................................... 4188 

BAUER. GERHARD ........................................... 3859 

BAUER. LORRAINE M ........................................ 3986 

BAUER. M ................................................. 1916 

m. RDY M ............................................. 270 

E"XL. DAVID .......................................... 732 

BAUERFEIND. STEVE ........................................ 1640 

EXMEISTEX. E ............................................ 3748 

467 
NAME In NUMBER 

-. DAVID G .......................................... 1021 

BAYS. PETER .............................................. 1805 

BE?UXR. E.E. ............................................. 869 

BEAKLEY. CONSTANCE ....................................... 3897 

BEALE. ELLEN J ..................................... 1321. 3574 

BEAN. BETTY .............................................. 1506 

BEAN. CRAIG .............................................. 1640 

BEAR. ERIK ............................................... 4044 

BEBER. BENJAMIN & SUE .................................... 4352 

BWIARIELL. SHAN ......................................... 4470 

BMXER. DONALD ........................................... 4105 

BECXER. PHYLLIS .......................................... 4184 

BECKLER. HCWlRD .......................................... 3965 

BEXXWY. THCMAS E ........................................ 614 

BEEBE. RICHARD D ......................................... 1608 

BEEKHOF. EVELIN .......................................... 3094 

BFGGS. MICHAEL ........................................... 3902 

BEGLAN. DIANE ............................................ 4417 

BEHM. EDWARD G ........................................... 3668 

BEIDERBMI(E. S.M. ........................................ 882 

BEILY. SHELLY ............................................ 2024 

BEITLER. JENNIFER ........................................ 1068 

BELDEN. PAUL C ........................................... 4149 

BELEC. EtENEUE ........................................... 1054 

BELL. PAMELA ............................................. 451 

BELL. RICHARD & KAREN .................................... 1378 

BELL. SANDRA ............................................. 3554 

BELLAMY. ED .............................................. 2073 

BELLI. MINDY & DENNIS .................................... 214 

BELWNA. WILLIAM F ....................................... 1468 

BELT. BRUCE G ............................................ 1175 

BELT. KATY C ............................................. 1532 

BEVER. TED ............................................... 1535 

BEEICHFSIES. BRIAN J ....................................... 3565 

BENDARZEWSKI. JERRY A .................................... 200 

BENDETP. CWWDJYE ....................................... 4377 

BENDETP. JEROME .......................................... 4378 

BENEDICT FAMILY .................................... 3226. 3227 

BENELL. IioBINA M ......................................... 4007 

BENGOCHIA. MIKE .......................................... 576 

BEh". "y .......................................... 534 

BENIER. SUSAN J .......................................... 747 

BENIOFF. LEORA ........................................... 2034 

BENIOFF. MILDFED ......................................... 1788 

BENIS. KXWA ............................................. 255 

BE". CHRISTIAN ...................................... 3740 

BENJAMIN. SHELDcdrl ........................................ 4182 

BENNER. JOAN ............................................. 1252 

BEN". ALM ............................................ 121 

BAYHI. MICHAEL ........................................... 154 

BECKEL. DARRw ........................................... 1640 

BEDEU. BERWLRD ....................................... 40 . 1774 

BEEKHOF. C.W. ............................................ 3353 

BEESON. RICHARD D ........................................ 563 

468 
BETJ3IT. BOB ........................................ 2063. 5031 

BENT. ROBERT ............................................. 3174 

BENITEf . ROGER ........................................... 31 

BE". C.H. ............................................. 4045 

BENZ. JAMES R ............................................ 4457 

BERAN. JUERGEN P ......................................... 838 

BERAN. LINDA ............................................. 863 

BERENET. HENRY A ................................... 2165. 2215 

BERENS. LARRY ............................................ 2088 

BERc;ER. MICHAEL .......................................... 3136 

BERGER. R.J. ............................................. 3997 

BERGEX?. TERI ............................................. 3535 

BERGMAN. A.J. ............................................ 588 

BERGMAN. JA&uELINE ...................................... 565 

BEIEGSTRCM. BOB ........................................... 997 

BERI(ELBAcH. BOB .......................................... 4357 

BERKLGY. PATRICIA L ...................................... 1417 

BERKL3wITZ. SHELLY ........................................ 1623 

BERKWITZ. WALTW ........................................ 1700 

BERLIN. FRANK ............................................ 4346 

BERMIRD. JOHN W .......................................... 413 

BERNARD. KATIE ........................................... 3833 

BERNARD. R.G. ............................................ 125 

BERNItG . RANDOLPH ........................................ 3040 

BEWAY. JAMES V ......................................... 3711 

BERRY. THClVG P .......................................... 1472 

BESOZFS. JAY ............................................. 301 

BESSERT. BILL ............................................ 2024 

BETIXER. M4RILYN ......................................... 561 

BETPS. MIKE .............................................. 1750 

BEVJXIN. 

V. 

TOM ............................................. 4414 

JOANNA ........................................ 3357 

B-. TCM ........................................... 3096 

BEYFR. aTRTIS M .......................................... 3821 

BIANU3. CARL ............................................. 545 

BICINIEBI. MVGARET ...................................... 2024 

BICKLE. KURT ............................................. 4126 

BIDDLE. SUSAN ............................................ 4496 

BIENER. KATRINA .......................................... 392 

BIEIIMAN. JENAFER ......................................... 3601 

BIGLEY. DANIEL J ......................................... 1601 

BIHM. RICK J ............................................. 476 

BILLINGS. D ....................................... 391 

BIDEAU. JAMES P ........................................ 3953 

BI"4. ELISABETH ....................................... 1732 

BIRIMISA. LYNNE .......................................... 4068 

BIFMlNSWl. K.G. .......................................... 1200 

BISHOP CHAMBER OF OXWERCE ......................... 2090. 2191 

BISHOP. CHRIS ............................................ 3586 

BISHOP. SHA" .......................................... 1038 

BISSON. KJ3WEXH .......................................... 3221 

B1"ER. A"Y JR ...................................... 3791 

BE". JOHN ............................................. 1039 

BERNARDI. STEVE .......................................... 1908 

469 
BLACK. JOHN K . JR ........................................ BLACK. BEVERLY S .......................................... 3100 

BLACK. STEPHEN D ......................................... 3361 

m. VERN C ......................................... 291 

BLACXWELL. KARA .......................................... 1784 

BLACXWELL. VARIA ......................................... 1696 

BD. SorpT .......................................... 4162 

BLANO. Fu(fIARD M ........................................ 3301 

719 

BLACK. GER7&D E .......................................... 3739 

BLACK. TRACY ............................................. 1880 

BLACXWELDER. R ........................................... 3211 

BD. DEAN .................................... 1553. 3204 

BLANSET. DERK ............................................ 1925 

BLAUER. STEVE ............................................ 3070 

BLAyIx)(x. JAMES P ........................................ 600 

BLISS. THCMG A .......................................... 131 

BUXH. N.E. .............................................. 4011 

BLKK. S.M. .............................................. 4108 

BLOCM. ABE ............................................... 3490 

BLOCM. ANNIE ............................................. 3713 

BLOCM. SANW ............................................. 4133 

BLLX". MILLIE ........................................ 2027 

BJXCT43STEJ.N. JULIE ...................................... 1640 

BQAlWRIGHl'. DOMLIJ) W ..................................... 3252 

BOBO. DICX ............................................... 1288 

BOCKS. SPENCER w ......................................... 3287 

BOEHM. JOHN. GREGG & BRE" ............................. 4211 

BOEHMER. HCWAFUl W ........................................ 4116 

m. 

BOERGER. MARGARFPE ....................................... 3151 

JOE ............................................. 1229 

BOGGESS. WILLIE .......................................... 1528 

BOH?@". BILL ........................................... 3591 

BOHAN". GI"Y .......................................... 3578 

BOHM. G .................................................. 1459 

BOLLENBACHER. D.&M. ................... 1334. 1337. 1364. 1373 

BOLL-. JANA .......................................... 1441 

BOLT. ROBERT ............................................. 3129 

BOLTON. TOM .............................................. 4415 

KPIBOFDE. BRUCE .......................................... 66 

BONCU!JT. FREDERICA S ..................................... 71 

BOND. JERALD F ........................................... 4204 

BONEY. BETTY L ........................................... 4112 

BONNER. CLIFF ............................................ 475 

BONNER. HELEN ............................................ 1965 

K"Y. CHARLES ........................................... 1722 

KXM. CLARK .............................................. 4189 

BOOSE. RANDY ............................................. 581 

BOOTH. RICHARD W ......................................... 1995 

BOPP. JULIA ANN .......................................... 1285 

BORWLNI. TRACY E ......................................... 10 

BORTNISK. BAw(y .......................................... 1702 

WST. CARL A ........................................ 4227 

BooTI1wER. JEFF ........................................... 2024 

BORNE. GENE .............................................. 601 

470 
-E.. JWN .......................................... 702 

BouJIKvLN. Mwms ......................................... 4364 

BOUSKA. "FD L ......................................... 648 

JXXDEN. DIANE ............................................ 779 

BU&ES. SUE .............................................. 1734 

XWMAN. G.M. ............................................. 3862 

XWMAN. JIM 3029. 3076 

BOYD. BARBAFA ............................................ 2024 

BOYD. LESLIE A ........................................... 2024 

BOYD. MlLLY ............................................... 669 

BOYD. RALPH .............................................. 3593 

BOYER. KAREN & KENT ...................................... 3719 

BOYER. S.H. .............................................. 798 

BOYLE. GARY .............................................. 2111 

mm. BOB ............................................ 3349 

........................................ 

BRADBURY. BAREARA ........................................ 3428 

BRADEN. D.P. ............................................. 2026 

BRADLEY. NEIL A .......................................... 597 

BRADY. ED ................................................ 203 

BRAW. OTIS .............................................. 1025 

BRADY. VICXI & MIKE ...................................... 1826 

BRAINARD. ELLIOT F ....................................... 666 

BRAWER. PEXER J ......................................... 112 

BRAUN. PATRICIA .......................................... 3499 

BRECKELL. J .............................................. 3742 

BREED. MARTHA H .......................................... 946 

BREHM. DAVID ............................................. 463 

BREHMER. EDWIN ........................................... 85 

BREITSTEIN. KEN .......................................... 3126 

BRENMW. KEVIN ........................................... 4178 

BRENNER. GARY L .......................................... 159 

BREWER. TERRY A .......................................... 789 

BRIAN . MIKE .............................................. 4394 

BRIDGES. GEORGE A ........................................ 1662 

BRIEF. HUdARD ............................................ 3858 

BRIELL. WARFEN E ......................................... 2005 

BRIQWU1. DQNNA ........................................... 890 

BRIGHT. ERIC ............................................. 1064 

BRI" FAMILY ..................................... 566. 567 

BRIW. SWLRON ............................................ 2097 

BRIl". DONALD A ........................................ 1847 

BmBEEG. mL ........................................... 1572 

BROCX. STEVE ............................................. 3313 

BFU3DBECK. JACX D . SR ..................................... 928 

BRODBFUIS. BRIAN ......................................... 1993 

BIIODERICX. CXAIG J ....................................... 3563 

BKDRICX. MWK W ......................................... 654 

BRODRICX. SANDRA LEE ..................................... 665 

BFOEN. JON ............................................... 4018 

BRCMLEY. "YA ........................................... 3176 

BRONSON. T.F.P. .......................................... 3646 

BROTHER. BIRD ............................................ 450 

BROUGHER. STEVEN R .................................. 167. 1484 

BROUGWDN. BEVERLY ................................. 1028. 3959 

471 
NAME ID "Ex 

BRcrwER. ROBERT ........................................... 3264 

BRCWN. A . & E .. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALXSTS ................... 1631 

BRCWN. ANNEMARIE ......................................... 3044 

B!3lY S ........................................... 3310 

BRYCE ............................................. 1627 

CHARLES G ......................................... 1542 

CRAIG A ........................................... 3580 

ED ................................................ 2024 

EDSENE ............................................ 471 

FREDDIE ........................................... 1201 

GEORGE ............................................ 3091 

J.A. ......................................... 3045. 6001 

JOHANNA ........................................... 3388 

LEOWIRD H . JR . Ed SHIRLEY .......................... 1842 

LINDA ............................................. 1586 

UlRFITA ........................................... 2024 

MELINDA ........................................... 1640 

SUNSHINE .......................................... 1449 

EARL V ........................................ 31. 350 

. TcM W ............................................. 4446 

BROWN. WILLIAM ........................................... 580 

BROWNING. LINDSAY D ...................................... 3394 

BROWNING. W.H. ........................................... 1511 

BRUBAKER. S.A. ........................................... 4436 

BRUCXER. WILLIAM A ....................................... 3873 

BRUFF. GREGG L ........................................... 470 

BRuNIc;ARDI. STEN0 ........................................ 4255 

BRUINSMA. FUCHARD ........................................ 174 

BRUNKE. FREDRIC .......................................... 1448 

BKUND. MATPHEW ........................................... 3930 

BRYAN. H.L. .............................................. 3064 

BRYAN. KATHY ............................................. 4474 

BRYAN. R.L. JR ........................................... 1531 

BUCK. BY" M ............................................ 3731 

BUCK. STENE .............................................. 4473 

Bu(I(LEy . DAVID ........................................... 1618 

Bum. DAVID L ......................................... 628 

BUCXMN. HOWARD .......................................... 517 

BUCKNAM. LINDA ........................................... 310 

BUE. TIM ................................................. 4480 

BUEHLER. DENNIS .......................................... 2181 

BUHLER. JOHN ............................................. 3157 

BUHLER. KERRY ............................................ 3663 

BWJOID. WYNE ............................................ 663 

BULL. CXARLES E .......................................... 975 

BULPITI'. EDWLRD R ........................................ 1492 

BIMBAWH. ROBERT .................................... 660. 917 

BWXFNER. CHARUrrpE ..................................... 1157 

BUNTIC. ROBERT ........................................... 748 

BUONGIONO FAMILY ................................... 4128. 4129 

BURDm. EMILY .......................................... 1809 

BURDICT. DARREL c ........................................ 2024 

BURGER. DALLAS 0 ......................................... 54 

BUREAU OF LAND MWN%MEW. BISHOP AREA ................... 176 

472 
M\ME ID "BER 

BURQIER. CAMZLLA ......................................... 2042 

BURK. PFPE & JOYCE ....................................... 177 

HJRlCd. A . EERNARR ........................................ 3002 

BURNHAM. JEREMY R ........................................ 1331 

BURNHAM. P.A. ............................................ 3058 

BURNS. ROBERT ............................................ 1157 

BURNS. ROLLAND F . 11 ..................................... 130 

BURNSTFSM. JOHN .......................................... 3178 

BURRELL. DAVID C .................................... 716. 949 

BURRILL. GERALD M .................................. 1297. 4048 

BURFOWE., D.H. .......................................... 4219 

BURSIK. MAR(;us ........................................... 411 

BURTON. J-INE M ..................................... 2024 

BURTON. JOE .............................................. 3964 

BURTON. JOHN ............................................. 2024 

BUSCH. RALPH B . JR ....................................... 4220 

BUSHMAN. DEE ............................................. 515 

BUSm. JACQWS ......................................... 516 

BIJSHMW. RON ............................................. 3450 

BUSSE. LILLIAN A ......................................... 256 

BUMIER. SCOTT ........................................... 102 

BUTLER. R.W. ............................................. 1427 

BIJrLEx. sm ............................................ 3049 

BUZZY. BILL .............................................. 160 

BYm4.mAAK . MELISSA ..................................... 13-30 

BYRON. ROBERT T .......................................... 4332 

CALIFORNIA DEPAR'IMENT OF FISH & GAME. REGION #5 .......... 2190 

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY UXPROL BOARD .......... 1939 

CXR. JE3L"E ............................................ 1136 

CRGLB. BEI" ANN ......................................... 3416 

CRGLB. GALXN ............................................. 3415 

CALDERA. MANAGL .......................................... 769 

c;ALwIIELL. BILL ........................................... 2024 

c"L. Em" ......................................... 3320 

c;ALDwELL. KATHLEEN ....................................... 883 

CALEF. OTIS .............................................. 942 

BURNS. STEVEN RAY ........................................ 3650 

CALDWELL. MARGARFP R ..................................... 1218 

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PMYlIEl'ION ....................... 1269 

CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATIONOF 4WD CLUBS .................. 46. 1807 

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF FORESTRY ......................... 49. 181 

CALIFORNIA CATIZEMEN'S ASSOCIATION ....................... 2193 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTME3U OF FISH & GAME ..................... 17 

CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLWT SOCIETY .................... 1108. 1431 

CALIFORNIA SAVE CUR STREAMS axINcIL ...................... 1015 

CALIFORNIA SWM3BILE RIDERS ASSOCIATION ................. 101 

CALIFORNIA TFCw ......................................... 2183 

CALI" WILDERNESS COALITION .......................... 2160 

CALIFORNIA-NEVADA SNXPDBILE ASSOCIATION ................. 53 

CWER. E" & WRIELA ................................. 6002 

c;AMpBELL. BARBARA ........................................ 908 

CAMPBELL. m c .......................................... 2024 

CAMPBELL. BRUCE K . JR .................................... 1772 

CAMPBELL. DOFXXHY E ...................................... 119 

473 
NAME ID Nu" 

CmPBELL. FRmKTAR.4 H ..................................... 60q3 

CAMPBELL. JOE ...................................... 1157. 1888 

CAMPBELL. KATHLEEN M ..................................... 1998 

CWPBELL. KENNETH F ...................................... 2024 

CAMPBELL. RoBE3ET E ....................................... 3375 

CAMPBELL. sm L ........................................ 3980 

CAMPBELL. STAN ........................................... 1678 

"3ELL. TONY ........................................... 4w3 

CAMPHAUSEN. FRED ......................................... 925 

caM\DA. WAFR ............................................. 4155 

C"D. " ....................................... 2024 

c"uG FAMILY ........................................... 2024 

CApPELLo. PHYLLIS LYNN ................................... 4375 

CAPPS. ALAN .............................................. 539 

CARLSEN. GARY. ANNE & CARA ............................... 3784 

CANNoU. BEN .............................................. 4146 

CAORN. STEFEN R .......................................... 1341 

CXRDINA. THCMAS J ........................................ 3269 

CARL. JOE ................................................ 1888 

CARLSON. BROXE .......................................... 3466 

CARLSON. lrlARvIN .......................................... 3496 

CARLSON. Roy ............................................. 3472 

CARLm. ALAN ............................................ 1348 

CARNEY. BILL ............................................. 221 

CARPADAKS. ANN S ........................................ 1762 

CARRAROD. THERESA ........................................ 6004 

CARREIRO. 

C". 

GEOFFRGY M ..................................... 4317 

C". 

R ............................................ 927 

mDY ........................................ 1494 

c;ARTA. PETE .............................................. 3803 

CARTER. RAyM)ND T ........................................ 2012 

cAR?MELL. ROBERT W ....................................... 985 

CWIWRIGXT. RAY .......................................... 3961 

CASE. DEsM3M) ............................................ 3874 

CASE. STEVE .............................................. 4246 

CASELIUR. BILLIE & SCCYIT ................................. 2024 

CASEY. PETER M ........................................... 4156 

CASPFAR. BERNARD G ........................................ 4243 

CASSADY. MARGENE LEMON ................................... 2024 

CASSIDY. KEVIN ........................................... 5007 

CASSTEEL. SI"A ........................................ 1454 

CASTALW. 3.R. ........................................... 3258 

CASTER. EDWARD 2018 

CASTER. KEN .............................................. 1640 

CATANZARO. GEM?, .......................................... 3816 

CAWCART. CATHY .......................................... 803 

CAW. DARFSLL & MINGY ............................... 460 

CATHERVAN. 3 ............................................. 634 

CATHERMAN. LISA .......................................... 584 

CATLIN. RUTH & CRIS ...................................... 1178 

CATLIN. TIM .............................................. 1563 

CAUDILLO. AlTKXiIO B ...................................... 951 

. CARIEOLL. ELLEN ........................................... 1852 

CARTER. FRED w ........................................... 4059 

........................................... 

474 
MLME InxWBER 

CAULFIELD. JAMES D ....................................... 3981 

c;AuLEIELD. "CY F ....................................... 989 

CAYSF.. BRUCE ............................................. 1152 

m. ED ................................................ 3046 

CHABOT. MNCARET ......................................... 1748 

CHAFFERS. SHIRLEY ........................................ 599 

CHALE. CHRIS ............................................. 695 

CnAUmRs. LINDA .......................................... 3039 

CXANlLER. ANNIE .......................................... 422 

CXANlLER. PAULINE A ...................................... 4216 

CXANlLER. RAY E .......................................... 620 

CXANlLER. S!l" W ....................................... 425 

CHAMXIR. STESBINS B . JR .................................. 4490 

CHANG. CHRISTEL .......................................... 3162 

CHAFPRN. DEBORAH ......................................... 504 

a€4SE. TCM &"E ...................................... 1031 

C-IECD. JAMES W ........................................... 2125 

CHGW. FREELAM) ........................................... 4197 

CHI". JAMES ............................................. 3634 

C-IOLKO. FRANCIS K ........................................ 1280 

CHOMKO. WILLIAM P ........................................ 3435 

C-IORMIm. WES ........................................... 794 

cnA"L. SHELLY c ........................................ 1211 

rn?m". PEREY c ......................................... 799 

CHRISTENSEN. E.G. ........................................ 1234 

CHRISWEN. J.M. ........................................ 1640 

CHRISTENSEN. JACX ........................................ 107 

CHRISTENSEN. SCOT" ....................................... 1556 

CHRISTE". D.L. ........................................ 3068 

CHRISTIANSEN. DAVE ....................................... 1084 

CHRISTIE. HELEN .......................................... 1778 

CHRIS". A.B. .......................................... 1215 

CHRISTDPHERSON. E.J. ..................................... 2024 

-KI. R ........................................... 4053 

W. LAURIE N ............................................ 3304 

CllUlG. PAUL .............................................. 704 

CHURCH. Dcan\LD E ......................................... 1353 

CHURcn. GAIL ............................................. 3311 

CHURCH. JAMES ............................................ 858 

CHURc.3lILL. GORDON ........................................ 3225 

CVLFARDONI. THERESA ...................................... 1463 

UANCY. ANNE P ........................................... 3295 

CLARK. BRIAN ............................................. 1176 

CLARK. GARY R ............................................ 70 

CLARK. GAY" ............................................ 212 

CLARK. JOHN .............................................. 4130 

CLARK. KATHRYN ........................................... 3538 

CLARK. LINDA R ............................................ 4085 

CLARK. MARKD ................................. 965. 1222. 1481 

CLARK. RENEE E ........................................... 1661 

CLARK. SHAIioN R ........................................... 891 

CLARK. SHELLJ3Y SPAULDIX ................................. 1161 

CLARK. STEPHEN ........................................... 1361 

CLARK. TIM ............................................... 846 

475 
NAME ID NUMBER 

CLARK. WARREN ............................................ 3054 

CLARKE. E ................................................ 387 

CLARKE. SUSAN ............................................ 3827 

=US. FLOYD J ........................................... 4241 

aAYTON. JAMES E ......................................... 19 

CLELAND. DESTON & DOROTHY L .............................. 457 

CLELAM). DUKE ............................................ 1184 

(XDE". MARTIN .......................................... 3504 

CLEVENGER. JaA" ......................................... 737 

CZEVENGER. VERN .......................................... 1968 

CLARKE. SI ............................................... 3344 

CLAVIN. DOROTHY P ........................................ 393 

CLELAND. KEN ............................................. 1420 

am. ROBERT ............................................ 31 

am. mw .......................................... 3354 

OAS. sm .............................................. 535 

COATS. DAVID ............................................. 2024 

COATS. J.H. .............................................. 3122 

COBBFIT . GEOF'F ........................................... 705 

COBER. hURENCE .......................................... ax". CLAUDIA ......................................... COCKS. STEVE L Pmx ..................................... COE. PAUL ................................................ COHEN. COLLEEN ........................................... COm. CRAIG ............................................. (XIHEN. MICHAEL A ......................................... COHEN. ROBERT M .......................................... 

COLBERT FAMILY ................... 4400. 4401. 4402 . 4403. 

COLBY. JACK .............................................. COLE. MR . & MRS . ROBERT .................................. COLEMW. BARBARA ......................................... COLES. ALAN .............................................. COLES. THCMAS L .......................................... COLES. TIMOTHY ........................................... COLGRN. BRIAN ............................................ COLLIER. VIRGINIA ........................................ COLLINS PINE COMPANY ............................... 1646. 

COLLINS. DALXA ........................................... COLLINS. JOHN S .......................................... COLLINS. IlosEMARY ........................................ COLTON. SYLVIA ....................................... 23. 

COKER. JOYCE ............................................. 

COLTRIN. BETTIE .......................................... COMASTA. JOSEPH R ........................................ CCMEIEON. JAMES T ......................................... 0. JIM ................................................ a"N. CAROL ........................................... a"N. PAT ............................................. CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR F'UBLIC LANDS ................. 283. 

CONDER. JUSTIN ........................................... ONE. PATRICK ............................................ ". MIKE L ROBIN ...................................... a3NLey. KEN .............................................. CONLEy. MRS . FRAN ........................................ 476 

1165 

1082 

1848 

3124 

2024 

680 

4223 

3745 

1731 

4404 

3223 

1115 

723 

1490 

3007 

3132 

1640 

173 

1647 

3077 

3702 

3700 

1988 

4324 

197 

31 

782 

1681 

204 

1258 

1037 

1743 

31 

836 

1281 
ODNLY. MR . & MRS . EDWIRD ................................. 2016 

03". RICHARD B .......................................... 797 

KATHALINE ...................................... 149 

ONNOLLY. PATRICK ........................................ 209 

CoNsOL. SHMiN ........................................... 205 

OmTIERAS. mTY ......................................... 1888 

030K. GRExxlRy & DELLA .................................... 3768 

OXIK. JEFFREY ............................................ 2162 

OXIK. S" ............................................. 1704 

amm. aRIS ............................................ 4410 

OMMER. w" ......................................... 3903 

OWPER. BARRY ............................................ 3294 

OWPER. CANDICE .......................................... 2024 

OWPER. SaYI" J .......................................... 4142 

OWPER. TCM .............................................. 969 

OOPELAND. JAMES .......................................... 1151 

cORI". Puss .......................................... 1640 

WRLISS. GR!?Y ............................................ 3224 

CORN". CLARK B ......................................... 3659 

OO". IEOD ............................................ 302 

OO-. DON R ............................................ 4454 

CXXSFITE. K .............................................. 2166 

CXXTANZO. CHRISTIE ....................................... 2049 

CXXTELLO. PATRICK ........................................ 1364 

CXXW. GEORGE .......................................... 2168 

a3TEy . HEWN c ........................................... 578 

OTRQNE0,- .................................. OOTRONEO, K ......................................... -.mW . &WISN ......................... (IXIEY . WILLARD & ROSE .............................. .... 866 

.... 864 

.... 783 

742 . 1747 &. DENNIS .......................................... 1971 

c(XILx1N. BILL ............................................ 827 

OOULTER. K.B. ........................................... 3863 

COURTLAND. DIANE ........................................ 1838 

CXUI'RE. PHILIP R ......................................... 3470 

axrrrS. R.D. ............................................. 4413 

OJVENEY. JOHN J . I11 ..................................... 2136 

aW3". RUSS .......................................... 4386 

a". BARRY ............................................. 1430 

a". PAUL M ............................................ 1205 

a". RICHARD S ......................................... 2094 

WX. ALBERT A ............................................ 1873 

OOZAD. CHRIS ............................................. 1473 

CRAIG. MARICBI R .......................................... 1545 

CFWER. RUSSELL M ........................................ 3710 

CFWER. STrmE ............................................ 3276 

CRANE. A" ............................................ 6005 

CRANE. YvONNE ............................................ 3869 

OR. CHUCK ............................................ 970 

CRAVEN. CHRISTOPHER ...................................... 870 

cxuxxEm FAMILY .......................................... 775 

c2RamlT . DAm .......................................... 4350 

cxuxxEm. DAW L ........................................ 4213 

CTEOKER. CAROLYN .......................................... 1909 

477 
CXCSSLEY. JEAN ........................................... 1902 

CaOuM. JAMES ............................................ 187 

CaOuM. Roy .............................................. 510 

ClXBlE. 'IW ............................................... 1591 

mw. HEATHER ........................................ 2140 

a", . KATHLEEN ........................................ 773 

cxuwmx. EVELYN ......................................... 3403 

OuOuRA. EDITH ............................................ 4078 

OuOuRA. JOHN .............................................. 3484 

OuOuRA. PAUL ............................................. 4066 

aDY. PEARL .............................................. 2024 

OUEVAS. JOHN R ........................................... 292 

a". JAMES ............................................ 1630 

(XMBERLAND. MICHELE ...................................... 3201 

CUMUGS. GEDFGE ......................................... 1717 

CUMUGS. JOHN ........................................... 826 

CUNDER. MILTON ........................................... 4258 

-. JOHN ......................................... 801 

aJlUSS0. VIVIEN .......................................... 1888 

(XIRLESS. BILL ............................................ 171 

-E. ROBEF3 L ......................................... 1752 

OURRQN. ROSE ............................................. 4143 

(XIRRY. ~~ R .. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFOIWIA ............... 1279 

CURTIS. ClGGUES .......................................... 1628 

CURTIS. M.J. ............................................. 854 

CURTIS. MAll'HEW E ........................................ 1816 

CURTIS. RHONDA ........................................... 3159 

CURTIS. WIW A .......................................... 2030 

OURhlEN. EL" A .......................................... 3556 

CUSHEN. JERKY & IQRTGIG3 .................................. 4025 

DAGAN. MILDRED ........................................... 3133 

LMUGREN. DICK ........................................... 1418 

DAIRIKI. NED Ei JANICE .................................... 1783 

DALEY. RICHARD ........................................... 3134 

DALLADAS. M .............................................. 3205 

DAMAN. WALTER ............................................ 3813 

D". J.R. ............................................. 1344 

DAliIoouRT. PENNY ......................................... 1137 

DANIELS. MARK ............................................ 3581 

DA". GREGORY J ........................................ 2012 

DAPPFR. TERRY ............................................ 3340 

DARLING. EWA ............................................ 5004 

DASS. THIA ............................................... 1864 

DAmlY. JAMES 0 ....................................... 3008 

DAVIS. JEFF & ANNETPE .................................... 3845 

CRYSTAL. CRAIG F ......................................... 2024 

OuOuRA. CONSTANCE ........................................ 3629 

DANIELS. Russ L .......................................... 1076 

DAVIDSON. D.A. ........................................... 3983 

DAVIDSQN. PATRICK ........................................ 3024 

DAVIS. JIM ............................................... 3127 

DAVIS. JOHN .............................................. 55 

DAVIS. LAUREN ............................................ 278 

DAVIS. MARION ............................................ 3537 

478 
DAVIS. RIQIARD D ......................................... 532 

DAVIS. RC%m P .......................................... 3972 

DAVIS. SUZI c ............................................ 4494 

DAWBm. BRAD ............................................. 4051 

DAVISON. TIM A ........................................... 4047 

DAWBm. LyNDA ............................................ 3592 

DAWDY. KE"ECH ........................................... 87 

DAWS. JIWY .............................................. 3272 

DAwsoN. mS ............................................ 3693 

D?". DAN .............................................. 1640 

DAY. J . MICHAEL .......................................... 622 

DE BONA. "JlUCE JR ...................................... 652 

DE Dm. MAKY .......................................... 134 

DE FABFW. S . MARK ........................................ 1694 

DE GFCCX. SHIRLEY ........................................ 407 

DE JAGER. BILL ........................................... 152 

DE YWW. DAVID .......................................... 1398 

DEANDE. IKBEXT ........................................... 547 

DEARING. WENDY ........................................... 1640 

DEDEAUX. MW.Y LYN ........................................ 938 

DEEP SPRINGS WLLEGE ..................................... 230 

DEEP SPRINGS ODLLEGE. GEOFFREY POPE ...................... 1643 

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE . CALIFDRNVL ....................... 90 

DEGIOWIO. CARREXT ....................................... 3333 

DELANEY. J.S. ............................................ 3277 

DELANEY. JOHN ............................................ 3203 

DELSUN. M ................................................ 1992 

D-. KEN ............................................. 3371 

DEMATPIO. MARGARFP ....................................... 3889 

Dm. MICHAEL H ........................................ 506 

DENMSON. IXEFX3 ......................................... 2024 

DEPARTPENT OF THE NAVY. ENS- ...................... 132 

DERIU-lT. ROBERT ........................................... 1275 

DES BAILLEIS. A.D. ....................................... 1313 

DESERT SURvIvoRs ......................................... 1664 

DESDliD . PAUL ............................................ 2071 

DEs"D. SWXON .......................................... 4411 

DESPARS. RON ............................................. 3378 

DESSAUER. DOIEDTHY ........................................ 183 

DESSUOTP. LINDA N ........................................ 441 

DFPLING. VAL ............................................. 3090 

DEVEREAUX. J ............................................. 4200 

DEML. DAVID E ........................................... 3667 

DEMW. TIM .............................................. 571 

D-. (31EARLEs .......................................... 4384 

DEWEESE. MICHELE ......................................... 1083 

Dm. DONALD ............................................ 3099 

Dm. KRISTI ............................................ 3367 

DWND. BOB & JEAN ...................................... 1744 

DWND. CXRIS ........................................... 1618 

DIAZ. FREDERIX E ........................................ 3631 

DICXERSON. GAKY .......................................... 4462 

DIDION. WILLIAM DAVID .................................... 3365 

DIEX'RICH. JOSETPE M ...................................... 1510 

479 
~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ 

DIEl'Z. GL5" ............................................. 3274 

DILLARD. JOE ............................................. 983 

DILLIhGER. WILLIAY C ..................................... 1010 

DILLON. DIANE M .......................................... 1836 

DIIVMICX. STEVE & CINDY ................................ .. 2024 

DIbSTER. DAGMAR ....................................... DIbDND. ANN M ......................................... DINGER. GLm R ........................................ DISHION. STACI ........................................ DITIMER. HAROLD L ..................................... DIXRi. WRT ........................................... DJ'S SN3MlBILE ADvENntREs ......................... 11 

.. 1026 

.. 3807 .. 3775 .. 1041 

.. 954 

.. 4316 

4. 1105 

M)BBs. DAN V ............................................. 4294 

DOBLER. DON .............................................. 3238 

DODD . BRFIT & LANDFIELD. SUSAN ........................... 986 

DCMAILLE. DENNIS ......................................... 1728 

DOMAILLE. JANE ..................................... 1727. 4479 

DOMWICK. ROBERT .................................... 110. 1421 

DCMOKDS. D . MICWLEL ...................................... 3051 

CON?MJE. MR . & MRS . KEVIN ................................ 2025 

DO-. RITA I .......................................... 1393 

DOMIIXIE. 

m. 

W.F. JR ......................................... 3848 

BEXM ........................................... 1640 

EQN?LLDSCN. 

E". 

A.N. .......................................... 3940 

JAMES ......................................... 4091 

M)I\IALDsoN. NORM .......................................... 4009 

EQNNALD. CHIP ............................................ 3104 

DONNELLY. DAVE ........................................... 1618 

DONNELLY. DEE A .......................................... 3584 

DONNELLY. JEAN ........................................... 1404 

DONNELLY. JOHN ........................................... 3289 

DONNELIY. MICHAEL J ...................................... 4043 

Doom. MICHAEL .......................................... 2024 

DORCETPE. KAT ............................................ 1888 

DORE. PHILLIP ............................................ 1957 

DORFLINGER. D0uC;LAs ...................................... 3605 

M3sCH . Ha" L .......................................... 497 

COSKER. SANDY ............................................ 690 

DOSTIIE. PAUL E ........................................... 509 

DOTY. LINDA .............................................. 1618 

IXXfXlTI. KAT ............................................ 1157 

DcRA;HERTy. CINDY ......................................... 1057 

IXXGLAS. RUTH ............................................ 1781 

DOULE. MATI? .............................................. 3562 

DOVERSPIKE. ROGER ........................................ 3689 

DOWNER. CRAIG C .......................................... 311 

DRAKE. Howw) 0 .......................................... 3900 

DRAKE. STEVE ............................................. 1640 

DRAZAN. DON W ............................................ 3050 

DRBOUSEK. MWY ........................................... 512 

DREISBACH. D . G0RM)N ..................................... 4267 

DRESHER. MELVIN & MAP3HA ................................. 2112 

DRISKEL. R.E. ............................................ 3915 

DOLLICK. SUSAN ..................................... 3840. 3857 

480 
ID "BER 

DRIVER. WILLIAM T ........................................ 2081 

DRLIK. TANYA & MUEHL5X. GEORGE .......................... 1582 

W FRANE. ANN ............................................ 3095 

DUBE. KRISTEN BUHLER ..................................... 3941 

MIBE. PAUL J ............................................. 5028 

DUBE. PHILLIP S .......................................... 3686 

DUENZEN. DAN& ............................................ 4234 

WFF. "CE ........................................... 742 

m. JERRY ............................................. 330 

DLIITS. 03"IE ............................................ 2024 

DULOD. STEVE ............................................. 3241 

D-Y. D(xR;LAs ......................................... 3638 

MINBAR. J.W. ............................................. 4355 

DUMIAM. DAVID D .......................................... 3622 

DUNKAN . DAN .............................................. 1827 

DUNIXIP. K ................................................ 2113 

DUNN. DAVID ......................................... 141. 345 

Du". MINNIE ............................................. 1123 

Du". MR . &MRS . ARTINR .................................. 1127 

DUNNE. DEBBIE REDFERN 

DUPUIS. PHIL ............................................. 3275 

DURAEPT. DIANE M .......................................... 4282 

DURENBERG. MWJOFUE ...................................... 1867 

DUROUX. E ...................................... 799 

DURST. CAROL A ........................................... 3783 

DURYEE. SHIRLEY A ........................................ 2111 

DUYSEN. LARRY R .......................................... 349 

DUZY. E"3X-l ............................................ 1171 

DWYER. LAWRENCE A ........................................ 1027 

E.C. POWELL FLYFISHERS ................................... 281 

EARLS. PAULINE A ......................................... 3750 

EARTH FIRST - EASTERN SIERRA CH7PER ..................... 140 

EAS". ECNALD N ........................................ 615 

FAsm. LISA ............................................ 4075 

EA". DAVID ............................................. 48 

EA". DR . AND MRS . JOHNH ............................... 921 

EAVES. DOROTHY ........................................... 1895 

EAVES. ELIZAEEZH T ....................................... 2053 

EI3"P. JERRY .......................................... 4077 

EBERSOLE. LEWIS GENE ..................................... 466 

EBNER. QiEalRY P ......................................... 2019 

Ec-GExmIER. BCITY ....................................... 388 

MI(ERT. GREG ............................................. 818 

MI(ERT. WERT ........................................... 36 

EalLosy CE"ER OF SCUIWZN CAGI?3lRNIA ................ 39. 61 

EDDY. lXlRIS ........................................ 3408. 3414 

EDELSON. DAVID B ......................................... 1649 

EDELWEISS SKI am ........................... 1241. 1242. 1243 

EDI". JOHN ........................................... 4287 

EDWARD. CARROLL E ........................................ 656 

EWARDS. E.L. ............................................ 525 

EDWARDS. FRANCINE ........................................ 3528 

.................................... 3923 . 

EDWWIS. LINDA LEA ....................................... 453 

EWARDS. FxxER N ......................................... 3019 

481 
EGAN. RALPH A ............................................ 1640 

EGGESI. ERIC .............................................. 3097 ”. FRED .............................................. 3359 

EGGESI. HELEN ............................................. 3358 

Ex;LE. DANIEL A ........................................... 682 

EI-. PAUL ......................................... 1157 

EKSl”. TODD ............................................ 182 

ELANDER. ELEANOR .................................... 111. 1407 

ELCCBVIN. KEtW3W ......................................... 3167 

ELDER. CATHERINE M ....................................... 271 

ELFSTEN .................................................. 4244 

ELKIN. IfilQI W ............................................ 3725 

ELLERBY. JERKY ........................................... 20 

ELLIOTP. AUDREY .......................................... 210 

ELLIarr. D ............................................... 1536 

ELLIOTP. GAKY w .......................................... 3868 

ELLIOIT. GRADY s ......................................... 540 

ELLIOIT. GREGORY B ....................................... 4055 

ELLIOTP. c;REGoRy LEE ..................................... 677 

ELLI(YIT. PAT ............................................. 1055 

ELLIS. DEBBIE ............................................ 1061 

ELLIS. JEFFREY P ......................................... 2131 

ELLIS. LEON .............................................. 3434 

ELLIS. PATRICIA .......................................... 3716 

ELNES. TCM ............................................... 4042 

ELOWE . ALLEN H ........................................... 236 

my. SHANNON ............................................. 1640 

ENGEL. JUNE .............................................. 3674 

ENGEL. PFPER ............................................. 3115 

ENGEL. STEVE ............................................. 3485 

-ISH. JACXIE .......................................... 1972 

ENGSTROM. TED ............................................ 1356 

ENTIN. DAVID ............................................. 5027 

ER4.T.C. JAUXELINE ........................................ 4237 

EPPING. GAKY ............................................. 538 

ERI-. BOB ............................................ 1457 

ERI(xscar. ROBIN L ........................................ 1496 

ERLICH. ROBERT ........................................... 128 

ERNIE‘S TACKLE SHOP. MIKE &E . UXUE ..................... 327 

ERNSIMEYER. DON .......................................... 3081 

ERSBAK. CLAUS ............................................ 3327 

EEWAY. DUANE ............................................. 3948 

ESMERALDA (XUWlY BQARD OF CXXWISSIONERS .................. 486 

ESPINOSA. JOANNE ......................................... 1712 

ESKSITO. raivwm ......................................... 3474 

EVANS. CARL .............................................. 4103 

EVANS. CHARLES R ......................................... 1325 

EVANS. JAMES K ........................................... 3729 

EVANS. LINDA ............................................. 1198 

EVANS. MELANIE ........................................... 1318 

EVANS. PATRICIA .......................................... 1350 

EVANS. R.L. .............................................. 3014 

EVANS. RUSSELL L ......................................... 346 

EVAUSEN. WEN R ......................................... 616 

482 
MLME ID "ER 

". MARTIN .......................................... FEDERATION OF FLY FISHERS ................................ FEDOR. GARY .............................................. FEDOR. JE?NIE ............................................ FEGER. JIWIE ............................................. FELANDO. A" ........................................... FELDIMAN. ROBERT ......................................... FEL". E" ........................................... FEL". HAROLD .......................................... FELDT. CARL ........................................ 1157. 

FELIX. GEORGE M .......................................... FELKER. DAVID ............................................ FELLA. HENRY ............................................. FELLOWS. WAYNE B ......................................... FEMXIN. GERALD A ......................................... FE". .......................................... FERGISON. ADELE .......................................... FERGUSON. HAROLD ......................................... FE". me Ea anus ................................... FE". MAW ........................................... FE". RUSSELL ........................................ FE". THcMAs&BEATRuI ............................... FERN CREEK LODGE ......................................... FERRIS. PATRICX A ........................................ FERRY. LYLE L ............................................ FERTIG. RALPH R .......................................... Fc". B ............................................ Fc". GAIL R ....................................... FFITERS. HAROLD M ........................................ FETZER. GEORGE H . & DEFORA K ................. 1884. 3309. 

FEY. R . WALTER ........................................... FIEBIGER. DIFPER ......................................... FIEBIGER. ........................................ FILAK. CARRIE ............................................ FILLER. DORIS ............................................ FINDLING. MELANIE ........................................ FINE. JERRY .............................................. FINN. JOHN M ............................................. FINN. MI- ............................................ FIORE. MICHAEL T ......................................... FISC€IER. NDA I .......................................... FIS-. JOHN ............................................ FISHER. BRENDA ........................................... FISHER. CATHY ............................................ 

~~ ~ 

EMEN. WELLI" A ....................................... 3285 

FAERE. STEPHEN ........................................... 1815 

FAGER. RICHARD ........................................... 3510 

FAHY. WES ................................................ 3898 

FAFNER. LOREN ............................................ 1240 

FAR"1. JUDY ........................................... 4147 

FAR"1. THCMAS ......................................... 4319 

FARRELL. MARY ............................................ 3103 

FARRIS. DANIEL ........................................... 1767 

F-. ELLIS J .......................................... 1495 

I 324 

I 1776 

I 2171 

1919 

1520 

3795 

1996 

3078 

4293 

1888 

280 

5009 

721 

1669 

1094 

1189 

409 

1530 

1534 

1518 

2074 

1581 

1209 

1434 

623 

115 

3461 

1986 

2142 

3407 

64 

4098 

4100 

743 

4082 

269 

1179 

3514 

3573 

3798 

4376 

736 

1233 

3085 

483 
FISHER. DAN .............................................. 3231 

FISHER. PAW1 ............................................ 3074 

FITPS. W.A. ........................................ 1157. 1888 

FITZPATRICK. MARK ........................................ 727 

FIXERTY. JIM ............................................ 514 

FIXERTY. MADELYN ........................................ 1351 

FLzWI" ClWRms .......................................... 22 

FLAVIN. PATRICK .......................................... 21 

FLEMING. DONNA ........................................... 3012 

FIl"G. OTIS ........................................... 1640 

FLEWELLING. KIP .......................................... 2154 

FI". WILLIAM L ........................................ 75 

FLW. GARY; MAYOR OF M?" LAKES ................. 922. 1891 

FLINT. DAVID J ........................................... 4250 

FLIPPEN. LYNDA ........................................... 2024 

FTDYD. JASON ............................................. 698 

Fo(xIs ON THE FAMILY. MIKE YORKEY ......................... 1187 

FOGEL. MARSHALL B ........................................ 4305 

FOGEL. RICHARD ........................................... 1369 

FOGEL. MARIEITA .......................................... 4278 

FtXER. CATHLEEN .......................................... 3808 

FOGLESONG. WLYNE C ....................................... 4266 

FDLJiY. TlMOTHY C ......................................... 1819 

mm. GARY ........................................... 3453 

FWITKSE AND WINTERSPORT ................................ 1017 

FORBES. BOB .............................................. 1760 

FORBES. GEDRGE T ......................................... 568 

FOIWllN. MARSHALL L ...................................... 2092 

FORES. RICHARD B ......................................... 1013 

FORNE. JOHN .............................................. 335 

FORNEY. RANDY ............................................ 4334 

FDRSGAARD. KARL .......................................... 1554 

FOSTER. BRADLEY S ........................................ 816 

FOSTER. GORDON T ......................................... 1236 

FOSTER. ROBERT J ......................................... 1745 

FOWLER. GEORGE S ......................................... 552 

FOWLER. SEAN ............................................. 3318 

FOX. ARCHIE & BARBARA .................................... 2024 

Fox. JIM ................................................. 4306 

FOX. LINDA .......................................... 653. 659 

FRANCIS. BURKE ........................................... 3927 

FRANCIS. MARC ............................................ 2045 

-IN. THwwRE ....................................... 1707 

WER. CHARLES H ........................................ 1670 

FFtEDENDALL. DORIS H ...................................... 358 

FREDERICK. J.D. .......................................... 4366 

FREDERICK. R ............................................. 3722 

FREEBURN. JOYCE K ........................................ 1317 

F". CHERT. ........................................... 1640 

F". RANDALL ......................................... 3400 

FREESTED. W.C. ........................................... 3936 

FRE1LIa-I. LARRY ............................... 341. 2185. 2203 

FRENCH. BERT ............................................. 3681 

FRENx. RIm .......................................... 1640 

484 
NAME m"ER 

FREuDENIwIL. SHERRY ...................................... 3200 

FRIFDRIClS. EWARD C ..................................... 3665 

EXEL. HENRY J ........................................... 14 

FRIENDS OF THE INYO ...................................... 2170 

FlUI+EL. FRANKG ......................................... 3323 

FRZEIMEL. MARIA E ......................................... 3296 

FRw(I(E. ANNE ............................................ 3886 

FRI". RICHARD ......................................... 2145 

FRITZ. ROBERT J . JR ...................................... 3824 

FR0"E. MICHELE ........................................ 1640 

FROST. R(x;ER D ........................................... 3321 

FRUIW. VIRGINIA A ....................................... 4199 

FRY. TIKNAS K ............................................ 383 

FRy1(ELL. DOMLLD C ........................................ 1276 

FUEXLING. TKMkS N ....................................... 4106 

NJISAKI. MISAKO ......................................... 3749 

FuLJ<E". DAN ........................................... 217 

FULLER. JOHN A . & YvONNE ................................. 1114 

FULTON. MARK ............................................. 3030 

FUNPSCH. JOHN A .......................................... 3618 

FYKE. JAMES .............................................. 3164 

GAABO. ALAN .............................................. 4139 

-RIEL. ALFRED0 ......................................... 3854 

WDY. DENNIS W .......................................... 2024 

GWFNEY. BRIAN ....................................... 44. 266 

GAGE. MII<E ............................................... 1599 

GUNEX. WELDON ........................................... 772 

GAINES. DAm ............................................ 1548 

GALAZ. ROBERT L .......................................... 3960 

GAm. STEVE ....................................... 1640. 4382 

GALAZ. VALERIE ........................................... 4233 

GALBmTH. CHRISTINE ..................................... 4432 

GAMBINA. RALF'H J ......................................... 3604 

GAMBLE 

m. 

................................................... 1640 

H.W. ............................................ 3173 

GANMJG. BARBARA L ........................................ 4312 

GANMJG. R.A. ............................................. 3717 

GANZ. EDWARD ............................................. 3236 

-1. JOHN .......................................... 1978 

GWCIA. CANDY ............................................ 4331 

GWCIA. GILBERT .................................... 3933. 3978 

GQRDm. ANN MARI ........................................ 4115 

GQRDNER. BERT ............................................ 4356 

GARDNER. DAVE ............................................ 4405 

GARFIELD. HAROLD T ....................................... 4288 

GARNER. mEm ........................................... 1549 

CAR". DKX ............................................ 3817 

GARRFIT. JIM ............................................. 3850 

GARRI-. GARKY F ........................................ 3550 

GARRICXIE. I"" L ....................................... 3597 

GARRISON. STUART H ....................................... 4299 

GASE. GARY M ............................................. 1936 

GASTELUM. JOE M .......................................... 4440 

GASTON. LYLE K ........................................... 2157 

485 
MLME IDNU" 

GAvIzw. MARIAN & MELVIN ............................ 960. 1366 

GEBHARDT. 

m. 

DAVID G ........................................ 3479 

JAY ............................................ 3757 

mom. LYDIA ........................................... 893 

GEDDY. ELAINE ............................................ 2024 

GEDVILLAS. TED ........................................... 1733 

QmRDEs. ELAINE .......................................... 3312 

GENERAL TELEPHONE arvlpANy OF UUIFORNIA .................. 1287 

G"I. CATHY ........................................... 4 

-. ml" ......................................... 3328 

GEWNWdCH. KEN .......................................... 3218 

m. 

m. 

BOB ................................................ 438 

MEL ........................................... 206 

GEITY. LElmmI ........................................... 1001 

GEITY. mFEC c .......................................... 3555 

QKGLIERI. DENNIS ........................................ 2091 

GIs, GERALD ........................................... 1640 

GIILBARD. LAURA N ......................................... 3495 

GILBARD. STEVEN I ........................................ 3493 

GILBFEC. ARTHUR C ........................................ 340 

GILBRAITH. JACX J ........................................ 4313 

GILC-IRIST. BETPY ......................................... 2195 

GILG-EUST. Gw R ......................................... 619 

GILL. HELEN .............................................. 3974 

GILL. JAMFS M ............................................ 31 

GILL. JIM ................................................ 915 

GILL. JUNE M ............................................. 494 

GIW. CHRIS ............................................ 963 

GILLEN. AMY .............................................. 1477 

GILLILAND. ROBERT J ...................................... 3860 

GIWRE. PETER ........................................... 1618 

GILROY. GRFG ............................................. 1640 

GIRa. IioBERT M .......................................... 3016 

GITLEN. HOWARD ........................................... 3770 

GI". A.P. .......................................... 326. 4119 

GIULIANI. DERWIM ............................... 431. 910. 971 

GIha(EL. L.F. ............................................. 4272 

GLADDIE. C.W. ........................................... 3487 

GLADISH. DEBBIE .......................................... 2024 

GLADSTONE. D ............................................. 3248 

GLASS. BURTON S .......................................... 3619 

GzAzov. JORDAN ........................................... 740 

GLEICHER. ALAN ........................................... 3256 

-E. RoM\LD L ......................................... 685 

GLOWR. E . ANNE .......................................... 4398 

GYN. BILL ............................................... 1640 

GOBERMAN. ISIDORE ........................................ 3244 

GCDDARD. MRS ............................................. 373 

GODDY. DENNIS SR ......................................... 2024 

GOD-. MICHELE ......................................... 888 

GOE". MARTI ........................................... 1157 

GOEX'HALS. LESLIE A ....................................... 961 

GOE!TZ. LARRY ............................................. 2159 

GL". RAY ............................................... 3549 

486 
GO". ........................................... 991 

GO". GREG ............................................ 585 

GOITLANDIA. RAY .......................................... 1721 

m. JANICE L ........................................... 3302 

GOLDBERG. DAW ........................................... 191 

GOLDBERG. JAN ............................................ 1464 

GOLDBEKG. PAUL ........................................... 701 

GOLDEN. CHERYLINN ........................................ 3712 

GO". sm ............................................ 4481 

GOW. RCN ............................................. 246 

GOLDNTH. r.mRTm ........................................ 937 

GCMER. BOB & WINNIE ...................................... 1146 

GCMEZ. ART ............................................... 1640 

GCMEZ. GARY .............................................. 1640 

GCMEZ. PABIX) D ........................................... 4361 

GONSFIT. JUDITH .......................................... 3207 

GQNSFIT. R.& G ..................................... 3160. 3615 

am. Jc%1N ............................................... 749 

GOOD. MWALEX3 K ......................................... 1247 

m. RICHARD L .......................................... 554 

GOOD-. DON & JOE ....................................... 926 

GOODALL. C-IFUSTINE ....................................... 2151 

GOODELL. D ............................................... 802 

CXX3Y.W. LAWRENCE ........................................ 4070 

KEEtCWI. Wd?.'lY ........................................... 31 

GOODWIN. MARY KAY ........................................ 4269 

GOOLH. PAT ............................................... 202 

GOPXBJ. KIM .............................................. 1640 

GORBFP. JAMIE ............................................ 2 

GOFCON. DOUG ............................................. 5029 

GOFCON. MARK ............................................. 1640 

GORE. am ............................................. 3998 

GOM. MIC-LT+EZ J ........................................ 1237 

GOM. TED .............................................. 4191 

GORSKI. r" ......................................... 1099 

GOSSARD. FOSTER E ........................................ 3506 

GOTIZIEB. JOYm .......................................... 3761 

GOULD. RICHARD ........................................... 3121 

GOULLER. SEAN ............................................ 1640 

GRABER. EL1WEX-I Q20DRICH ............................... 2138 

GRAE!?. URSULA ............................................ 579 

GRAHAM. MICRhEL .......................................... 1626 

GRAMCXO. BONNIE & JFNS R . SR ............................ 909 

GFANF. SHERI .............................................. 3968 

GRAUSS. PHILLIP E ........................................ 3709 

GRAVES. D.H. ....................................... 3018. 3027 

GRAVES. GLENN w .......................................... 3793 

GRAVES. LEROY J .......................................... 1886 

GRAY JANICE .............................................. 500 

GRAY. ms .............................................. 759 

GRAY. DAVID S ............................................ 65 

GRAY. DAVID S ............................................ 15 

GRAY. DUANE W ............................................ 4242 

GRAY. Howw) ............................................. 2146 

487 
GRAY. JOSEPH C ........................................... 643 

GRAY. LINDA .............................................. 1381 

GRAY. F ......................................... 1924 

GREALEAF. B.B. ........................................... 2024 

GREEN. -RIA ............................................ 251 

GREEN. HELEN A ........................................... 1841 

GREEN. HILTON A .......................................... 3720 

GREEN. JOSEPH A .......................................... 3544 

GREENBERG. ALVIN ......................................... 1514 

GREENBERG. STANLEY ....................................... 4062 

GRE3GEW. ANNA .......................................... 2061 

QIEENLEAF. JAMES 0 ....................................... 632 

GREENSWER. SARA ....................................... 16 

GREG3. PATRICIA A ........................................ GREG3. BRUCE R ........................................... Q1EGoRy. c;ARL D .......................................... 

GRENOBLE. DALE E ......................................... GRIBBm. PKG%Wl' J ...................................... 

GRIFFIN. BURTON .......................................... GRIFFIN. DENNIS .......................................... 

GREILICH. SUSAN .......................................... 

GRIFFIN. ARTHUR .......................................... 

GRIFFW. m ............................................ GRIFFITH. LEE v .......................................... 

GREW+. ALEX .............................................. GRIMES. sm ............................................ GRIM$ ROBERT ............................................ -LEY. JERRY D ........................................ GRmsLEY. ElARy L ......................................... GRIND" SKI CLUB. GLEN FRYELL ........................ GRISEL. TONY ............................................. mw. DAm P ....................................... GROSS. ELI" ......................................... GROSS. L ................................................. GROSS . ROBERT ............................................ GROSSVAN. FRANKLIN B ..................................... GuALm . BARRY .......................................... (UERNSEY. LYNDA J ........................................ GUERNSEY. TIMOPHY ........................................ CXTERRE. PATRICK J ........................................ GVESEL. ml7AINE .......................................... GUFFEY. R0M;ER w ......................................... GVIDRY. PRISCILLA L ...................................... GUIDRY. RAYMOND J ........................................ UJIDRY. m .............................................. GUIKN. LEONARD A ........................................ GULLIKSEN. JAN ........................................... (XAVM. T- ............................................ GUNTER. NICK P ........................................... Gus". SUSAN I ......................................... UJTIERREZ. RIm .......................................... 

GRIFFO. LINDA B .......................................... GRIJALVA. ELLEN wo3D ................................. 95. 

QJSTLIN. P&ULT.JP R .................................. 984. 

488 

529 

528 

58 

2077 

3746 

4368 

3520 

4295 

3143 

317 

313 

5032 

398 

1946 

4468 

4308 

1394 

1203 

6006 

2024 

6007 

4074 

488 

4020 

445 

1640 

1157 

1157 

544 

2024 

3060 

3908 

3630 

3397 

3963 

804 

819 

1204 

3286 

1551 

862 
MLME m NLMBER 

GVPIERREZ. RIm ......................................... 4090 

Gw. BARBARA ............................................. 1157 

GUZWN. BERNIE ........................................... 1221 

GWI". JE"Y ............................................. 4380 

GWI". MWG?WX' H ........................................ 1523 

HAASE. W .................................................. 3125 

HABURA. DREW ............................................. 694 

HADDEN. DAVID RoDNE31 ..................................... 416 

WLDENFELIYP. DENNIS ....................................... 1938 

HAD=. HENRY L .......................................... 3627 

HAGE. DAW A ............................................. 2024 

HALEY. JACK W ............................................ 3346 

HALL. CAROLYN ............................................ 1149 

HALL. I(ERRy .............................................. 689 

HALLAM). MR . & MRS . KENNFPH 1335. 3587 

HAIm. S.W. ............................................. 3088 

........................ HALLEE. MARK ............................................. 483 

HALVE". mRRAINE ...................................... 1022 

IiTWDEN. DAVID. MARILYN & ROBERT .......................... 1256 

HAMELTON. K.L. ........................................... 2024 

HAMILL. PATRICK S ........................................ 4249 

HAMILTON. O.T. JR ........................................ 1769 

HAMILTON. PHIL ........................................... 4016 

HAMILTON. STEVE .......................................... 3727 

HAMILTON. TONY ........................................... 3199 

HMILm. VI" ....................................... 2209 

HAMup\N. J.G. ............................................. 2024 

HAIW3ID . GFBALD E ........................................ 3498 

HAIW3ID . Fuc ............................................. 1403 

HAIW3ID 

m. . TM ........................................... 347 ARTHUR .......................................... 4006 

HT". BRUCE ........................................... 423 

HAWUIER. FRANKLIN A ...................................... 4138 

HANcw<. JIMW ........................................... 1049 

HAND. LINDA M ............................................ 2024 

HANDS. KATHY ............................................. 6008 

HANEY. TCM ............................................... 3249 

HAWORD. LYNNE ........................................... 3625 

HANFP. STEVEN M .......................................... 3026 

HANKWS. W"4 ........................................... 1086 

HANKS . FRED .............................................. 3906 

HA". LARRY .............................................. 4343 

HANNA. JOSEPH W .......................................... 3237 

HANNAH. JAMES & JENNY 1888 

HANNAH. JOE ........................................ 1157. 1888 

HANNAH. JUDIE ...................................... 1157. 1888 

HANNAH. SHERMW A ........................................ 31 

HANNAN. CWUUWTE M ...................................... 1624 

HANNAN. JOHN C ........................................... 1569 

HANSEN. WN .............................................. 3263 

HANSEN. J.W. JR .......................................... 3864 

HANSEN. KATHLEEN A ....................................... 1314 

HANSEN. MCY ...................................... 2116. 4127 

.................................... 

HANSEN. S" .......................................... 3838 

489 
MLME ID"ER 

HA". H.E. ............................................. 1918 

HA". LLOYD B .................................... 2056. 3669 

HA". SOJIT J .......................................... 994 

HA". T.A. ............................................. 4036 

HAF". cw" ...................................... 933 

HARKURT. F.L. ........................................... 851 

HARDEBw<. JEAN .......................................... 1085 

HAIIDER. THCWS J ......................................... 2038 

HARDIN FAMILY .......................... 1399. 1408. 1757. 1758 

HARDY. DAVID ............................................. 2000 

HMDY. JEAN .............................................. 213 

HARDY. MICHAEL A ......................................... 2133 

HARFMAN. JOHN C .......................................... 31 

HARQIEN. CONNIE .......................................... 6009 

HARLAN. BETPY ............................................ 785 

HARLAN. JAMES G .......................................... 1210 

HFiF". JAMES L . & SHARCN B .............................. 974 

HAREI)N. 

m. 

RCB) .............................................. 3612 

LISA .............................................. 1087 

HARPELL. am ........................................... 3735 

HARPER. JOHN D ........................................... 1711 

WBlUWIW. BRUCE ........................................ 3769 

-. JAMES G ...................................... 1164 

HARRIS. BEATRICE ......................................... 1888 

HARRIS. BRUCE ............................................ 3230 

HARRIS. DAVID L .......................................... 1096 

HARRIS. ERIC JON ......................................... 4040 

HARRIS. HELEN N .......................................... 4000 

HARRIS. J.A. ............................................. 2123 

HARRIS. JOE .............................................. 3153 

HARRIS. FLBERT D ......................................... 828 

HARRIS. SAFfA ............................................. 60 

HARRISON. GARY ........................................... 738 

HARRISON. RAYMA .......................................... 1537 

HARRISON. ROBERT ......................................... 3922 

HARKYMAN. R .............................................. 3467 

HART. JOYCE .............................................. 1698 

HARW. DENNIS .......................................... 3112 

HARW. FRANCES ......................................... 1157 

HARWW. G.V. ............................................ 587 

HARTWAN. JANE ............................................ 886 

HARTPX. Roy .............................................. 3764 

HARw. PAMELA .......................................... 2109 

HARVEY. JOHANNA .......................................... 1941 

HARVEY. PFPER ............................................ 3451 

HARVEY. WILLIAM .......................................... 1958 

HARWXD. WENDY ........................................... 651 

HASSLER. SUE ............................................. 4259 

HASTER. Ivp)NpE ............................................ 365 

HAWKINS. COLE ............................................ 108 

HAWKWS. D?UE W ..................................... 228. 990 

HAWKINS. HCWAFUJ V ........................................ 33 

HAWL5Y. BRIAN N .......................................... 1740 

HAYDEN. DENISE M ......................................... 3545 

490 
HAYDEN. GREGOKY .......................................... 4107 

"EN. MmILYN .......................................... 2120 

HAYE. STAN ............................................... 1911 

HAYES. BILL .............................................. 1357 

HAYES. JDHN B ............................................ 1687 

HAZEL. RCN ............................................... 1814 

HEARD. ............................................ 1680 

HEARST. MICHAEL C ........................................ 3929 

HMI(MAN. DOMILD .......................................... 3193 

HEDRICK. WILLIAM ......................................... 4443 

HEFFERLY. GERALD E ....................................... 3787 

HEFpER. GERALD 2066 

HEFlER. LOUISE ........................................... 2066 

HEID. MW.Y KAY ........................................... 3762 

HEID. THX%S L ........................................... 1392 

HEIDENWAG. BFUCI ......................................... 4060 

HEIMLER. JAMES ........................................... 26 

........................................... 

HEIDEMAN. c ....................................... 4438 

HEIN. MARTIN ............................................. 593 

HEINRICn. PFPER .......................................... 4489 

HELLER. CLARENCE ......................................... 1927 

HEXN. FRANK M . JR ........................................ 1897 

HEMIERSON. DR . & MRS . ROBERT ............................. 3664 

HEMIFW. ALEXANDER D ...................................... 3730 

HENERY. BILL ............................................. 1338 

HENKES. HohTARD J . Ei WRIE ........................ 156. 1004 

HE". LIN ................................................ 4416 

HE". RANDY .............................................. 3424 

HENRY. iw"E ........................................... 1640 

HENRY. BILL ......................................... 143. 4482 

HENRY. CONSTANCE ......................................... 4027 

HENRY. JA&UELINE ........................................ 3588 

HENRY. K ................................................. 247 

HENRY. MARY ANN .......................................... 381 

HENRY. MICHAEL & CINDY ................................... 3594 

HENRY. ROWLLD A .......................................... 382 

HERBOLD. A ............................................... 4437 

I-IFPB9I.D. VIFGINIA M ...................................... 4341 

HERBST. DAVID B., PH.D ................................... 1271 

HERCICP. JUDY A ........................................... 3946 

HERE". PAUL .......................................... 3123 

HERLIHY. WARREN & ZOE .................................... 1034 

HERI@N. lWNALJ3 ........................................... 3786 

HERNANDEZ. RONALD S ...................................... 691 

HEROLD. BETPY ............................................ 3455 

HERRING. PSBFBTA ......................................... 612 

HERFON. RVPH ............................................. 3830 

HERSEE. LEIGH ............................................ 4052 

HERSON. PAT .............................................. 3374 

HERTZ. LISA .............................................. 2024 

HERTZCG. STEPHEN ......................................... 4095 

HERZOG. MICWIEL J ........................................ 3707 

HFSLEP. C-IRISTY L ........................................ 1056 

HFSS. BRIAN .............................................. 859 

491 
NAME ID " 

~~~~~~ ~~ 

HESS. JOHN ............................................... 1467 

HEWITT. RICH ............................................. 1029 

HEYLEK. GERALD E ......................................... 4365 

HICWE. LIANNE ........................................... 88 

HICXMAN. ISABFLL K ....................................... 2% 

HICKEY. ED ............................................... 1959 

HIEATT. CHRIS ............................................ 3141 

HIEATp. KIM .............................................. 3142 

HIGERTY. MICHAEL B ....................................... 1926 

HIGGE". WILLIAM DANIEL ............................. 1157 

HIGGI". PAUL DEAN .................................. 1157 

HIGH SIERRA SPORTS INalRpoRATED .......................... 931 

HIGH SIERRA STMXUSERS ASSOCIATION ...................... 1666 

HIGH. RON ................................................ 1640 

HIGHT. JOHN .............................................. 4122 

HIW. TED ............................................... 1058 

HILBY. GERALD M .......................................... 3647 

HILES. RON H ............................................. 1920 

HILL. B .................................................. 412 

HILL. BARBARA ....................................... 208. 3502 

HILL. C . DICKSON ......................................... 1162 

HILL. DAVE ............................................... 876 

HILL. MR . & MRS . DONALD C ................................ 1527 

HILL. E" ............................................. 3533 

HIGH DESERT SNOW DRIFTERS INcoRpoRATED ................... 99 

HILL. J.& E ............................................. 3229 

HILL. MARTIN ............................................. 1196 

HILL. WAIT ............................................... 332 

HILL,.JOHN V ............................................. 3471 

HIIMAN. ROBERT ........................................... 1969 

HILTON. PATRICIA ......................................... 739 . HING&IFFE. STEPHEN F .................................... 3481 

HINDS. DAVE .............................................. 1138 

KINE. GORDON ............................................. 972 

HINSON FAMILY ........................... 394. 1478. 1479. 1480 

HINZE. JULIA L ........................................... 897 

KINZE. LOWELL A ..................................... 153. 853 

HIRSHFELD. LM) ........................................... 3083 

HIRSHSON. MARY E ......................................... 3519 

HOBAUQ. CAROL ........................................... 442 

HOBBS. LEONARD ........................................... 4028 

HOESON. RICHARD N ........................................ 4252 

HCCHSTAFL. SHA" ....................................... 1081 

HOCKZNG. mRIA .......................................... 2024 

HODGES. JUNITA ........................................... 1888 

HOEFNER. GERALD A ........................................ 4442 

HOFFMAN. HAROLD .......................................... 444 

HOFFMAN. JEFF ............................................ 331 

HOFFNER. JOHN ............................................ 1868 

HOFFNER. VIXINIA ........................................ 377 

HOE". WAIJLY & SAND1 ................................... 3539 

HOGG. "AN D ........................................... 2167 

H0-Y. KEVIN .......................................... 1177 

HOLLAND. HCWARD .......................................... 1199 

/ 

492 
NAME ID "3ER 

HOLUND. PATRICIA J ...................................... 1578 

HOLLON. GAFS ............................................. 711 

HOLIAXAY. JOHN ........................................... 2024 

HOmY. ROBBIE ......................................... 2024 

HOIMES. VICKI M .......................................... 3814 

HOLSHUH. H.J. ............................................ 19&4 

HOLST. AMY ............................................... 1476 

HOLTAN. PATRICIA ......................................... 84 

HOLUND. WILLIAM A ....................................... 343 

HOLSTROM. J.A. ........................................... 3534 

HOL". DAN .............................................. 507 

HOL". HOLLY ............................................ 635 

HOLTZ. WILLIAM R ......................................... 1315 

HOOD. ED ................................................. 2184 

Ho3K. DAVID D ............................................ 198 

Ho3K. HOYT & BEITY ....................................... 323 

HOOPER. JOHN W ........................................... 729 

HOOVER. VICKY ............................................ 1320 

HOOVER. VICPORIA N ....................................... 2035 

HOPEWELL. RUSTY & CIfiffK .................................. 901 

HOPKINS. MR . & MRS . ROBERT ............................... 2010 

HOPPER. L.J. ............................................. 1507 

IKIRTSINA. TODD ........................................... 1810 

HOUGLAND. XGER .......................................... 3052 

H(xFps. MAKY VIXINIA ............................... 3015. 4218 

How\RD. CUSYDE P ......................................... 1850 

HCNARD. WXI .............................................. 1962 

HCNARD. WILLIAM .......................................... 3765 

HUGE. GENE ............................................... 3741 

HOYLE. MARGARET .......................................... 3733 

HOW. JOSEPH & TEWYN ................................... 2024 

HRONEK. PAUL ............................................. 573 

Efl)BBARD. JQANNE .......................................... 2111 

HOOK. JEANNE L ........................................... 474 

HOOVER. VIRGINIA ......................................... 4463 

HORN. WILLARD ............................................ 1020 

HOSTEITER. VIVA .......................................... 1640 

H". MIcw\EL .......................................... 1640 

HUBEARD. SOYIT ........................................... 1889 

HUEBS. DEL ............................................... 1193 

HUBE. MELBA F ............................................ 2147 

IIUCHEL. JOANNE ........................................... 4123 

HUDSON. ARLENE ........................................... 1451 

HUDSON. FLOYD & CBNNIE ................................... 1132 

HUDSON. KEWEE-3 J ........................................ 5008 

HUDSON. EEOBERT C ......................................... 3113 

INEBSCHER. FRED .......................................... 1813 

HUFEMAN. D.F. ............................................ 4247 

HLGHES. EDWARD F ......................................... 2032 

HUGHES. ELDm ............................................ 1802 

HuIsKJm. KIM ............................................. 5005 

HWFEL. RON E ............................................ 3999 

HUWHREY. GREtXKY E ...................................... 560 

HUWHREY. Jc%IN E . &EVELYN P ............................. 2024 

493 
-~ ~~~~~~~~~ 

HLMWREY. LAURA .......................................... 4478 

IILMPHRIFS. BRErr ......................................... 533 

-I-. LEcBuAIiD M ..................................... 2098 

m. M . BYNG ............................................ 227 

IIUNPER. DORA ............................................. 2024 

IIUNPER. DOUG ............................................. 3979 

HUW. NITA M ............................................. 3381 

IXNEINGER. FRITZ R ...................................... 1753 

HURLEY. DAVID ............................................ 1746 

IRIRST. DAVE .............................................. 4471 

HUSTAD. PEE ............................................. 1 

HWUL". LEONARD R .................................... 3382 

IRITcHI". Tx)RRAINE ..................................... 3391 

I". CHRISTINA K ...................................... 3773 

HUJXW. DEE .............................................. 1546 

HUJXW. MRS . FRANK ....................................... 319 

HWION. WAYNE ............................................ 1363 

HYDE. DAN ................................................ 1640 

HYITA. GEDRGE & CXUWnTE ................................ 2024 

HYVREN. KAARU) M ......................................... 3788 

IAODBUCCI. BMXY ......................................... 4441 

IKEM3To. SAM ............................................. 3841 

IMADA. DALE T ............................................ 3876 

I". 

INGALSBEE. "CY J ....................................... 1853 

JACK L ........................................ 3861 

INKELIS. STANLEY H ....................................... 4231 

INNIS. JAMES W ........................................... 3792 

INOUYE. WAYNE W .......................................... 3682 

IIWRAVARlOLO. PAUL V ..................................... 3370 

INYO CITIZENS FDR REsouRcEs AND ENVIRQWENT .............. 2048 

INYO CXXJWY BQARD OF supERvIsoRs. CAMPBELL ............... 352 

INYO couwrY ACMINISTRATOR. BRENT WALLWE ................. 285 

INYO OXJNIY am's ASSOCIATICN ...................... 265 

INYO CCU"Y PLANNING DEP-. DEHART .................. 135 

TVERSON. WAYNE D ......................................... 5 

ME. LAUREL ............................................. 2024 

JACZWICZ. E.J. ........................................... 4262 

JACXS. PHIL .............................................. 363 

JACXSCN. DAVID W ......................................... 3621 

JACXSON. DENNIS .......................................... 1547 

JACXSON. PAUL T .......................................... 3477 

JACKSON. THOMAS J ........................................ 4151 

JAOOBSCN. TODD ........................................... 3379 

JAEGAR. PAT .............................................. 549 

JAEGER. LISA ............................................. 2115 

JALI. RICK ............................................... 76 

JAMES. GAEWElT B ......................................... 3093 

JAMES. LISA .............................................. 1475 

JAMESON. PAUL ............................................ 4406 

JANES. LQRFN ............................................. 877 

JAM. MWY ............................................... 192 

JANISSE. ERIC ............................................ 871 

JANDWILZ. PFPER F ........................................ 3553 

JARELY. HEATH ............................................ 1888 

494 
JARNLIN. HELEN ........................................... 1906 

JEmRIEs. ml7EslcE R ..................................... 241 

JEmRIEs. PATRICIA ....................................... 3084 

JEFFS. ANN C ............................................. 4076 

JELLISON. KERRY .......................................... 1956 

JELTD" THOMAS ........................................... 3885 

JEN(I(s. JILL HORNER ...................................... 1942 

JENXS. MIClWEL R ........................................ 2180 

JENKWS. CYNIWIA ......................................... 752 

JENKWS. GEORGE 731. 1726 

JENKINS. Ruw JOH" .................................... 1376 

JENKINS. THCMRS H ........................................ 3595 

JENKINS. "AS M . JR .................................... 3.245 

JENNINGS. JAW .......................................... 4285 

JENNISON. GRFG ........................................... 3561 

-EN. BRUCE H .......................................... 329 

JEFOSLOV. BERNARD ........................................ 1905 

JETPON. THOMAS ........................................... 6010 

mm. GARY ............................................ 4419 

JOHN (UNREADABLE) ........................................ 1640 

3OHNS. BUD & ANITA ....................................... 2024 

JOHNS . MAIlK .............................................. 1386 

JELLISON. ROBERT ......................................... 1964 

..................................... 

JOH" . JOH" . JOH". 

-. 

JQH". 

JCBI" . JOH" . -. 

-. 

JOH". 

JOH". 

JOH". 

JCRI". 

JCBI". 

JOH" . JOH". 

JOHNSON. 

JOHNSON. 

JOHNSON . 

........ 

JOH". 

APRIL ........................................... 1048 

BENMFIT ......................................... 1414 

BOB ............................................. 1216 

BRUCE ........................................... 1504 

DALE F .......................................... 1875 

DANNELL ......................................... 359 

DENNIS M ........................................ 468 

DIANE A ......................................... 3548 

E ............................................... 1543 

ERIC S .......................................... 151 

GORW ........................................... 1640 

HAP ........................................... 3590 

HERB ............................................ 3440 

IEOWELL .......................................... 527 

JIM ............................................. 941 

KAREN ........................................... 953 

Kf!W C .......................................... 82 

LAURIE .......................................... 3351 

M4R'lWi 1282 

No" .......................................... 1024 

STEPHANIE ................................. 2024 . 6011 

.......................................... 

JOHNSON. WES ............................................. 873 

JOHNSTON. GARY ........................................... 706 

JOLLGY. MALCOLM G ........................................ 3690 

JOLVP. J ................................................. 384 

JONES. AND= ............................................ 287 

JONES. C.M. .............................................. 868 

JONES. CARL .............................................. 3626 

JONES. ELLEN ............................................. 1703 

JONES. EXIN ............................................. 116 

JONES. CYRIL ............................................. 793 

495 
NAME u) MER 

JONES. JACX W ........................................... JONES. JANICE ........................................... JONES. LEWIS ............................................ JONES. MILTON ........................................... JONES. PITIER ............................................ JONSSON. RICH ........................................... JOFDEN. ROBERT .......................................... JOSEPISON. BRUCE M ...................................... JOSLEN. DAVID E ......................................... JOYMI'. DON .............................................. 

JONES. JEREm ........................................... 

mRGENs. wm ........................................ 

JUAREZ. LESLIE A ........................................ JUDKINS. wLRQ\I M ........................................ JUDSON. EVA ............................................. J". KUTH .......................................... JULL. ANDREW D .......................................... KABISCH. 

"I. 

SALLY ........................................... GEORGE ......................................... KAHLER. JODI ............................................. WLHN. LARRY .............................................. KAISER. MIKE ............................................. KAISER. ROBEST ........................................... KALICX. PITIER ............................................ KALIVDDA . JFANNIE ................................... 129 . 

4424 

758 

4037 

3059 

673 

2033 

607 

4063 

4290 

1898 

3271 

895 

3673 

1207 

2062 

1640 

4003 

1606 

765 

3649 

4235 

1602 

1907 

3676 

1616 

KALK. WAkN ............................................ 1 676 

KALMPFER. SUSAN .......................................... 219 

KPSIIAURA. hlAyNE ........................................... 3194 

KNUSHER. GARY ........................................... 1683 

-LA. R ................................................ 596 

KANEGAYE. JACX Y ......................................... 4277 

KA". YUKI ........................................... 830 

KANGERS. JAMES A ................................... 1014. 3338 

KA"E. ROBERT M .......................................... 1539 

KANTOR. JERI ............................................. 4153 

KANPOR. S!PEVEN M ......................................... 4154 

KWPEI". JAMES ......................................... 2024 

KAPPEDRN. TRULA ......................................... 2024 

KARBOWNIK. RcEJRlALD ....................................... 1824 

KAP.E, W . IW32L.W ......................................... 1857 

NALA. POBEET .......................................... 3628 

KARF'ELES. M?PX ........................................... 496 

KARPINSKI. WALT .......................................... 4279 

KASER. WILLIAM H ......................................... 194 

KASSIDY. KARL J .......................................... 3228 

KWALER. LARRY ........................................... 336 

KAWEAH FLWISHERS. ROD ALEXANDER ......................... 1248 

KAY. IKMAUD E ............................................ 4256 

KAZMER. VICIORIA ......................................... 791 

KEEHN. KAREN M ........................................... 672 

KEELW . DANNY ...................................... 1157. 1888 

KMUS. KEVIN .............................................. 1042 

KEISER. FRANK ............................................ 4399 

KEITH. G-RISTOPHER ....................................... 4161 
"E u) NUMBER 

KEITHLEY. AUSTIN ......................................... 9% 

KEITHLGY. FORRFST ........................................ 1668 

KEITHLEY. KEVEN .......................................... 1078 

KELEMFN. DOLORS ......................................... 589 

KELEMFN. HENRY ........................................... 591 

KELLEY. BARBARA .......................................... 980 

KELLEY. BILL ............................................. 1710 

KELLEY. w)BERT J ......................................... 401 

I<ELuxx;. TIM ............................................. 1657 

KELBERLAU. BARBARA ....................................... 2117 

KELLJX. ATBEET J., SERRANO SCEOX ........................ 1890 

KELLY. JIM ........................................... KELLY. lvlARK .......................................... KELLY. MLKE .......................................... KELLY. TOM ........................................... mER. SUSAN M ...................................... KENDALL. RICK ........................................ KENDRICK. m1m ..................................... KENNEW. ERIN ........................................ KENNEDY . RIamul ................................... 1 ... 2024 ... 1640 ... 835 ... 3878 ... 3543 ... 2084 ... 1695 ... 1052 

57. 1888 

KENSER. MARCELLA ......................................... 2024 

KENSER. SHERRY ........................................... 2024 

KENT. MICXAEL A .......................................... 4330 

KEOSKI. COLLEElrl .......................................... 3317 

Kn3uw. DANIEL E ......................................... 717 

KERCHENFAUI'. SUE ......................................... 995 

KEIIMODE. IBBERT E .................................. 1879. 4152 

KERN. JACK ............................................... 3926 

IWR. JOE ................................................ 2020 

KERSTEN. ANN ............................................. 2020 

KERSTER. GEDEGE .......................................... 3832 

KEm"G. WOLFCANG ..................................... 2111 

KEYSER. JQAN ............................................. 3165 

H3YS"E RESORT .......................................... 2013 

KEZAR. IEOMLLD ............................................ 493 

KIEFER. WILLIAM .......................................... 4221 

-A. A"Y J ..................................... 3350 

KILEX. STEVEN R .......................................... 3464 

KILGORE. SAM C ........................................... 1070 

KIu;oRE. SH" ........................................... 1065 

WACK. SHERKY ......................................... 2085 

KIIMEFi. LOm L ........................................... 3402 

Kim, FUFH & GENE ...................................... 3101 

KILTIIG. ORLENE .......................................... 1691 

KIM. TIMJmrY ............................................. 367 

KIMBALL. JOHN D .......................................... 4320 

KTMBERLIIG. ROBERT ....................................... 1785 

KINCSES. STAN ............................................ 3404 

KING. GREG .......................................... 157. 1483 

KING. JAMES .............................................. 1160 

KZNG. JQHN ............................................... 3678 

KING. PAT ................................................ 735 

KING. RI- D .......................................... 4433 

KERc€mFm. KEN ......................................... 334 

497 
NAME ID"En 

KING. "l%XS A ........................................... 3695 

KING. TOM ................................................ 1139 

KIPGFISHER FUXT TRIPS ................................... 96 ". NDM ......................................... 386 

KIPLINGER. P.R. ........................................... 4280 

KIREN. SUSAN ............................................. 1573 

KIRK. JANE ............................................... 261 

Kwc. J'ESE .............................................. 3851 

KISH. MICHAEL J .......................................... 4206 

KI-. DON L .......................................... 4423 

Ius". KEIGAN ........................................... 43 

E(LABAcHA. XHN J ......................................... 3852 

KLARIS. PFPE ....................................... 2052. 3672 

KLEE. LAURA .............................................. 2024 

KLEl"H. KEVIN M ....................................... 3654 

KLINE. DON ............................................... 555 

KLINGER. DAN ............................................. 1759 

KLINK. WILLIAM P ......................................... 625 

KLIPEL. PAT .............................................. 2024 

KLW;. BOB ................................................ 1098 

KLW;. RICHARD ............................................ 2051 

KLUSSWAN. WILLIAM P ...................................... 1371 

KLW. PAUL .............................................. 400 

KNAPP. ERIC .............................................. 1011 

KMLPP. ROLAND A .......................................... 315 

K". DOUG ............................................ 3993 

K" . R.H. ............................................. 4477 

KNERR. ED ................................................ 3080 

KNJBlT. DAVID ............................................ 4110 

KNDNG. AsHLey ............................................ 406 

KNDPF. DAW ............................................. 3494 

KNDPF. SAN0P.A J .......................................... 3819 

mS. ED ............................................... 4498 

K". ROLF ............................................ 4392 

K"ZEN. ARLENE .......................................... 446 

KOCH. L .................................................. 286 

KCXIl. W.O. ............................................... 410 

KCCISKO. RCBEXT J ................................... 478. 4214 ". m ............................................. 3724 

KOELSCH. SHARLENE ........................................ 684 

KOENIG. DOMLLD F ......................................... 3540 

KOENIG. ROBERT ........................................... 4466 

KOENIGSBERG. JAME ....................................... 5010 

KOEPP. WILLIAM & GAYE .................................... 6 

KOEPSEU. c . GEORGE ...................................... 4304 

KOETER. JEFF ............................................ 761 

KOFUD. EWNE ............................................ 1715 

NEILL W ........................................ 3982 

KOLLm. STEVE ............................................ 1640 

KO-. EWNE ............................................ 1701 

KOPPEN?G&. T.J. .......................................... 418 

KORMLATI'. MELVIN B ...................................... 4088 

KORAGIEBm. JENNIFER M ................................... 1080 

KORNXLD. ANID- G ................................... 67 

498 
KO~LD. RALplI .......................................... 59 

KOSELKA. WILLIAM J ....................................... 880 

m. 03LE B ............................................ 1461 

KFNHER. STANLEY G ....................................... 3468 

KRAWAN. JOE .............................................. 3985 

KRAMER. MAKI'HA ........................................... 3987 

KREU. MARVIN ............................................. 1914 

KRENIz. LECNARD .......................................... 899 

KRIESEL. BILL ............................................ 1773 

KRITZ. AND BEVERLY ................................. 520 

I(R0HNCKE. KENNFPH & m ................................. 97 

KRUGER. DAVID ............................................ 1735 

I(RuLIKrxsKI. CLAIRE ...................................... 3635 

KRUSON. v ................................................ 408 

I<ucERA. THCEJIAS E ......................................... 2129 

Kucum. "CI ........................................... 2024 

KW3MAN. L ............................................... 2024 

KUHN. LIDIA MWISCN ....................................... 998 

KIPPENS. DEBORA .......................................... 670 

KURASHIGE. GARY .......................................... 700 

KvRma. HERBERT ......................................... 3322 

I(usELL. FRED w ........................................... 3383 

KrJ3" . sm ......................................... 707 

KUTAWX. BENJAMIN C ...................................... 31 

KUTZEN. SHERIAN .......................................... 2022 

KVAAS. 

m. 

FCNALD A .......................................... 83 

KEN & SUZY ...................................... 966 

LA BELLE. ELLEN .......................................... 1274 

LA FDND. U-ERY'L .......................................... 3220 

LA MGN7I. B!iTIY .......................................... 2158 

LAW. JOHN W ............................................ 316 

LACXEY. JAMES H .......................................... 530 

LACY. CHRIS .............................................. 2095 

LACY. ROBW ............................................. 3147 

LADD. JaAN ............................................... 3215 

LADD. M.H. ............................................... 2003 

LADEN. WILLIAM J ......................................... 106 

LADINIG. BEA ............................................. 1092 

LADINIG. HEIMJ ........................................... 1766 

LAFEE. KATHLEEN .......................................... 603 

LAFEE. WILLIAM ........................................... 602 

LAFRAMBOISE. GERRY ....................................... 3608 

LALINSPACH. MhRV4NE ..................................... 3583 

LAMBERT. DAVID ........................................... 1040 

LAMBERT. MICHAEL ELWN ................................... 1550 

LAMELA. SUSAN ............................................ 1453 

LAND?iKER. Bl?€XY .......................................... 559 

LA". PAM .............................................. 1856 

LANDSMAN. STANLEY J ...................................... 378 

LANE. KENWK-l S .......................................... 2058 

LANGER. BRXX ............................................ 1829 

LANGFORD. MARK C ......................................... 31 

LANGLEY. JIM ............................................. 2127 

LNGLO. TROY ............................................. 668 

499 
LAN[xIE. MIamEL .......................................... 1541 

LARKIN. ROBERT L ......................................... 480 

LARSON. H.F. ............................................. 4097 

LARSSON. LyNDALL ......................................... 3299 

LASKO. ALLEN ............................................. 3442 

LAU. KAY ................................................. 3292 

LAWN. ROBERT ........................................... 550 

LAVIm. AL .............................................. 3473 

LAVOIE. -RE ......................................... 3161 

IAW!XSS. TM ........................................... 1051 

LAWIW. JERKY ............................................ 1308 

LAWIW. THCMAS 3 ......................................... 3399 

LAWYER. DAVID S .......................................... 1316 

LAYTON. DENNIS R ......................................... 4427 

LAYTON. MARK ............................................. 3829 

LAYTON. MINGY A .......................................... 3938 

LAYTON. STACEX ........................................... 3476 

LE BWNE. lvlARy .......................................... 2001 

LEA(fI. JENNY ............................................. 1953 

LEAR. V.L. ............................................... 3106 

LEAVITP. RANDALL ......................................... 1655 

LEDEL. M ................................................. 3551 

LEDEX'. BARBARA ........................................... 3680 

LEE. DARCY ............................................... 1249 

LEE. GRFXHEN G .......................................... 433 

LEE. PAT ................................................. 1640 

LEE. PREEXlN R ........................................... 436 

LEE. SARAH S ............................................. 1425 

LEE. SUSAN ............................................... 1640 

LEELING. ED .............................................. 207 

LEFEVER. TIM ............................................. 3894 

LEFF. STEVE A ............................................ 3774 

LMX;. JAMES H ............................................ 3212 

LEHMAN . JEANNE ........................................... 904 

LEHOTSKY. RALPH B .................................. 3842. 3937 

LEIN. LARK" ........................................... 1009 

LEJNIWS. RICHARD M ...................................... 1656 

LE'4D. "TE C ............................................ 2024 

L". BOYD w ........................................... 505 

LEMuI)u . M K ........................................... 3240 

WART. E ........................................ 1793 

LEMPORT. MPGDA .......................................... 1593 

LEMIERKING. HOLLIS ....................................... 2164 

LENZ. LOUIS D ............................................ 608 

LENZ. ROBERT c ........................................... 3973 

LEOGIS. CINDY ............................................ 2024 

LK)N. DAMIEN 3 ........................................... 3598 

LEONE. JOHN ......................................... 473. 3336 

LEONG. ROBIN ............................................. 1794 

LEIEOY. MARK .............................................. 1640 

LFSPEXANCE. JAWS ........................................ 657 

Iz3"IcH. w.3. .......................................... 3235 

L"mER. ALIsckJ ........................................ 4307 

LEVIN. BRUCE A ........................................... 3478 

500 
LEVINE. BERT R ........................................... 1787 

LEVINE. RICHARD .......................................... 3372 

-. !KXY ........................................... 3086 

LEWIS. CHRISlDPHER ....................................... 1685 

LEWIS. M)MLLD ............................................ 1955 

LEWIS. GARY D ............................................ 562 

LEWIS. KATHR.DE .......................................... 259 

LEWIS. RICH .............................................. 4186 

LEWIS. TERRY ANN ......................................... 2024 

LEWIS. THCMAS E .......................................... 1359 

LEYDFLXER. AL ............................................ 1862 

LIBKIM). MARQls A .................................... 50. 175 

LICH”. MARK ........................................... 4046 

LIB. ElARGARFT ........................................... 958 

LILDER. KATHY ............................................ 1116 

LIND. CARL w ............................................. 642 

LIND. RICHARD H .......................................... 1220 

LINDA. LAUREN ............................................ 1435 

LINDBIXM. mIA .......................................... 934 

LINDBLOCM. C-IRISTY ....................................... 1045 

LINDE. BARME E .......................................... 1499 

LINDELL. CHRIS ........................................... 2122 

LINDER. E ................................................ 139 

LI”. RICHARD B ...................................... 3912 

LI”. SUSAN .......................................... 2114 

LINDNEE. C.E. ............................................ 465 

LINDSEY. ERICA J ......................................... 3108 

LINDSEY. GLORIA .......................................... 2024 

LINDSEY. KRISTINA ........................................ 848 

LINES. RALF’H 0 ........................................... 790 

LINK. ROGER M ............................................ 526 

LINSK. J ................................................. 3662 

LINZER. JEml ............................................. 939 

LION. STEVE .............................................. 1257 

LIPPIUIAN. HERBERT M ....................................... 4495 

LIPPUNER. LIZ ............................................ 710 

LIl”. DR . &MRS . FUC’HARD J ............................. 366 

LITIZE. GEDFGE ........................................... 720 

LIUDZIUS. A”y ........................................ 374 

LIVERMORE. JIM ........................................... 45 

LIVINGSTON. TIM .......................................... 464 

LIZZA. CHRIS 0 ........................................... 461 

LIZZA. M ................................................. 3185 

LIZZA. TIBERIO P ......................................... 4113 

LLOYD. HAROLD ............................................ 3486 

LO CIm. DIANE ......................................... 439 

LCBER. RI(X .............................................. 4002 

IXXKE FAMILY ........................... 3409. 3411. 3412. 3413 

=D. LYNDA .......................................... 220 

IODER. SAM ............................................... 1157 

LOEHER. LARKY ............................................ 1777 

LEVINE. HANK ............................................. 1202 

LEWIS. mm H .......................................... 3460 

LOm. HEINZ ............................................ 3234 

501 
MIME IDrmlBER 

L0HkW-I . RCMAND G ........................................ 788 

IC". CRAIG ............................................ 1261 

K". MARX)RIE ......................................... 1645 

LGNES. DAIN B ......................................... 3. 959 

IQW. DEBBIE ............................................. 3457 

IQW. FREDERICX & DIANA .................................. 1040 

IQW. WENDELL B .......................................... 184 

IGN.3". ANN A ........................................... 3826 

IQPER. PESY ............................................. 1450 

LOPEZ. ALAN .............................................. 1885 

IIIRENTZscB\I. FUBI .......................................... 513 

LOS AlSFLES DEPARm OF WATER & POWER. BUCHHOLZ ........ 1093 

I;os AKGELES VALLEY COLLEGE. KRAUSS. W.T. ................. 307 

IXXIIE. MR . & MRS . R ...................................... 4275 

IXXIISIANA PACIFIC CORPORATION ...................... 1636. 2206 

LOVE. GEOFGE & DONNA ............................... 1157. 1888 

LOVELACE. LEERA .......................................... 1676 

LOWLAND. R.J. ........................................... 611 

EWE. WILLIAM ........................................... 3281 

LUCAS. RAGpH ............................................. 4396 

LUCIAN. TERRY ....................................... 872. 1640 

LUCKHAM. ELISE J ......................................... 3036 

LUEDERS. LYNNE ........................................... 3128 

LUIPFOLD. RICHARD ........................................ 1156 

LUIS. D0UT;LAs ............................................ 703 

LLJPACC€IINI. RAY .......................................... 3532 

LURIDSO. VIVIAN .......................................... 1157 

LUSCCMBE. PAM ............................................ 168 

LUSE. J AMT. L ............................................. 3513 

LUSTIGFORD. NOEL ......................................... 4292 

LUTH. PERRY A . JR ........................................ 1620 

LYLE. GREG ............................................... 4472 

LYLE. ROBERT C ........................................... 3751 

LYNCH. JAMES ............................................. 3883 

LYNCH. KIRK .............................................. 3607 

LYNCH. ROY ............................................... 918 

LYNDSEY. GLORIA .......................................... 2024 

MAC BRIDE. DEBBIE ......................................... 2024 

MAC CLEN". GREG ......................................... 3568 

MAC DONALD. BETH ANN ...................................... 2024 

MAC M)NALD. BRUCE ......................................... 2024 

MAC INCOSH. CHFUSTINA M ................................... 163 

MAC LMID. HAL E ........................................... 3853 

MAC MASTER. BILL .......................................... 624 

MAC MILLAN. BOB ........................................... 548 

MAC TAVISH. A ............................................. 3386 

MAC TAVISH. ROBERT S ...................................... 1828 

MACAYA. E . RUBEN .......................................... 3802 

MADDEN. JOSEPH E .......................................... 1892 

MADmX. R ................................................. 299 

MADISON. SHERLEE .......................................... 1910 

LcImmno. ELI" ...................................... 3075 

Lax. TCM ................................................ 4484 

LUTGE. mm ........................................... 889 

502 
MLME IDm 

MGEE. IXXGtAS & PEOSY ............................... 501. 992 

KAWIRE. MICHAEL J ........................................ 3518 

MAHAFFY. JAMES ............................................ 4338 

I". ARLE & TINA ...................................... 1140 

Im". DAMIAN ........................................... 575 

MWKNEY. MIKE ............................................. 4167 

P!AHY'LIS. MICHAEL .......................................... 629 

MAGDONADO. ESPIMlZA ....................................... 1157 

r.!"T, m .............................................. 364.4 

MULWW. ........................................... 3785 

MALVAEZ. RICHARD R ........................................ 4284 

t.W+DTH CIXJNY WATER DISTRICT ............................. 1259 

t.W+DTH FT.Y IiMlDERs ....................................... 2055 

MAlvMDTH LAKES SKWbDBILE ASSCCWTION ................. 1106. 2204 

t.W+DTHmAIN SKI AREA ................................. 1641 

t.W+DTH SP0PSME"S CLUB .................................. 2067 

t.W+DTH/TWYABE =I-SKI ............................. 1736. 2069 

r"cHEsTER. c ............................................. 1150 

MANDELBAIM. ILENE ......................................... 1577 

MANER. DOUG ............................................... 712 

MANLEY. BETH .............................................. 2072 

M. S.L. ................................................ 1419 

MANMNG. STEVE ............................................ 1817 

IvIA"I. ROBERT A . &JUANITA M .......................... 1406 

MARANO. LUIS .............................................. 3891 

MZ . PHILIP F ......................................... 3780 

MARCH. SAND1 .............................................. 1077 

MARCD. SHERRIE ............................................ 245 

MARCUS. BRAD .............................................. 4225 

MARCY. ED ................................................. 1497 

MARHOLD. TIfcMAs ........................................... 1090 

M"ELL1. JOSEPH ......................................... 2024 

MARINICK. JACX ............................................ 3970 

MARK. ROBERT .............................................. 1558 

IuIAIu(MAN. MARK ............................................. 874 

MARKMAN. R ................................................ 3005 

MARKOWITZ. LAVEY .......................................... 244 

MAFUKM. JANE ......................................... 1157. 1888 

MAROVICH. P.L. ............................................ 1849 

MARRIETPER. ED ............................................ 1002 

MARSHALL. JEFF ........................................... 2007 

MHALL. WILLIAM H ...................................... 1360 

MARSTON. GERT. ............................................ 397 

MARTENS. HAZEL ........................................... 4013 

MARTIN. ANNELIESE ........................................ 3831 

MARTIN. CHIUS ............................................ 557 

MARTIN. EMILIE ........................................... 264 

MARTIN. GAKY J ........................................... 4239 

MARTIN. MARTHA ........................................... 4335 

MARTIN. R.W. ............................................. 1292 

MARTIN. FOBEXIT ........................................... 1932 

MARTIN. SUSAN ............................................ 829 

MARTINDALE. LUtJELL ....................................... 3777 

MARTINELLI. COLLEEN ...................................... 2024 

503 
NAME ID MlMBER 

MARTINEZ. BARBAWL ........................................ 1640 

MARTINEZ. KAREN .......................................... 1985 

MARTINEZ. REY ............................................ 823 

MARTINEZ. WILL ........................................... 687 

MARZAND. CW&lEN & JOHN ................................... 987 

MRSON. BARBARA ........................................... 1043 

MASON. PETER A ........................................... 250 

MASTERS. JANIS J ......................................... 178 

MXSTEXS. JOHN K .......................................... 639 

MATERN. ARMAND ........................................... 1311 

MATHENY. ANN M ........................................... 2024 

MA"E33. RES ............................................. 511 

MATHEU. JAMES ............................................ 2024 

MATSWAMA. BOB ........................................... 3429 

MATIESON FAMILY .......................................... 1395 

MATpHEWs. BRENDA ......................................... 861 

MA-. HELEN .......................................... 1412 

MATTHEWS. R.C. ........................................... 3032 

MA"S. KING A ......................................... 81 

MATYX. BETIY H .......................................... 2059 

MAUER. MAKYLINN .......................................... 1413 

MAUGHAN. D.J. ............................................ 841 

MAYER. CARL I11 .......................................... 3119 

MAYEE. URSULA ............................................ 952 

MAYNARD. DON JAMES ....................................... 3715 

MAYNARD. ROBERT A ........................................ 1206 

MAYS. LUREE .............................................. 2182 

Mc AFEE. JIM ............................................. 238 

Mc ALISTER. CARRIE ....................................... 1036 

Mc ARTHR. EDWARD E ...................................... 2108 

Mc ATEER FAMILY ..................................... 649. 650 

Mc CW. J.A. ............................................ 1782 

Mc CARROLL. NEIL ......................................... 4318 

Mc WTY. G.F. ........................................... 3935 

Mc WTY. R .............................................. 3888 

Mc CHRISTIAN. MARVIN ..................................... 4336 

Mc um. WAYNE .......................................... 4302 

Mc OXEN. JOEL ........................................... 3418 

Mc 03"ELL. ANN .......................................... 1183 

Mc ODNNELL. DANIEL ....................................... 3364 

Mc CONORE. GEOFGE ........................................ 1157 

Mc COOL. LINDA ........................................... 1648 

Mc CORKEL. DOIEOTHY ....................................... 1714 

Mc (XIE. JILL ............................................. 3056 

Mc CJJLUXH. JUANITA ...................................... 3196 

Mc (xppcHEoN. R.P. ........................................ 3189 

Mc ECNALD. EDIE 0 ....................................... 2024 

IC DONALD. CHARLES K ..................................... 29 

MARTINEZ. LARRY .......................................... 3145 

MASLINE. LQRRAINE ........................................ 455 

MATERN. D"Y .......................................... 3734 

MATHERS. LEE v ........................................... 3957 

MA-. SHIRLEY ........................................ 3034 

~c msn. JEANNIE ....................................... 420 

504 

"m. JIM .............................................. 1016 

MEIER. DAN & amIS ....................................... 1230 

MEIER. m ............................................... 3431 

MEIER. " .............................................. 3430 

MEILINK. ALBERT .......................................... 3398 

MEILINK. DOFuYrHY ......................................... 3410 

MEINER. MR . & MRS . LEE ................................... 1294 

MEINERS. c;ARoLE .......................................... 3541 

MEINERS. SUSAN ........................................... 279 

MEWELSON. ALLAN .................................... 196. 4086 

MEISTDR. RAyM3ND ......................................... 3522 

MELENIIAN. MARY ......................................... 807 

r". ROBERT c ......................................... 462 

b". RM ............................................... 2024 

MELBA. BRE!NDA ............................................ 2024 

MELLISEU. P!ZJER T ....................................... 781 

MELTON. DAVID G .......................................... 3651 

MEMIERSHAUSEN. 

ME". 

E ......................................... 1354 

H ......................................... 1387 

MENDOZA. MARY M .......................................... 3456 

MENIUS. JACK L ........................................... 3445 

MEWEL. MIA J ............................................ 1567 

MERAW. MARK s ............................................ 4342 

MEREDITH. BRAD ........................................... 4483 

mmL. 

m. 

E.D. ............................................ 3820 

SHEILA .......................................... 4056 

MERRILL . DALE ............................................ 1443 

MERRILL. GEORGE .......................................... 1444 

MERRILL. VIRGINIA A ...................................... 1446 

MERRITP. ALBERTA ......................................... 2024 

MERRY. JWRY ............................................. 1640 

MESCXKE. M3LLY C ......................................... 172 

MFPZ. DICK ............................................... 3233 

MEPZGER. HARRY ........................................... 24 

MEYER. MARWL ............................................. 3685 

MEYER. €ONAID W .......................................... 3699 

MEYER. SUSAN ............................................. 3691 

MEYERS. NANCY ....................................... 248. 5006 

MEYERSON. JEFFRcl ........................................ 3154 

MICWELS. DONAID F ....................................... 812 

MICZIIELS. LANA SUE ....................................... 4015 

MIDDLEMISS. TERU & ED ................................... 232 

MIDDLEXON. EDSEL ......................................... 4195 

MIDDLET3N. LES ........................................... 4194 

MIDDLE". ORLA .......................................... 4192 

MIGORE. MARIE ............................................ 3055 

MIKFtUT. JANE ............................................. 3202 

MILAN. THOMAS M .......................................... 604 

MILFPTA. ALEX ............................................ 834 

MILICI. "JA ............................................ 3606 

MILLARD. K?REN ........................................... 1640 

MILLARD. ROBIN ........................................... 646 

MILLER. ALBERT G ......................................... 4298 

MILLARD. RI~" n ....................................... 3072 

506 
" IDMILLER. BOB .............................................. 878 

MILLER. CRAIG ............................................ 51 

MILLER. CRISTI ..................................... 1157. 1888 

MILLER. DFAN E ........................................... 3009 

MILLER. JCN .............................................. 1611 

MILLER. MARY ............................................. 1157 

MILLER. PAM ........................................ 1157. 1888 

MILLER. RACHELE & GARY ............................. 1157. 1888 

MILLER. RcB3ERT E ......................................... 679 

MILLER. FOX .............................................. 688 

MILLER. WENDY ............................................ 3767 

MILLER . WESSON H ......................................... 3743 

MILLLAM. NDFMW .......................................... 1219 

MILNE. JOHN M ...................................... 1979. 4226 

MILOVICH. GFDRGE ..................................... 31. 233 

MItS. L . Sm ............................. 1246. 1508. 3355 

MING. THARRELL ........................................... 825 

MI". PAUL 3 ........................................... 1030 

MIRVIS. ROBERT M ......................................... 681 

MISHICA-ROY. CWRE ...................................... 4388 

MILLER. MJRRAY ........................................... 3559 

MILLER. s ................................................ 404 

MILNE. DEBORAH L ......................................... 3475 

MILUK. cx" L ......................................... 1440 

MIMIELL. WILLLAM I ...................................... 3347 

MIZE. IXXK: ......................................... 3178. 3187 

MIBE. SANDRA ............................................. 1157 

-LEY. RICHARD .......................................... 4257 

MODE. MICWIEL ............................................ 760 

MIDES. J.R. .............................................. 3855 

MIFTEIT. SHARON .......................................... 3666 

MX'LEWZR. EDNA ........................................... 370 

MXXWJ3R. SIDNEY ......................................... 351 

MIHAWPA. J .............................................. 2024 

mHR. CARIiOLL S .......................................... 3688 

MINCCURTOIS. PAUL ........................................ 3297 

MINcouRToIS. ROBIN ....................................... 3703 

M)No fxU"Y BQARD OF SJFXRVISORS ......................... 1638 

"0 LAKE CiWITpEE ...................................... 1617 

"I WILDLIFE COUNCIL .................................... 1763 

MIWE. STINEN R ......................................... 617 

MONTAND. ARMhNKl ......................................... 3288 

M3NTGcMERy. ALPHA L ...................................... 3417 

IC"+. CHAFE= W ....................................... 2192 

M3"OSE. RODAEY & RHEBA ................................. 1831 

MXIN. DAVID .............................................. 4166 

MCONEY. DAVID L .......................................... 3758 

MOONEY. MARK ............................................. 658 

MOORE. BARBARA G ............................... 808. 817. 1428 

MOORE. CHESTER ........................................... 3152 

MOORE. D.W. .............................................. 3871 

MCORE. JOHN K ............................................ 1977 

mm. JONATHAN .......................................... 637 

MMIRE. MARY JO ........................................... 3186 
NAME ID NUMBER 

M(xIRE. RONALD ............................................ 2024 

MCXIRE. ROSE ANN T ........................................ 592 

MCKIRE. TERRY W ........................................... 3641 

mm. FRAM( z ............................................ 1486 

mRALEs. ARMANDO ......................................... 3343 

mmm. ARNOLD P ........................................ 4248 

PDRiW. ANDREA I .......................................... 855 

MIRAN. GREG .............................................. 3567 

M0REFIEiT-D. JAMES D ....................................... 1844 

MOREINO. JOHN ............................................ 1157 

kDWLXX. MERVYN M ....................................... 3308 

MIREMO. JOHN ............................................ 1888 

MIRER. DON ............................................... 1835 

MORGY. KATHY ............................................. 1952 

MOIIGAN. RICWLRD A ........................................ 3708 

MORGENSON. R7iNDY ......................................... 122 

PDRGNER. JAY ............................................. 3183 

MORIGAKI. Roy N .......................................... 3954 

MORIN. JANICE L .......................................... 4021 

MORLEY. R . ELXIIN ......................................... 1878 

MORRIS. WN .............................................. 298 

MORRIS. FRANK R .......................................... 1888 

MORRIS. JEANNE ........................................... 1515 

MORRIS. PM;Gy ............................................ 435 

"Is. RaxR ............................................ 763 

MORRISON. BILL ........................................... 1072 

MORRISON. DAVID .......................................... 944 

MORRISS. DAVID S ................................... 1157. 1888 

MORRISSEITE. RALPH ....................................... 4080 

MORTENSEN. ClWRLES R ..................................... 3839 

MORTIZ. JAMES A .......................................... 726 

PDRKN. R.E. ............................................. 3268 

MOsEAm. MARY m ...................................... 1110 

M3SQIEL. ROSEMARY ........................................ 3438 

msHER. TED .............................................. 4311 

MOSS. JOAN ............................................... 1169 

mm. PHYLLIS ......................................... 1632 

M3TyKA. PAUL ............................................. 4180 

PWCHAWAR. C ............................................. 4426 

MOULTRIE. FRED S ......................................... 3516 

Mow. JEFF ................................................ 1333 

MOZFN. HOWARD ............................................ 2015 

MUELLZR. QRISTINA ....................................... 3515 

MUELLER. K.N. ............................................ 3387 

MJFFLJZY. CHARLES ......................................... 4385 

WIR. ARTHUR H . JR ................................. 1375. 4369 

MUIR. BRIAN MI'KHELL ..................................... 34 

MUIR. RA- ............................................ 3901 

MULLAR. J.A. ............................................. 3284 

MULLEN. JOHN E ........................................... 2040 

MULLEN. 

U. 

LARRY D .......................................... 618 

ROBERT J ......................................... 3904 

MORROW. VIRGINIA ......................................... 4333 

MUELLER. mm E4 RUTH ............................... 35. 263 
In"BER 

MULLIGAN. 

m. 

PAUL M ......................................... 2143 

S.J. ........................................... 3395 

MUNCIE. MNGUEXITE C ..................................... 3736 

MUNWOLJJ. RANDY E ........................................ 756 

MUREZ. JOE ............................................... 3503 

kluREAu. sm ............................................ 4050 

m. SAMlRA ............................................. 1888 

MURPHEY. DOMLLD .......................................... 546 

MURPHY. CATHERINE ........................................ 1437 

MURPW. M)NALD E ......................................... 1640 

MURPHY. JIM .............................................. 4030 

MURPHY. JIM .............................................. 4387 

MURPHY. MIcmLE .......................................... 4039 

IVIURPHY. WES .............................................. 3505 

MURPHY. WILLIAM J ........................................ 750 

MURPHY. ZELI ............................................. 1345 

MURRAY. JOHN ............................................. 3525 

IUIIIRRY. DONNA ............................................. 1157 

MUSGRAVES. MI- ....................................... 4132 

MUSTER. WILLIAM .......................................... 3480 

MYERS. JANICE L .......................................... 304 

MYERS. JuLuW ............................................ 2066 

MYEEG. KURT .............................................. 3210 

MYERS. L 3210 3446 

MYERS. PATSY ............................................. 2066 

MYERS. SHIRLEY ........................................... 1303 

MYERScmGH. JEFFRey ...................................... 730 

NAD%. ELLEN ............................................. 289 

NALIBOFF. ELLEN .......................................... 3156 

"I. R.G. ............................................... 4261 

"Jo. RICX ............................................ 4026 

-RE. GLENDA .................................. 1157. 1888 

WISH. ED ................................................. 3763 

WISH. JOHN M ............................................. 3341 

WISH. SUSAN .............................................. 1188 

NATIONAL SKI AREAS ASSOCIATION ........................... 1100 

NAW (XINSERVANCY ....................................... 2047 

NEAL. PAUL: STATE UNIVERSITY OF mmm ................. 1834 

NEELY. THCMU K .......................................... 1007 

m. MAYMW) ............................................ 3934 

NEITER. RICHARD M ........................................ 831 

........................................... . 

NELLIS. KIRBY s ..................................... NELSON. ERIC ........................................ NELSON. alRDoN R .................................... NELSON. RON ......................................... NELSON. THCMU R .................................... NELSON. VALERIE ..................................... NEUBAUER. JOHN ..................................... 

.... 1501 .... 3992 .... 1401 .... 741 

.... 3488 .... 3865 

429. 3569 ". E" ........................................... 2103 

NEUSCM. SHERWN GRANT .................................... 3932 

NEVADANS AND CAc1FDR"S FOR WILDFRNESS ................. 1876 

"S. RI- E ........................................ 4029 

NEWBAUER. CINDY L ........................................ 4451 

NEMBRY. GREG ............................................. 1845 

509 
"E ID "ER 

"FIELD. mm w ....................................... 4240 

"IRK. STEVE ........................................... 2012 

"D. VIWR .......................................... 3966 

N3WAN. JAMES ...................................... 1963. 4205 

NE". JUDY ............................................. 4104 

NEWION. STANLEY G ........................................ 1961 

NICIIOLS. BILL ....................................... 518. 1296 

NIQIOLS. EL1SABEX-I B ..................................... 4232 

NICHOLS. lunwc & SHERRY ................................... 312 

NICKERSON. LARRY ................................... 1640. 3089 

MCXERSON. WILLIAM 0 ..................................... 3670 

MCWILAUS. EVELYN r"mE .................................... 148 

NIalLOSI. WRGE R ....................................... 3330 

NIKOLAUS. KELLY .......................................... 3107 

NILES. DENNIS J .......................................... 186 

NILSSON. MRS . E .......................................... 1674 

NISHIND. DONNA M ......................................... 3536 

NIZZE. ANNE .............................................. 3206 

NIZZE. N.A. .............................................. 3208 

Nw(. ROBERT ............................................. 521 

NODA. DAVID .............................................. 3118 

NODIFF-NETANEL. VICIORIA ................................. 2111 

NOEL. ERIN ............................................... 1456 

NOEL. PAUL ............................................... 1458 

NOLAND. THCNTS R ......................................... 1887 

NOLES. R ................................................. 1197 

NORBERG. LINDA ........................................... 3267 

NORDF. FREDERIC J ........................................ 973 

NO". AFXENE ......................................... 3432 

NOREREN. C.R. ........................................... 4150 

NORMAN. JOHN ............................................. 3448 

NORMAN. J ........................................... 4372 

NORRED. WILLIAM .......................................... 3023 

NORRIS. JODI ............................................. 844 

NOR-. CRAIG ....................................... 1640 

NORTHCWIE. PHILIP ........................................ 3950 

NORTHEPST CALIFORNIANS FORWILDEDNESS .................... 126 

NORTHSTAR AT TAHOE. H.C. SCHWARZ ......................... 1228 

NORTON. FREDERIC ......................................... 1600 

NORTON. GAY .............................................. 3426 

NORTON. JEANEITE ......................................... 2172 

NORTON. L.V. ............................................. 3425 

NORTON. RUSS ............................................. 744 

MlWAK. TERRIE ............................................ 3589 

MIBBS. BILL .............................................. 6012 

"BERGER. LESLIE ...................................... 3135 

NU". WING ............................................... 1167 

NU". JOHN ............................................... 1555 

O'CONNELL. KATHLEEN ...................................... 69 

O'CO"3R. MAl'IFEW ........................................ 1625 

O'CO"3R. TIM ............................................ 1469 

NICHOLAS. EARLE .......................................... 1618 

NICnoLS. DARLENE I ....................................... 3509 

"K. BUFF7 ............................................. 1091 

510 
" IDO'CONOR. JOHN F .......................................... 1423 

0". RIm .......................................... 842 

0". ............................................. 1640 

O'HAWL. SHAlcN ............................................ 1991 

O'KELLY. MICHAEL ......................................... 4032 

QAKESIIMT. JEANNE ........................................ 430 

O'HOYLE. ERIN ............................................ 1640 

O'NEAL. TIM .............................................. 1157 

CBERLIN. LXN ............................................. 1290 

ODION. D.A. .............................................. 1653 

OGILVIE. GRACE ........................................... 2024 

WENDYK. HENRY A ......................................... 3497 

OKON. mG M ............................................ 3801 

OLDFIELD. ANDY M ................................... 1003. 3066 

CBLAK. PAT AND FRANK ..................................... 1352 

 OLD^, aJRTIS M ...................................... 943 

OLDHAM. ms ............................................ 3523 

om. BURT ............................................... 360 

OLIN. EvERITr ............................................ 2024 

OLIVER. ROBERT &DEBBIE .................................. 2024 

OLSEN. BRUCE ....................................... 2093. 2198 

OLSEN. KRISTIAN N ........................................ 833 

OLSEN. MIA ............................................... 536 

OLSON. Bog ............................................... 4487 

OLSON. DAVID P ........................................... 1227 

OLSON. DERIK ............................................. 1917 

OREN. MINGY .............................................. 4215 

OREN. PHILL .............................................. 3918 

Om. GAYLE ............................................. 3677 

ORR. PATRICIA ............................................ 3636 

OF". KURT & CAROLYN .................................... 344 

OSBORN. DON .............................................. 1675 

OSHITA. GORWN H ......................................... 3834 

OSSOFSKY. SY ............................................. 3546 

OSTBY. MIKE .............................................. 1640 

OSTERLAND. IEOBERT S ...................................... 3799 

OSTRANDER. JA(X S ........................................ 3298 

OTOSHI. MICHAEL LEE ...................................... 4360 

OR-. LEIQI N ..................................... 2188 

OVERALL. JANICE .......................................... 1340 

OVERCAND. CYNDEE ......................................... 1855 

OVERGEASE. "CY ......................................... 1300 

OVERWAY. EUGENE .......................................... 3458 

OWENS. GENE A ............................................ 348 

OYADCMAR. DAVID ......................................... 4363 

PACHECO. DAVID ........................................... 252 

PACHL. J ................................................. 1574 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC OCMPANY ......................... 150 

PADILLA. J ............................................... 1755 

PADILLA. RUTH ............................................ 1690 

PAGE. CW" ............................................. 1640 

PAGE' WLTHERWE H ........................................ 1830 

PAHL. DONNA MAY .......................................... 105 

PALMER. CAROLINE M ....................................... 2176 

511 
NAME ID "BER 

PALMER. HELEN & DAVID .................................... 2006 

PALMER. ROSS ............................................. 1272 

PALMERI. THEOIKIRE M ................................ 1235. 3843 

PANND. M3NJ.CA ............................................ 3771 

PANOS. JEANNE M .......................................... 1708 

PANOS. "EY M .......................................... 1422 

PANTON. GAKY ............................................. 4339 

PALMER. LINDA ............................................ 2111 

P". LEE .............................................. 4340 

PAP". ALEXIS ....................................... 1640 

PAPICH. INGRID ........................................... 4327 

PAPICH. RAYPDm .......................................... 4136 

PAPP. DAVID .............................................. 1560 

PAQ3hTTE. MAURICE GUSTIAVE JR ............................ 472 

PARANICK. DANIEL & MELINDA ............................... 1811 

PARAZETIE FAMILY ............................. 3073. 3273. 3332 

PARENT. SHARON ........................................... 1059 

PARK. BARBAWL W.K. ....................................... 3640 

PARKER. DEBORAH .......................................... 1566 

PARKER. HARRY C .......................................... 3896 

PAREW. J ................................................ 3931 

PAREW. JAMES A .......................................... 3772 

PAREW. JIM .............................................. 1579 

PARLEPRE. AUSTIN ......................................... 4101 

PARSLEY. JOE ............................................. 4383 

PAR-. BRUCE ......................................... 2100 

PASM. ROBERT 0 ......................................... 3500 

PATRICK. FREDRICH A ................................. 353. 3360 

PATPEN. DmSE ........................................... 636 

PATPERSON. LAURA ......................................... 4094 

PAl". RICHARD W ........................................ 3967 

PATUR. SUZANNE ........................................... 1264 

PAULE. WILLIAM JOEL ...................................... 1585 

PAUST. RICHARD ........................................... 967 

PAUTSCH. B.R.E. .......................................... 3977 

PAUTSCH. DEAN ............................................ 733 

PAUTSCl-I. Dlr3AIN ........................................... 3812 

PAWLQSKI. R.L. ........................................... 3259 

PAYNE. JACKIE ............................................ 845 

PAZEOIE. NICK ............................................ 372 

PEA". MIKE ............................................ 396 

PEATROSS. MR . & MRS . EDWAN L ............................. 1305 

PECKNER FAMILY ........................................... 2066 

PEER. SOYIT G ............................................ 3463 

m. KAY & S.C. ........................................ 2024 

PELECH. WALTER & DOROTHY ................................. 288 

PELL. CHRISTUNA ......................................... 11 

PELL. ms .............................................. 12 

PELLAND. TAG ............................................. 574 

PELLFPIER. CHERYL D ...................................... 1797 

mTIER. RICK ............................................ 1445 

PARLEE. RICWLRD w ........................................ 4019 

PASKE. GARY B ............................................ 4049 

PEET. GARY ............................................... 4488 

512 
NAME ID "ER 

PENDALI. ELISE ........................................... 277 

PENDER. LINDA ............................................ 4291 

PENDELL. MERLE ........................................... 1455 

P-. ......................................... 1874 

PW. ELLEN L ............................................ 1509 

PENNEBAKER. R.G. & FLEATA ................................ 294 

PEREZ. ATLINE ............................................ 1640 

PERKENS. BRUCE ........................................... 2024 

PERKINS. CHERYL A ........................................ 4389 

PERKINS. STEVEN .......................................... 1635 

P"S' GEORGE .......................................... 3339 

PERWLRELLI. PEER J ...................................... 558 

PERRELLI. RIamD ........................................ 1808 

PESNELL. KEQWCH C ................................. 1967. 4431 

PETER. GLENN ............................................. 243 

PERRFP. J.D. ............................................. 3491 

PFPERS. CASW ............................................ 1951 

PFPERS. DAVID ............................................ 1945 

PE3ERS. SUSAN ............................................ 272 

PETERS. WARREN ........................................... 686 

PFPERSON. DAN J .......................................... 1587 

PFPERSON. EILEEN ......................................... 1372 

PETERSON. GARTH .......................................... 4171 

PFPERSON. GEORGE ......................................... 697 

PFPERSON. RAY ............................................ 4469 

PETOKAS. m ............................................. 1000 

P". ANNA ............................................. 4337 

P". NOEL ............................................. 3037 

PEITS. TIM ............................................... 1863 

PFAFFHAUSEN. W.K. ........................................ 1291 

PHILIPS. SUSAN ........................................... 3632 

PHILLIPS. JASON .......................................... 1073 

PHILLIPS. LEE ............................................ 3653 

PHILLIPS. STEVEN ......................................... 1157 

PIENS. LAURA ............................................. 257 

PIERCE. MAR(;us ........................................... 3251 

PIERpolrpT. F . ScOrr ....................................... 1618 

PIEXlU3EKI. JAMES W ...................................... 3560 

PIION. JANE S ............................................ 4374 

PIIMP. STEWE ............................................. 3150 

PINA. ROBERT ............................................. 3610 

PINKHAM. FRED ............................................ 4073 

PIPER. INA E ............................................. 52 

PIPER. JOHN CARTER ....................................... 4301 

PISCHEL. BRUCE ........................................... 103 

PITTSFOFD. JILL .......................................... 1640 

PLACENSIA. RENEE ......................................... 4461 

PLAKOS. aRIs ............................................ 485 

PLAKOS. LORI ............................................. 556 

PLEYTE. JAMES R .......................................... 226 

PLING. DAY S ............................................. 1157 

PLUIVIAS-SIERWL CITIZENS FOR WLTIPLE USE .................. 1208 

PODOSIN FAMILY ........................................... 3996 

PE". CHRISTOPHER .................................... 3111 

513 
NAME IDPaooSIN. BRAD ............................................ 3779 

Fanx" NANCY ........................................... 3057 

poLLw(. MARILYN ......................................... 1833 

poLLxxx. GARY ............................................ 1538 

POLIFRXiI. PAMELA ........................................ 4236 

~LLON. JOSEPH ........................................... 3867 

FCNZEY. 

m. 

MIL= ......................................... 13 

l'H@lAS H ......................................... 4228 

KXXEY. PHILLIP .......................................... 1640 

FQRPIGLIA. RANDY ......................................... 1231 

FQF'.TICXlS, KRISTINE E ..................................... 2024 

POSNW. JEFF ............................................. 215 

POST. J . ROBERT .......................................... 4118 

POTRATZ. RON ............................................. 3303 

POTPER. KEITH ............................................ 3280 

POWELL. DOUGLAS R ........................................ 1263 

POWELL. LELAND ........................................... 3566 

POWELL. RAY" P ........................................ 919 

mzzo. SUZANNE ........................................... 3390 

PRATHER. MICHAEL ......................................... 1565 

PRAlT. H ................................................. 155 

PRATI. JOHN R ............................................ 3895 

PREEMAN. STANLEY & STACGY ................................ 2024 

PRELEYKO. JANCP .......................................... 3447 

PRESCOTP. DAN ............................................ 2024 

PRESSEL. ART JR .......................................... 4177 

PRESSON. ROBBIE .......................................... 4452 

P". m1TH ........................................... 3482 

PRESTEVI(31I. ARIA & WRTIS ................................ 2024 

PRICE. MARY ALICE ........................................ 1368 

PRIMIARD. BARRY ......................................... 3384 

PRITCiElT. DANIEL ........................................ 2050 

PROBST. TH0XA.S J ......................................... 1659 

PROCHAZKA. INGEBORG B .................................... 945 

PROFESSIOMIL SKI INSTRUCTORS OF AMERICA .................. 1410 

PROFFOlT. JIM ............................................ 31 

PIMMISEL. SCOTP .......................................... 3452 

PROPER. KIN .............................................. 3246 

PIEOPOOXI. GIN0 .......................................... 786 

PRWI'TI. MARK ............................................. 1174 

PROW. ROBERTA ........................................... 4325 

PRohlAT\pT. KAREN ........................................... 1686 

PRUPIS. BEN .............................................. 362 

PRUSSEL. JON ............................................. 4134 

PRYOR. CHUCK ............................................. 920 

PRYOR. HEX C ............................................ 3376 

PULLMAN. WRT ............................................ 3939 

PURDCM-PHELPS. LISA ...................................... 5001 

PUSKAR. RICFWRD M ........................................ 1571 

PIPIMAN. JEFF ....................................... 1901. 2149 

PUTZIW. DONNA .......................................... 4209 

WL. WIioTHy ........................................... 3694 

QUADBY. DEEBIE .......................................... 63 

QucrSCH. JOHN G .......................................... 402 

514 
@JI". DENA .............................................. QvIm. MARK .............................................. QlJYADA. JOSE% ............................................ RACHMAN. MITCH ........................................... RAFFEL. STUART J ......................................... RAKE. ANDY ............................................... WISH. BILL ............................................. IWUUXM. BRUCE ........................................... ME. BILL ............................................. ME. BOB .............................................. RANDALL FAMILY ........................................... RANDAcL. ELLEN ........................................... RANDALL. SUE ............................................. RANDALL. SUSAN ........................................... RANDOL. WILLIAM L .................................. 2099. 

RAlEX. BRUCE ............................................. RAPER. JOHN C ............................................ ". MI(;" ........................................... FWSWSSEN. JOHN .......................................... RASMUSSEN. LARRY ......................................... RAUSM. ROBERT C ......................................... WunlLINGs. R.E. ........................................... RAWLm2.s. PaER .......................................... RAY. JAauELyN SUE ........................................ RAY. JOSH M .............................................. RAY. JULIA ............................................... RAY. WILLIS M . & DOLORES ................................. RAY". ANDY ............................................ REA. JACK ................................................ READER. ROY LEE .......................................... REBBE. GAnEN W .......................................... REED. BARBARA ............................................ REED. c .................................................. REED. FFaNmNE ........................................... REED. FRED ............................................... REED. JEAN ............................................... REED. JOHN ............................................... REED. SAM ................................................ REESE. ROB ............................................... REEVES. RONALD J ......................................... RE". MIKE .............................................. RE". "I ............................................. REICHLE. JIM & CLAUDE .................................... REICHLE. RICWLRD A ....................................... REID. MILTON H ........................................... REIDIK. JOEL ............................................. REIFSNIDER. BETSY ........................................ REISIG. WAYNE ............................................ REISS. ARTHUR P .......................................... REMINXON. BRIAN ......................................... -EL. ROBBIN W ......................................... =EL. TAMI ............................................. RENE. WILLIAM E .......................................... RENI. DANIELE ............................................ 

515 

3038 

94% 

887 

847 

3441 

4185 

31 

3219 

3806 

981 

4453 

4475 

4054 

5003 

4455 

3170 

929 

3726 

2029 

3947 

594 

1128 

3222 

1384 

1888 

2024 

1888 

3421 

3255 

1687 

3572 

8 

2024 

4434 

2024 

2024 

284 

4348 

1640 

3905 

502 

3623 

1981 

3624 

3278 

1823 

1843 

875 

3800 

543 

297 

427 

86 

1825 
NAME ID "Ex 

RENNER. LAw(y ............................................ 754 

RFVAY. BLTUSE ............................................ 4492 

RWE?&. JACK L ........................................... 113 

REX. SHEILA W ............................................ 3875 

REY. JOHN ................................................ 4349 

F33YES. REX K ............................................. 806 

REYNOLDS. J.D. ........................................... 2024 

REYNOLDS. JEFF ........................................... 3071 

mms. MARC AND KATHRYN ............................... 498 

REYNOLDS. "A .......................................... 2024 

RHODAS. GLENICE .......................................... 787 

MODES. PHILIP T ......................................... 1798 

RHONE. ELIzABFml M ....................................... 390 

RICE. KIMBERLY A ......................................... 2068 

RICE. URSULA ............................................. 4175 

RICE. WILLIAM H . JR ...................................... 1615 

RICH. ABIGAIL cxw ....................................... 2111 

RICH. DAVID G ............................................ 136 

RICH. JAMES JR ........................................... 2111 

RICHARDS. C.C. ........................................... 2024 

RICHARDS. CHRIS .......................................... 1640 

RICHARDS. JOSEPH S ................................... 321. 339 

RICHARDS. LARRY A ........................................ 1888 

RICHARDSON. DOUGLAS W .................................... 3971 

RICHARDSON. WALTEX ....................................... 4137 

RI(sIEy FAMILY ............................................ 3334 

RI(sIEy. HAROLD H ......................................... 768 

RICHEX. LARRY D .......................................... 3747 

RICHEY. MXGARET ......................................... 3102 

RIQWAN. JONATHAN ........................................ 308 

RICW"D. DR . & MRS . DENNIS .............................. 4201 

RICHK3ND. KAREN .......................................... 3990 

RICHMXD. KEN ............................................ 4071 

RIECHEL. BILL ............................................ 3166 

Rim, MAX ............................................... 713 

RIFFEL. STAN ............................................. 523 

RIIPPI. GEORGE ........................................... 93 

RIKEU. JOHN M ............................................ 414 

RILEY. R.R. .............................................. 4300 

RINDE. FELIX ............................................. 1488 

RING. FRANK A ............................................ 4274 

RINNE. WILLIAM E ......................................... 86 

RIPLEY. LQREITA .......................................... 2024 

RIPLEY. TOM .............................................. 2024 

RISK. LEDN ............................................... 3613 

RITPER. C.D. ............................................. 590 

RITPSCHER. JUDITH E ...................................... 1693 

RIVERA. RICARM) .......................................... 1181 

RIVERS. WALTER ........................................... 275 

ROBERSON. B.E. ........................................... 3345 

~~~N, DENNIS ......................................... 3082 

ROBERTS. BIiooKE .......................................... 645 

ROBERTS. CATHY ........................................... 667 

RIDDER-WHITE. BROOKS ..................................... 935 

516 
MLME Ill NUMBER 

ROBFBTS. DON ............................................. 4164 

ROBmTS. EXNARD E ........................................ 4245 

ROBERTS. HAL ............................................. 1944 

ROBERTS. MARIA &DANIEL F ................................ 1244 

ROBERTS. MARK ............................................ 1640 

ROBERTS. WILLIAM E ....................................... 3809 

ROBERTSON. D.R. .......................................... 3245 

ROBERTSON. DONALD ........................................ 4409 

ROBERTSON. KINALL3 G ...................................... 4322 

ROBIDFAUX. LARRY ......................................... 3279 

ROBINSON. JOEL P ......................................... 1644 

ROCHA. INGRID ............................................ 3925 

FCC€E. SHAUML N .......................................... 3033 

RODENRYS. BARBARA ........................................ 3216 

RODENRYS. JOHN ........................................... 3155 

RODEMARD. CWWES ........................................ 1559 

ROE. GARY ................................................ 662 

ROFLLCHEN. CHRISTINE A ................................... 2104 

ROFSM. RANDY ............................................ 4273 

ROESSING. W .............................................. 3916 

ROGERS. MxK;LAs B .................................. 161. 1682 

RCGERS. KATHY ............................................ 364 

ROGERS. LEAH ............................................. 314 

ROGERS. Ross ............................................. 4005 

ROGERS. SWlT R .......................................... 1447 

ROW. WILLIAM E ......................................... 4174 

PQHLANDER. DAVID ......................................... 3087 

ROHLANDER. KNAS ......................................... 4008 

ROHLWSi FAMILY ........................................... 2024 

ROLLKX. KENNETH ......................................... 18 

ROMERO. DANNY ............................................ 1035 

RC"E FAMILY ............................................ 1822 

RCMWE. JUDITH ........................................... 1383 

RONJALD. KEN ............................................. 1699 

RGNNING. CONNIE JO ....................................... 3M)3 

RONNING. RICH ............................................ 3004 

ROSCZYK. MARY LO3 ........................................ 78 

ROSE. SarrP .............................................. 1612 

ROSENBERG FAMILY ......................................... 3013 

ROSENBEFG. WILLIAM ....................................... 3021 

ROSENFIELD. SHELLEY ...................................... 4310 

R0SE"Z. JOHN ......................................... 3146 

ROSENTHAL. A.L. .......................................... 4447 

ROS-. D.E. .......................................... 3158 

ROSENTHAL. JOEL B ........................................ 4230 

ROSENTRFPER. DIANE ................................... 56. 1466 

ROSS. JEFF ............................................... 1947 

ROSS. JEFFREY ............................................ 237 

ROSS. NOR" ............................................. 2106 

ROSS . RICHARD ............................................ 3501 

ROSSI. JUSTIN ............................................ 1071 

ROBFRTS. EDEN ............................................ 3423 

ROBINSON. JAMFS A ........................................ 3439 

ROBINSON. KA- ....................................... 553 

517 
~ 

=SI. -EXPA ........................................... 4081 

IEOSSI. TERRY ............................................. 1433 

FCSSIER. LINDA ........................................... 792 

ROPARY DIS~C” #528 ..................................... 2186 

ROTH . LILLIAN M .......................................... 1374 

ROTH. LORI ............................................... 1896 

IEOTHENBERGER. ROxm ..................................... 3363 

ROTHROCX. DAVID .......................................... 1157 ”. PHIL .............................................. 3195 

m. PAUL & JOYCE ...................................... 4034 

RUO3. JAMES M ............................................ 3789 

ROWON. BOBBY ....................................... 1157. 1888 

ROYE. DAVID .............................................. 746 

RUBAUM. LAD .............................................. 3283 

RUBINSTEIN. NDW E ..................................... 4120 

FUBISH. H7+RUY ........................................... 898 

RUDNICX. KEITH ........................................... 1640 

RUDOLPH. RICHARD L ....................................... 524 

RUEKBERG. JOE ............................................ 3198 

RUHNAU. SESE ............................................ 1866 

RUMBLE. R ................................................ 4439 

F‘SJMJAHN. THERESA G ....................................... 2060 

PJJPNEL. E.J. ............................................. 3392 

RWPELSBURG. JOAN ........................................ 1489 

RUPP. KEVIN .............................................. 1552 

FSJPPE. LAWRENCE R ........................................ 3910 

RUSER. alRwN B .......................................... 1990 

RUSO. LEWIS J ............................................ 3732 

RUSS. DON ................................................ 778 

RUSSELL. MXK: ............................................ 4429 

RUSSELL. EVAN ............................................ 1737 

RUSSELL. J.M. ............................................ 1915 

RUSSELL. JULIA S ......................................... 1858 

RUSSELL. mm ........................................... 2004 

RUSSELL. WILLIAM T ....................................... 158 

RuTSCi”N. J . & BODARY. SARAH ........................... 1524 

RUTP. JOE ................................................ 6013 

RUTTRiBFE. SAM A ........................................ 4263 

RWO. LARRY .............................................. 2189 

RYAN. B .................................................. 3025 

RYAN. DONALD A ........................................... 2024 

RYAN. JOSEPH W ........................................... 3951 

RYDER. ANN M ............................................. 3436 

RYERSON. DIANE ........................................... 1519 

SABAD. VICKI A ........................................... 5030 

SAILQR. JANE ............................................. 1789 

SALAGIN. DAVID L ......................................... 1949 

SALARI. JUDITH ........................................... 1888 

SALAS. YOLANDA ........................................... 3511 

SALATHIEL. LINDSAY ....................................... 4254 

SALEM. JOSE V ............................................ 4485 

SALbDNT. BETZ ............................................ 3684 

SAMARDICH. ARNOLD ........................................ 586 

SANDELL. DAVID R ......................................... 4121 

518 
NAME mm" 

SANDER. k" ........................................... 1295 

RIcnmn ......................................... 1232 

SANDERS. SUSAN ........................................... 3053 

SAND-. ALICE & a?im ............................... 2024 

SAMILER. DJ .............................................. 1640 

SANEDRD. TIM)THY B ....................................... 449 

SAt?KS. GRK4 ............................................. 3611 

SARaUN. LARRY ........................................... 3037 

SARCHY. HE?WH ............................................ 1157 

SARWL. JOHN E ............................................ 1517 

SASSMA". RITA ........................................... 3011 

SATI'LER. .......................................... 1513 

SAULSBERKY. M ............................................ 296 

SAVAGE. RIm .......................................... 852 

SAWKA. STEPHEN ........................................... 1471 

SAWNER. M ................................................ 1273 

SAWYER. Ria" .......................................... 3609 

SWCE. WILLIAM R ........................................ 4450 

SCXCELJX. E.S. .......................................... 3405 

scAReELu3. FRED .......................................... 432 

SCENIC SHORELINE PRESERVATION ................. 2178 

scHAm. MI- ........................................ 1439 

SBIAEFER . FRED ........................................... 3020 

SmAEFER. WILLIAM P ...................................... 47 

SCHAEFFER. MRS . SAlVlIIEL ................................... 3465 

SCHAFFER. GEORGE ......................................... 3737 

S-ER. JANET ....................................... 3184 

SCliAT. EXICK ............................................. 1312 

SCXAUENAYE?. ROBERT ...................................... 644 

SCHIPP. c;ARL ............................................. 3017 

SWRO. tWRCEL ........................................... 3778 

SMLAU. LAUREN ........................................... 1298 

ScHw(. JOHN ............................................. 3163 

S(311VIALHORST . CAROL ....................................... 4296 

SCEWLHORST. W.R. ........................................ 3250 

SCHMIDT. ALLAN R . & ANNE C ............................... 179 

SCHMIDT. REINHARD E ...................................... 4412 

SC€lMILYl'.mYBAa. ULRIC3-I .................................. 2173 

SQPIITI'. EVELYN .......................................... 3825 

SCHWVLR. BFITY ........................................... 1185 

SCHV+DT. JANET E ......................................... 3660 

SCHNEIDER. BRAD & KELLY .................................. 907 

SCHNEIDER. LAURA ......................................... 1462 

SQIOEN. CHAD ............................................. 37 

SCHOERNER. E.H. .......................................... 753 

SCHOERNER. KATHLEEN ...................................... 755 

SCHWL OF ET BORDERS. STEVEN FOSTER .................... 1223 

SCNOOLER. JAMES .......................................... 3217 

SCHOPP. JOHN ............................................. 3433 

SCHo?T. JIM .............................................. 1742 

SCHOTZ. ANDRE& ........................................... 3552 

SCHXWEILFR. JOANNE ...................................... 57 

SCHRAGER. CRAIG .......................................... 821 

SAUSER. IIIIDOLPH JFt ....................................... 605 

519 
~ ~~~___ 

smmm. ALAN .......................................... 766 

SWLZ. "IER .......................................... 3396 

SWZ. J.R. ............................................. 3704 

SWLTZ. KIRK ............................................ 757 

SCNMXHER. THERESA ...................................... 3062 

SC-U"S. ALEX ........................................... 1729 

SCHURFR. PAUL ............................................ 4172 

SCHWARTZ. DEB ............................................ 1640 

SCHWARTZ. MARK ........................................... 3010 

SCHWARTZ. ROBERT ......................................... 4238 

SQlWARTZ. STEVE .......................................... 541 

Sm. B ................................................. 1640 

SCOTP. BAIiBARA A ......................................... 79 

Sarrp. CAL ............................................... 4160 

Sm. ELAINE M .......................................... 3794 

sm. O.W. .............................................. 1640 

SCMT. SYD" ............................................. 2148 

SCRIVNER. JACK 0 ......................................... 4224 

SCZAWINSKI. RAY .......................................... 1438 

SEDILU). MICHELLE ........................................ 4038 

SEEBERG. PHIL ............................................ 4314 

SEGAL. AL ................................................ 3175 

SEGAL. HAROLD ............................................ 683 

SEGAL. SWGWN ............................................ 718 

SELIGMAN. TRUDE .......................................... 4445 

SELLINGER. GISELA ........................................ 3290 

SELLINGER. LLOYD ......................................... 3928 

SELLINGER. SEAN .......................................... 3995 

SELTERS. ANDY ............................................ 1943 

SEMLER. STEVE ............................................ 4381 

SENG. FRANK G ............................................ 3969 

SEQUOIA SNohlMoBILE ASSOCIATION ........................... 1109 

SERABIA. BOB & LINDA ..................................... 3079 

SERBOSS FAMILY ........................................... 1157 

SEITANI. TERT. KAPM ..................................... 3620 

sm-sIx BAR RANCH .................................... 1603 

S!WFSON. JEFF ............................................ 3887 

SEWED. ARTHUR ............................................ 1047 

SEYDOR. MI- .......................................... 4323 

SHACKLETIT. NANCY G ....................................... 1663 

SHRFFER. MARK ............................................ 1751 

SHANE. KGVIN ............................................. 1066 

SHANKS. STEVE ............................................ 3329 

SHAPLEY. LLOYD & MARIAN .................................. 1596 

SHARP. CON N . JR ......................................... 832 

SHARPE. .......................................... 2156 

SHARPLESS. RON ........................................... 913 

SHARPSTEEN. MILDRED Y .................................... 1622 

SHATFDRD. JUDGE HENRYW .................................. 3675 

SHAW. CHISTEX7 J .......................................... 3348 

s(s1uyLER. ED ............................................. 3579 

smm. STEVE ........................................... 4465 

SHAVER. MWK ............................................. 1706 

SHAW. JUNE ............................................... 190 

520 
IDNUMBER 

SHELDON. JACK ............................................ 201 

SHELLY. ROBERT E .................................... 692. 1095 

SHEPARD. EDYTHE .......................................... 4084 

SHE". nmvEY .......................................... 57 

smm. LANCE .......................................... 3243 

SHIPPEARD. STAN .......................................... 2024 

SHIPF'EB. DAVID ........................................... 1409 

SHOW. ROBERT .......................................... 2039 

SHORT. MRRK .............................................. 1640 

SHORT. MICKEY ............................................ 3706 

SHORT. R.L. .............................................. 1225 

SHORT. RANDY ............................................. 3755 

SHCWAL'IER. MWiY ANN ...................................... 3899 

SIBBEZ'. DAVID ............................................ 100 

SICK. MARK ............................................... 3138 

SIERRA CLUB ........................................ 1730. 2023 

SIERRA CLUB OF WIFORNIA ................................ 118 

SIERRA CLUB - KNA PRIETA CHAPTER ........................ 1775 

SIERRA CLUB - FSDCKOD CHTPIER ............................ 1485 

SIERRA CLUB - SF BAY CXWl'FX ....................... 1388. 1931 

SIERRA axTNTy BOARD OF SUP~SORS ....................... 2009 

SIERRA FOREST PFODUCl'S ................................... 357 

SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES ..................... 290. 1226. 1899 

SIERRA PACIFIC POWER OoMPANy ............................. 28 

SIERRA TIMBER PRODUCE ............................. 2017. 2197 

SIGIZU. CHRIS ............................................ 1319 

SIWER. Roy M ............................................ 6014 

SICWR. JOE .............................................. 1640 

SI"-. AMY ........................................ 1088 

SILL. MARJORIE ........................................... 978 

SILVA. JOHN .............................................. 3564 

SILVER. D.A. ............................................. 421 

SILVERA. MARC0 ........................................... 4425 

SILVERSTONE. ROGER ....................................... 3920 

SIMAS. BILL .............................................. 3976 

SIMICH. SAM .............................................. 805 

S.D"S, DONNA ........................................... 1672 

SIMmNS. JEAN ............................................ 4347 

SIMmNS. SIDNEY M ........................................ 610 

SIMON. BARBAFA ........................................... 598 

SIMON. JEFF .............................................. 3648 

SIMON. JEIioLD ............................................ 3006 

SIMON. LARRY ............................................. 1987 

SIMON. ROGER D ........................................... 1346 

SIMPSON. HANK ............................................ 1621 

SIMPSON. MILDRED 0 ....................................... 1238 

SIMPSON. RUTH ............................................ 1900 

SINGER. €OY M ............................................ 73 

SINGER. WILLVIM .......................................... 3696 

SINGLE. KEN" v ........................................ 1633 

SIRAClJSO. DAVID A ........................................ 1640 

SISK. RANDY .............................................. 1157 

SISSON. RAY & BFITE ...................................... 1883 

SIDDALL. TEDDI ........................................... 3048 

521 
NAME ID "ER 

SN. SUZANNE ............................................. 1800 

SKEELE. m .............................................. 1780 

SLATE. WRD, ............................................ 361 

SLA-. TIM3THY J ...................................... 456 

SLEWKIE. JERCME .......................................... 211 

SL". PHILLIP & SALLY c ................................ 2111 

SIx)NE. THW H .......................................... 74 

SMALL. GARY .............................................. 3389 

SMALL. sm" ........................................... 4102 

NO. AD- ............................................ 1872 

SMITH. ~LYN ........................................... 3366 

SMITH. CATHERINE P ....................................... 437 

SMITH. CW\RLES ........................................... 1982 

SMITH. CLAY .............................................. 1322 

SMITH. DAVID ............................................. 809 

SMITH. DAVID W ........................................... 325 

SMITH. ELINOR ............................................ 2111 

SMITH. FRANK E ........................................... 1157 

SMITH. GENNY ............................................. 1650 

SMITH. JACK R ............................................ 633 

SMITH. JAMES 0 ........................................... 621 

SMITH. JASON ............................................. 1067 

SMITH. LINDA ............................................. 745 

SMITH. LINDA ............................................. 1779 

SMITH. MICWLEL ........................................... 3180 

SMITH. RICHARD 1157. 1888 

SMITH. FOBERT A .......................................... 2105 

SMITH. ROMILD E .......................................... 2139 

SMITH. FSS W ............................................ 428 

SMITH. RYAN BIXLEY ....................................... 3406 

SMITH. STEVE ............................................. 4493 

SMITH. THCWS Roy ........................................ 856 

SMITH. VICIORIA .......................................... 318 

SMOREE. PAT .............................................. 2024 

SMWLER. LISA ............................................ 3035 

SMYTHE. MEILEE ........................................... 142 

SWP. J ................................................. 3337 

SNOW. ROBERT M ........................................... 3444 

SNYDER. JOHN C ........................................... 31 

SNYDER. ARTHUR K ......................................... 2057 

SNYDER. PATRICIA ......................................... 3168 

SNYDER. PAUL E ........................................... 3776 

SCUTHERN MONO HISTORICAL SOCIEXY ......................... 109 

SOBEL. JUDY .............................................. 223 

SOKOLSKY. AMlREw M ....................................... 993 

SOLARIC. JUDITH .......................................... 1157 

SOLIG. MARTIN ............................................ 4281 

SOLORIO. GABRIEL T ....................................... 631 

SOLVRY. CONRAD R . JR ..................................... 4202 

SOWAGE. JOHN ............................................ 3306 

SWISH. JEFF ............................................ 2024 

SMITH. EVAN .............................................. 2080 

SMITH. J . BIXBY .......................................... 3254 

..................................... 

SNYDER. SATJLY ............................................ 4448 

522 
NAME IDNU" 

soNys!IOR. MIC-JAEL ........................................ 2024 

SORE". BCB'INIE L ....................................... 4187 

SORE". Rccw M ........................................ 4190 

SORGE. M3MIoE B .......................................... 4435 

SOULE. JOHN F ............................................ 609 

SOULE. SAL" A .......................................... 3702 

SCUWERN aIFOFNCA EDISON CCMPANY ....................... 1365 

SOZALS. ROBERTO .......................................... 1671 

SPACXMAN. SUSAN .......................................... 2107 

SPAUSTAT. JAMES H ........................................ 4430 

SPEARE. JOHN L ........................................... 678 

SPEAEMW. JOYCE J ........................................ 1396 

SprmrawiD. €!MY ........................................... 820 

SPECIDR. ANNA ............................................ 1079 

SPENCE. BRIAN C .......................................... 276 

SPENCER. MARK ............................................ 3550 

SPENST. JAMES A .......................................... 1637 

SPIEGEL. SAM ............................................. 454 

SPILLER. CECIL ........................................... 947 

Sm". JEFF ........................................... 2041 

SPRADLIN. EDWW) ......................................... 4163 

SPRAGUE. MICWBL ......................................... 916 

SPURWAY. LYNNE ........................................... 4144 

SQJAW VALLEY. USA ........................................ 1426 

SREDNICX. CRAIG .......................................... 4229 

ST . JOHN. KlRBERT W ...................................... 4264 

STAGUSS. GXFGE ...................................... 00. 1402 

STAINBROOK. SAM .......................................... 4297 

STANDLEY. JEANNE ......................................... 3181 

STANFORD. MARJORIE ....................................... 4114 

STANLEY. ALAN R .......................................... 481 

STANLEY. ANDREW .......................................... 699 

STANLEY. MARK ............................................ 4067 

STANTON. CLIFF ........................................... 4165 

STARK. GREG .............................................. 4367 

STARNES. LES 0 ........................................... 4253 

STARRATP. DYLAN .......................................... 4089 

STATE OF NEV?.DA, DEPAFtm OF WILDLIFE .................. 282 

STAY. CHARLES F ........................................... 4449 

STAZOFF. MEL ............................................. 218 

STEELE. DALE T ........................................... 127 

STEELE. JOHN ............................................. 1640 

STEENBERGEN. JAMES ....................................... 3944 

STEFANIK. ME .......................................... 537 

STEIN. ARTHUR ............................................ 3942 

STEIN. IVAN NORTON ....................................... 4309 

STEIN. JEFF .............................................. 1640 

STEINBACH. ARCHIE ........................................ 3307 

STEINBERG. DANIEL ........................................ 42 

STEINBERG. FFUTZ ......................................... 4010 

STEINBERG. MARIA & ROBERT ................................ 1860 

STEINER. RIClLARIJ ......................................... 722 

STEINECZ. J.E. .......................................... 295 

STEXEL. PFPER ............................................ 1006 

523 
NAME ID NUMBER 

STEMPIEN. MlALTER ......................................... 3575 

STENERSON. R.A. .......................................... 3683 

SI". JOHN ............................................ 674 

STEPHENSON. DAVID A ...................................... 114 

STEPHENSON. w . MIm ................................... 2121 

STERLING. JOHN R ......................................... 1997 

STE". MIRIAM .......................................... 4001 

STERNER. JaAN ............................................ 4079 

STERNE. ROB .............................................. 189 

STERRETT. ELIZABETH ...................................... 3517 

STEVENS. KENT ............................................ 3881 

SEi"S. MARK ............................................ 1792 

Sm. MARK A .......................................... 4359 

STEVENS. RON ............................................. 4289 

VERNA ........................................... 2024 

STEWART. DAVID ........................................... 3130 

STEWART. FRANK ........................................... 1107 

STEWART. GENE ............................................ 1442 

STEWART. JAMES M ......................................... 1493 

STEWART. JON ............................................. 4328 

STEWART. PRLOXN ......................................... 3530 

STEWART. ROBmT D ........................................ 3671 

STEWART. STEVE ........................................... 1102 

STIMSON. JIM ............................................. 1940 

STINSON. DONALD C . & BETIY ............................... 1328 

STIVERS. DONALD C ........................................ 2064 

STOCK. DANIEL ............................................ 1575 

STOCXERT. SUSAN .......................................... 4486 

SMCxFL!DH. JIM .......................................... 2075 

STOKES. MICWLEL .......................................... 3994 

STOLARCZYK. DANIEL A ..................................... 1355 

STONE. =FRED L .......................................... 4459 

STONE. CHRISTOP= ....................................... 3956 

STONE. JEFF .............................................. 91 

STONE. JONATHAN P ........................................ 3369 

STONER. JOHN ............................................. 1913 

STCXIPS. JAMES S .......................................... 1540 

STCUDETDlIRE. SUE ......................................... 728 

S-G. GARY ........................................ 1362 

STOVER. SWIRI ............................................ 3061 

STOWELL. L ............................................... 1159 

STR?C". DON ............................................ 467 

sTRAIm. STEVE .......................................... 4035 

STRATION. AL ............................................. 3492 

STRI-. ROSE ......................................... 2102 

STRIEDICH. DAVID ......................................... 3305 

STRONG. MADGE ............................................ 1561 

STRUm. SUSAN ............................................ 1640 

STRUTZER. BEVERLY ........................................ 3182 

STUCKBY. JOE ............................................. 240 

STUMP. THERESA ........................................... 1655 

SUAREZ. AML M ............................................ 5011 

SUBART. ROBERT ........................................... 1999 

SUEMNICHT. KENT R . & WRCESTER. "cy .................... 3687 

524 
~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ 

SUK. KATIE ............................................... 492 

SUK. ROBBIE .............................................. 164 

SUK. TCN ....................................... 146. 165. 1583 

SULLIVAN. SYLVIA ......................................... 3911 

SUNSHINE MINING COMPANY. M3N EARNEST ..................... 1023 

SIITHERLAND. ROBERT ....................................... 491 

mER. BFUCE ........................................ 3617 

SMIANSON. JOHN R .......................................... 27 

SMIANSON. ROBERT T ........................................ 1377 

ShlANSON. TODD ............................................ 1935 

SWART. DAVID B ........................................... 231 

SWATEER. GRFPA LOU ....................................... 3293 

SWEAT. RALPH ............................................. 2024 

SWEDE. SUZANNE L ......................................... 1761 

SWEENEY. E.M. ............................................ 3282 

SWEFP. ELAINE & LARSON. LARS ............................. 1820 

WIGART. JIM ............................................. 1172 

SWONGER. CLAUDE A ........................................ 3697 

SZPILA. WlBERT ........................................... 3385 

TAGGART. MARIANNE ........................................ 185 

TAIRA. JUN ............................................... 822 

TAJm. GMlRGE ........................................... 3140 

TAJIMA. TAZ .............................................. 3214 

TAKASE. HAYAHIKO ......................................... 3041 

TAKEDA. DENCIS K ......................................... 3171 

TALBOT. WILLIAM .......................................... 4023 

TALB(nl'. W.S. ............................................ 4203 

TALL. ROBERT E ........................................... 1158 

TM. CHUCK ........................................... 3266 

TALI". ROXANNE ......................................... 4428 

TALLSTRUP. BURKE ......................................... 3645 

TANABE. R ................................................ 3655 

TRPP. GREG ............................................... 700 

TARBUSH. DAVID S ......................................... 1327 

TARLAUX. JOHN ............................................ 1640 

TARRY. SALLY ............................................. 2024 

TATE. MARTIN ............................................. 1688 

TATE. MATI! ............................................... 1075 

TAWM. WAYNE M ........................................... 4017 

TAYLOR. AM;us E .......................................... 1544 

TAYLOR. CRAIG ............................................ 3063 

TAYLOR. DEAN W ........................................... 1652 

TAYLOR. JIM ........................................ 1157. 1888 

TAYLOR. WILLIAM T ........................................ 225 

TEHAMA FLY FISHERS ....................................... 1894 

TELLER. ADAIR ............................................ 222 

TE"T. JOHN R .......................................... 3512 

TEPLIN. IAWREXE ......................................... 3917 

TERNES. PATRICK .......................................... 4351 

m. SHELLY .......................................... 1640 

SWANBERG. LEE ............................................ 300 

SWECIZAND. TODD .......................................... 4379 

SZYMBRISKT. MARK ......................................... 3989 

TELLIANO. MI- ........................................ 640 

525 
TERRELL. HOLLIS .................................... 3047. 4135 

TERUES. Fa" ........................................... 3804 

TERWILLEGAR. WILLIAM ..................................... 1640 

TESADA. ANNA ALISA ....................................... 2111 

TH?". TED ............................................ 1349 

"s. CANDY ............................................ 3542 

"s. GWEN ............................................. 595 

PzIOMAs. Lm ............................................ 239 

THOMAS. r.5" ......................................... 124 

THCMS. SHARON L ......................................... 627 

THOMPSON. GRANT .......................................... 3314 

THOMPSON. KEITH V ........................................ 3952 

THOMPSON. RANDALL S ...................................... 3616 

THOMPSON. RICHARD E ...................................... 647 

THOMPSON. TUELWi ......................................... 570 

"SEN. ALEX ............................................ 613 

THCMSON. GEORGE W ........................................ 1482 

THCMSON. JXON ........................................... 1046 

THCMSON. JULIE ........................................... 3131 

THORBURN. DEE DEE ........................................ 5000 

THORLEY. G.R. ............................................ 4064 

THOW. STEPHEN .......................................... 4181 

THR?PP. MICHELE .......................................... 962 

THYE. JOAN FAYE .......................................... 3489 

THYE. ROBERT P ........................................... 3718 

TICE. DEBBIE ............................................. 2024 

TIW. MR . & MRS . GEORGE ................................. 2043 

TIDWELL. DON ............................................. 1933 

TIELROOY. JACK ........................................... 417 

TIELIICOY. JOHN E ......................................... 3242 

TIER". CAROLYN J ....................................... 1613 

TIESZEN. KEITH J ......................................... 3524 

TIFFANY. TED W ........................................... 780 

TIGEE. MARIE ............................................. 1260 

TILLEMANS. BRIAN ......................................... 337 

TILmSON. ROBERT ........................................ 3661 

TILTON. CURTIS ........................................... 4370 

TIMY. LINDA .............................................. 3437 

TIPTON. KATHIE L ......................................... 508 

TJCMSLAND. RI- G ..................................... 3657 

TOBIAS. ROBERT ........................................... 982 

TOBIN. JACK .............................................. 606 

TODD. JEFF ............................................... 751 

TODD. JOHN E ............................................. 4041 

TODD. RANDY .............................................. 2082 

TODD. WILLIAM R .......................................... 2083 

"U3RzZINI. TERRY ........................................ 4268 

MLKIN. MARSHA ........................................... 2066 

TOLLGY. CHRIS ............................................ 551 

!E-IAW3IER. ADRIANNE ....................................... 661 

THEYS. THcMAs ............................................ 4251 

THCMS. JIM .............................................. 4397 

TH-N. ELLIorP ........................................ 569 

THCX"S0N. GEORGE ......................................... 3069 

526 
NAME "WEER 

TDLLSTRUP. WiRII?, ......................................... 3658 

l"JK0. CnLKlZ ........................................... 4024 

mc. JUDITH c .......................................... 3847 

TONDPAH. (;LEND .......................................... 2024 

TONSTCH. JOAN M .......................................... 641 

TOPAKIAN. KAREN LFSLIE ................................... 38 

TOPHAM. alus ............................................ 583 

mm. ESTHER ......................................... 3754 

TOITER. MLKE ............................................. 1050 

lwBEs. JUDITH ........................................... 495 

TORRENCE. H.L. ........................................... 3705 

"H. BOB ................................................ 4173 

lWRJI. JAMES ....................................... 630. 2128 

TREIBAm. I ............................................. 4260 

TflEMBLY. LARRY G ......................................... 2024 

TFOlTER. LOISELL W ....................................... 1754 

TROUPE. RONALD C ......................................... 3823 

TROUTH. MARTIN ........................................... 2024 

TFamLL. .(=LARK ........................................... 1903 

TRIJDEAU. G ............................................... 3844 

=TI'. MICHAEL A ........................................ 322 

TRUTE. NoIiMAN G .......................................... 860 

TRYON. ELVA .............................................. 3454 

TUCXPLW. TERRY ........................................... 4208 

TucI(ER. DAVID ............................................ 1709 

TU-. FRED K ...................................... 235. 3368 

TUCKER. WLY ............................................ 3169 

TUCKER. SUSAN A .......................................... 3571 

TUELE. ROBERT L .......................................... 1382 

TUESCIER. TED ............................................ 1930 

'IWFCM. DAVE ............................................. 2024 

TULARE COIJNIY BQARD OF SUl"S0Rs ....................... 137 

TuLLCcK. VIRGINIA ........................................ 795 

TULLOCX. WILBUR J ...................................... 3866 

"PELL. DAN .............................................. 1276 

TURNER. ANDREA ........................................... 725 

TURNER. BARBARA .......................................... 1005 

IZIRNER. C.G. ............................................. 1190 

TURNER. JOHN W . JR .................................. 144. 1442 

TURNER. MICWLEL .......................................... 2079 

TURNER. RICHARD .......................................... 1157 

"AN. TIMOTHY ........................................... 3148 

UIDWCH. J .............................................. 4092 

ULFELDT. VIC & VIRGINIA .................................. 389 

ULLCM. SHIRGEY ........................................... 4148 

U". TODD .............................................. 3092 

ULVAE. MYRA ............................................. 1191 

UIVMEL. MARILYN ........................................... 1725 

UiXGERSm. DICK ........................................... 1062 

UNGRODT. B ............................................... 3257 

UNITED STATES HANG GLIDING ASSOCIATION INalRpoRATED ...... 1658 

UNITED STATES SKI ASSOCIATION ............................ 305 

UPHAM. DAVID W ........................................... 3738 

mRLFX. TERRY ........................................... 355 

527 
~ 

URBAN (3REEKs COUNCIL ..................................... 1594 

URIBE. ERIC .............................................. 582 

US DEPARTVENT OF THE INTERIOR ............................ 25 

US DEPARTVENT OF TRANSPORTATION .......................... 30 

US EWIRO"I73L PROTECTION AGENCY ....................... 2213 

US SKI XSOCIATION. HOWARD PETESON ...................... 1101 

USDI . ENV1RO"IAL PROJECT REVIEW ...................... 487 

USDI - BUREAUOF LAND &"AGEPENT ......................... 2175 

VAILANCCURT. "ML ....................................... 2024 

VALKASS. WLEE ......................................... 3531 

VALLE-RIESTRA. CHRISTOPHER ............................... 1598 

VAN ANDERSON. JUSTIN ..................................... 1063 

VAN BRIESEN. JESSICA ..................................... 1854 

VAN DER NOORDAA. HANS .................................... 1217 

VAN DUZEOR. DENIS ........................................ 1143 

VAN "ITAN. CHIP ......................................... 671 

VAN NESS. A" ............................................ 1713 

VAN OPPEN. REE ........................................... 1806 

VAN STEENBERGEN. BERNICE ................................. 1487 

VAN VALKENBuRQ.I, BILL .................................... 4395 

VANCE. CHRIS ............................................. 2031 

VARIAKOJIS. VILIA M ...................................... 4196 

VARNEY. MARCELENE ........................................ 1832 

VAWXAN. J.M. ............................................ 1113 

VAWXAN. JEFF ............................................ 1416 

VAUPEN. JOAN ............................................. 3260 

VAZ-VIERA. PRISCILLA ..................................... 3614 

VOJLEK. DAVE ............................................. 1610 

VMX). LEROY .............................................. 4286 

WIN. PHILLIP ............................................ 3022 

VENTURIAN. RICHARD J ..................................... 3315 

VERBEKE. FRANK ........................................... 2044 

VERNON. LINDA E .......................................... 1339 

VIELAM). PAUL ............................................ 1716 

VI". SVEIN ............................................. 3239 

VIRGINIA 4wD ASSOCIATION ................................. 2065 

VXE. CARL R ............................................. 3599 

VOGEL. MAUREEN ........................................... 4031 

VOGEL. WILLIAM D ......................................... 3507 

VOLHALL. WILLIAM ......................................... 1877 

VOLKMAN. JOY ............................................. 1639 

VON LAUE. MADELEINE ...................................... 2137 

VON WEN. P ............................................ 3209 

WRHEES. ALAN S ......................................... 4358 

VORSTER. PETER ........................................... 1795 

VOSS. RONALD L ........................................... 1791 

WTAVA. DAFCIE A ......................................... 419 

WADDELL. ELISE K ......................................... 4422 

WADE. EDMOND D ........................................... 4283 

WADSWORTH. BILLY 0 ....................................... 4344 

WAGGONEE. ROBERT F ....................................... 2087 

Wm. JOHN JR .......................................... 3172 

WHL. GRM; ............................................... 1667 

WAKE. MIQPEL E .......................................... 1157 

528 
NAME ID mER 

WALCHUK. JIM ............................................. 4371 

W?iLczAK. THCWG S .................................. 1741. 3984 

WALDW+I. NEwroN .......................................... 3728 

WALKER. ERICA ............................................ 1564 

WALKER. GREG W ........................................... 2024 

WALKER. JOE .............................................. 3098 

WALKEX. LINDA ............................................ 4345 

WALKER. LYNNA ............................................ 333 

WALKER. MARK ............................................. 3443 

WALKER. MARY ............................................. 3188 

WALKER. ROBERT V ......................................... 262 

WALKER. SAM .............................................. 3362 

WALKER. sm ............................................ 4444 

WALKER. SHELLEY B ........................................ 2096 

"CE. ANN ............................................. 1112 

"CE. JEANNE .......................................... 2111 

WALLACE. LINDA ........................................... 424 

WALLJB. ARLENE ........................................... 1651 

W?+Lli. DUANE V . JR ........................................ 979 

WALSH. MI- ........................................... 837 

WALTER. JEANNE ........................................... 1723 

WALTER. PAWCIA ......................................... 249 

WALTER. RUTH P ........................................... 896 

WALTER. THm L ......................................... 309 

WALTERS. NANCY ........................................... 1973 

WANDRAK. KARL ............................................ 1640 

WLRBURTON. MICHAEL ....................................... 320 

WARD. GILBERT W: ......................................... 3352 

WARD. MARK D ............................................. 800 

WARDRUP. CHARLENE ........................................ 3585 

WARHAFT. VAL L CHRIS ..................................... 4212 

WLRNER. KATHRYN .......................................... 2135 

WLRNER . SUSAN B .......................................... 1503 

hlARREN. DANIEL C ......................................... 399 

WAR". LISA ............................................. 4099 

WARREN. ROBERT ........................................... 2161 

WARREN. RUSSELL .......................................... 4373 

WARSASP. LARRY ........................................... 3265 

W?SHI"ON. JOE .......................................... 147 

WATE3BURY. DENISE .................................. 2177. 2199 

WATEEHOUSE. HAROLD ....................................... 1804 

WATERS. FRANK G . JR ...................................... 4124 

WATKINS. AGICE ........................................... 3114 

WATSON. KIBERT ........................................... 4353 

WEATHERLY. FRED E ........................................ 2076 

WEATHERLY. MARSHA L ...................................... 2089 

WEA-. VIRGIMA ..................................... 849 

WEAVER. CYWHIA .......................................... 522 

WEBB. ALLN P ............................................ 3262 

WEBER. GERALD ............................................ 2070 

WEBER. KEITH c ........................................... 3945 

WEBSTER. "CY c ......................................... 3449 

WEEK. DouGLIls H .......................................... 2002 

WEHAUSEN. JOHN D ......................................... 1097 

529 
NAME ID "ER 

wEm"N. WAR" ........................................ 3270 

wEmERT. CARL ............................................ 1516 

WEIL' ALLEN & MA" ................................... 77 

WEINER. STEPHEN A ........................................ 3335 

WEISHAN. ERIC ............................................ 3879 

w~m. EW~TIN Y ......................................... 4217 

WELCH. DON D ............................................. 3714 

WELD. R.S. ............................................... 2024 

WlZJXlN. LEE G ...................................... 1323. 3752 

WELL. BRIAN .............................................. 1133 

WELLER. GEOFXX A ......................................... 371 

WELLS. ARTHUR C .......................................... 3427 

WELLS. HARRICP ........................................... 4326 

WELLS. JACKIE ............................................ 2144 

WELLS. JAgluELINE B ...................................... 4420 

WELLS. RICX .............................................. 572 

WENDELL. JOHN ............................................ 709 

WESER. MIKE .............................................. 1526 

WESER. PAUL .............................................. 2134 

WESSENOORF. Ro~ ....................................... 3373 

WEST. CAFOLYN ............................................ 2124 

WESTBROOK. BARBARA ....................................... 1147 

WESTBROOK. JANGP ......................................... 914 

WESTERN TIMBER ASSOCIATION ............................... 1432 

WESTIMXON. SOrrr ........................................ 4004 

WESTON. SCMT ............................................ 328 

WESTWCX33 VILLAGE ROTARY CLUB ............................. 2187 

WETHEW. JASON ........................................... 1060 

WETPELAND. LANCE ......................................... 3197 

WETPELAND. LINDA C ....................................... 3144 

WEITSTEIN. GERTRUDE. DANIEL &ANDREAS .................... 1801 

WEITSTEIN. MAROUS ........................................ 1803 

WEXLER. JEFFREY .......................................... 78 

WHEELER. BRYCE A ......................................... 1837 

WHEELER. DE" ............................................ 3921 

WELLER. Nom ........................................... 1642 

WHITE. CHIP .............................................. 4464 

WHITE. COLLEEN ........................................... 777 

WHITE. WUmAs ........................................... 894 

WHITE. J.R. .............................................. 3576 

WHITE. JAMES M ........................................... 734 

WHITE. JEAN .............................................. 2024 

WHITE. MICHAELA .......................................... 1660 

WHITE. RUSS .............................................. 3962 

WHITE. THOMAS B .......................................... 3261 

WHITEIS. JXINND M ........................................ 843 

WHITING. MARK ............................................ 380 

WHI?MoRE. GEORGE W ....................................... 1557 

WHITNEY PORTAL NON-PROFIT CORKIFATION .................... 1278 

InMITPEHER. SANDRA ........................................ 1989 

WHITrINQIAM. KAREN ....................................... 4354 

WICXERSWLM. BETPY ........................................ 440 

WICR". JVDY L .......................................... 306 

WIDEN. JEFF .............................................. 1521 

530 
WIENS. M.J. JR ........................................... WIEST. BRIAN ............................................. WIaINs. THm .......................................... WILDEX. MIKE ............................................. WILDERNESS SOCIETY ....................................... WILDING. MIcHAeL ......................................... WILK. CWiISTA & BILL ..................................... WILKINSON. BONNIE E ...................................... WILKINSON. CATHERINE A ................................... WILKINSON. C-IRIS ......................................... WILKINSON. K ............................................. WILLAHAN. TERRY M ........................................ WILLARD. DWIG3T M ........................................ WILLIAM?., ANGELA M ....................................... WILLIAM?., FRANK .......................................... WILLIAMS. GAKY ........................................... WILLIAM?., GARY ........................................... WILLIAMS. JACK JR ........................................ WILLIAM?., MARK ........................................... WILLLIplvff. MIKE ........................................... WILLIS. JX" ........................................... 

WILLIS. MEGAN ............................................ WILLIS. RM .............................................. WILSON. BRYAN ............................................ WILSON. DENISE ........................................... WILSON. ERIC B ........................................... WILSON. JAMES ....................................... 912. 

WILSON. MATHEPI ........................................... WILSON. RICHARD .......................................... WILSON. ROBERT ........................................... WILSON. ROBIN ............................................ WILSON. RUSSELL S ........................................ WILTGEN. JAMES ........................................... WIND. " ............................................... WINDES. BILL ............................................. WINFORD. SHERILYN A ...................................... WING. FRED ............................................... WINNINGHAM. VIRGINIA ..................................... WINSTEAD. TERRI .......................................... 

WILLIAMS. L!XJIS J ........................................ 

WILLIS. JAMES H .......................................... 

WINTER. 

m. 

ARCHIE F ......................................... CRAIG ............................................ WINTERS. GINA ............................................ WnmERs. LEONARD ......................................... WINTERS. SANDRA J ........................................ WINTERSTEEN. M . LOUISE ................................... WINTUS. T ................................................ WINZENREAD. KATIE ........................................ WINZENREAD. ROBERT ....................................... WISDA. JAMES ........................................ 452. 

WISEN&9KER. EUGENE M ..................................... MTISSON. ART .............................................. WITrE. WENDELL ........................................... 

531 

3943 

1640 

4069 

1044 

2169 

3149 

267 

229 

4393 

4096 

1640 

2111 

117 

1157 

1329 

3639 

3882 

1053 

1a39 

123 

89 

1251 

1253 

3600 

4265 

4193 

664 

3822 

2202 

1684 

479 

3291 

1286 

1818 

1284 

3835 

1846 

216 

2028 

2024 

1213 

1157 

1640 

2086 

3836 

3419 

1882 

1697 

1074 

3001 

3521 

1250 

2163 

3109 
NAME ID "ER 

WITPERS. RANDY ....................................... 41. 2214 

WIM. HAZEL ........................................... 4329 

WIM. J.R. ............................................ 4131 

WDLAR. GLY" G ........................................... 950 

WDLF. C .................................................. 3570 

WDLFE. WILLIE ............................................ 1157 

WDLFE. WYNDON W .......................................... 3810 

WOLFRAM. SUSAN ........................................... 4168 

WDLINSKY. MAURO .......................................... 3870 

VDN. SHERWIN C ........................................... 3919 

WDOD. BERNIm ............................................ 1677 

WDOD. DEBBIE ............................................. 1937 

WOOD. PAULA .............................................. 3797 

IKKlD. WILLIAM A .......................................... 477 

WOODS. DON ............................................... 1400 

WDODS. "CY ............................................. 1008 

WOODWOSK. PATRICK ........................................ 273 

w(xrpAN. GEORGE ........................................... 2174 

WORCESTER. WENDY ......................................... 3401 

WORDEN. DANIEL ........................................... 9 

WE. WILLIAM A .......................................... 489 

WORKMAN. GEORGE H ........................................ 4022 

WOFUEY. R . EDWIN ......................................... 1012 

WDRTHING. RALPH .......................................... 3137 

WSSNER. axxtTNFI ........................................ 696 

WRIGHT. CLIFFORD ......................................... 1597 

WRIGHT. CONNIE L ......................................... 955 

WRIGHT. DAVID ............................................ 4058 

WRIGHT. DONNA M .......................................... 3679 

WRIGHT. EDWIN ............................................ 4057 

WRIGHT. GRAWLM J ......................................... 145 

WRIGHT. PATRICIA ......................................... 1888 

WRIGHT. W.S. ............................................. 1157 

WRIGHT. WILBUR w ......................................... 784 

WRIGHT. WILL JR .......................................... 881 

WUEST. BRITT ............................................. 1765 

WuLLJ.CN, JOHN R .......................................... 1851 

WYCKOFF. ELIZABCPH ....................................... 3723 

WYLIE. BLANCHE ..................................... 1224. 1326 

WYLIE. LAWRENCE A ........................................ 72 

WYLIE. WILLIAM J ......................................... 1270 

WE". GEORGE ............................................ 3909 

YABIXINICKY. G.J. ......................................... 3105 

YACOBOZZI. GABRIELLE T ................................... 3377 

YAEGER. PKILIP ........................................... 4014 

YAGER. DAVID ............................................. 3393 

YAMADA. B ................................................ 2132 

yAMAM(IID. DAVE ........................................... 4362 

YAMMXO. MARK ........................................... 4270 

YA". I(EN ............................................ 3958 

YAMRSHITA. FRED .......................................... 3643 

YAMASHITA. IRENE ......................................... 1922 

"ICKI. FRED ........................................... 4498 

WDOD. LINDA .............................................. 3603 

532 
c 

NAME ID NllMBER 

W. .............................................. 169 

YANZ. J .......................................... 3596 

W. MII(E ............................................... 626 

YATA. HOGJARD ............................................. 3877 

YAUAN. SUSIE ............................................. 253 

YEE. LEONARD ............................................. 369 

YEE. "E .............................................. 2141 

YERGAT. JOHN G ...................................... 977. 3818 

YILLIK. R ................................................ 3781 

MDER. VINCENT ........................................... 2194 

mm. GARY ............................................. 4497 

mm. LORAINE .......................................... 5002 

YOST. JIM ................................................ 4418 

YOST. TANNY .............................................. 4198 

YOUNG. ANNE L ............................................ 4315 

YOUNG. BARRIE ............................................ 4207 

YOUNG. ROBERT J .......................................... 3380 

YOUNGER. MARK D .......................................... 448 

YRIBARREN. LOUIE & ILA ................................... 1192 

YRLBARREN. RON & CATHY ................................... 1019 

YUNGFLEISCH. J.O. ........................................ 4210 

YUSEM. DAVID T ........................................... 3331 

ZABEZ. DIXIE ............................................. 342 

ZACK. DEDE ............................................... 675 

ZACK. MILTON M ........................................... 3756 

ZAKOS. THCMAS J . JR ...................................... 4061 

ZiLL. RICHARD ............................................ 4222 

ZAMoLKoW. DAVID A ........................................ 3913 

ZAMIES. STAN ............................................. 1214 

YOUNG. MICHAEL s ......................................... 1163 

ZARING. ALAN ............................................. 3319 

ZARING. JENNIFER ......................................... 885 

ZENGE. Bo ................................................ 1640 

ZERWLGEL. E(ELLER ......................................... 31 

ZERNE. STANLEY ........................................... 770 

ZIBAFP. SEAN ............................................. 4170 

ZIEBARTM. GARY W ......................................... 3796 

ZIEBARTH. MARCI .......................................... 1604 

ZIEGENMEYER. AFfDEN R ..................................... 1859 

ZIEGLER. JUNE B .......................................... 31 

ZIEXENBERG. "cy ........................................ 170 

ZILD. FRANK T ............................................ 814 

Zw. P.A. MIKE ..................................... 1186 

ZIIVMERMA". GERRY ........................................ 3043 

ZINICOLA. GUY ............................................ 3420 

ZI". ROGER .............................................. 3190 

ZINSER. KEITH ............................................ 774 

ZOOK. w\IIGXT AM) SUSAN ............................... 3526. 3527 

ZOGCHKE. STEVEN H ........................................ 7 

ZIJPSTEIN. MARC & ETHEL ............................. 4456. 4476 

ZUTI. LEE ................................................ 988 

ZWICK. JOEL L ............................................ 4179 

533 
aAppendix B 

FORPLAN 

Resource Allocation Model 

and Analysis Process 
-purpose of this Appndix is to present a technical discussion of the 

analysis process and models used. Basic asslmpstions, nude1 cnnpnmts and 

Wts, rmdeling rules and metlxds, and &ling mtraints imposes (along 

with their raticmale and impacts) are described. Information presented 

supplenentS the broader and less technical descriptims that are included in 

the boay Of the DEIS. 

muse of the cxmplexity of the plamjq precess, the large variety of land 

units, and the pssible managenient activities that wuld be applied, a numbsr 

of "atical models were needed to conduct the analysis. 

FORPLAN is the primaq modeling tml used to assure that land allocations and 

output schedules for alternatives and ix"&s are made in a way that meets 

all mtxaints in the mxt cost efficient manner. In addition to being used 

to fmlate alternatives and b"m% that are both feasible and cost 

efficient, FORPLAN is also used to perform detailed accounting mrk and to 

generate sumnary reports of infonnation needed to construct the display 

tables in the EIS. Additional models are used to generate input data for use 

in FORPLAN and to interpret output data fran FORPLAN. RAMPREP is the growth 

and harvest model used to make timber yield estimates for use in FORPLAN. 

The FIREPLAN system was used to estimate the fire qanization, activity 

levels, and fire management costs reqired to efficiently achieve the program 

direction for each alternative. Wildlife Habitat Capabilitv Mzdels were used 

to estimate effects on wildlife and fish ppulations. An in- and 

atployment model was built using the RIErLs system in order to estimate inand employment effects fran changes in Forest outputs. A mre detailed 

descripticm of each of these models is included in this appendix. 

THE FOREST PLANNING MlDEL (FORPLAN) I-/ 

overview 

FoRpLAN is a specialized matrix genexator and report writer for a standard 

linear programning algorithm (FMPS) z/. Linear programning is a mathematical 

technique for s01vi.q simultaneous linear equations subject to a certain set 

of constraints and a particular objective function. 

- 1/ See Johnson, K. "an: Daniel B. Jones, and Brian M. Kent: Forest 

Plamirq We1 (FORPIAN) User's Guide and Operations Manual, USDA 

Forest Service, May 1980. 

- 2/ FMPS = Acronym for functional math program subsystem, the linear 

program code used on the Univac 1100 series cunputer. 

534 
This is expressed mathematically as: 

Maximize: z = c x + c2% + ..c x 

Subject to: a x + a125 + .... a x - b. 11 1 Inn 

(objective function) 11 nn 

< 

< 

- b azlxl + %25 +. . . .a~,“ n2 

mll mnn 

< 

a x +a mz% +... a x - b, 

> 

x. - 0 

1 

I 

(Cbnstraint Set) 

These mathematical expressicols can also be 

QlUmn 

j =1 

objective Clxl 

functicol 

Rowi=l a x 11 1 

Row i = 2 azlx1 

(-) 

Rowi=m a x mll 

COlUmn CblUmn 

j =2 j =3 

c25 c3”3 

a12”2 a13”3 

32% %”3 

am252 aln3”3 

shown as in the fOllCnving matrix: 

CblUllln 

j =n 

‘nXn 

ax Inn 

%nXn 

amnxn 

X 

j 

Right Hand 

Side Cimstraint 

Maximize 

bl 

b2 

0 

In the FORPLAN formulation, the linear equations (rows) repment resource 

proauctian functions, costs, and acreage or other types of constraints (for 

-le, raw 1 might represent timber prrxiucticm; raw 2 might represent total 

acres; ru.v m might represent recreation). The columns j = 1 to n represent 

the different activities (prescriptions) which can cccur over time on 

spxific units of land called analysis areas (represented by x.). l’he 

.IS in the matrix are the mction, cost, or resource COePficients 

a&iated with each prescription/analysis area canbinaticm. The bits are 

the right-hand-side values representing exact ammnts (=) or upper (<) or 

laex (>) amsizaint levels that lrmst be met. In the example at”, if raw 1 

represents timber prcduction, the interpretaticm of the ccslstraint: 

a x + a12% + a13% ..... a x > bl 11 1 Innwould be the total anrnmt of timber prrxiuced fmn all prescriptions and 

analysis areas must be greater than or equal to the amxlllt bl. 

The EDFPLAN model was built by representing the proaudicsl functims, costs, 

values, and resource supplies for the Forest in the mathematical format 

described am. For the Inyo National Forest, the resulting model mtained 

aPpr”ate1y 13,305 columns and 2,219 m. Once the model was formulated, 

test runs were made to check the model for “bleness and to make 

535 
additianal calibrations. Land allocations, activity and output schedules, 

costs, benefits, and present net value were developed by alter- the 

objective function and constraint set to meet the theme of each alternative 

andbnchnark, andthennmnirgthemodel. 

Unique constraint sets were develop3 to represent minimum management 

requirements, mininm inplementation -ts, Forest discretionary 

cunstraints canmn to all alternatives, and specific land allocations and 

output schedules needed for individual alternatives. 

An iterative process was used to formulate these constraint sets prior tn 

making final FoRpLAN nms for the alternatives and benchmarks (see follming 

sections of this appendix). 

FORpLAN was used to determine the mast &-efficient mix of goods and 

services that could be prduced from the Forest given the objectives and 

“ints of each alternative. The trade-offs made awq alternatives were 

examined and the costs and benefits associated with each objective or 

constraint measured. This analysis provided a way of jndmectly evaluating 

“-priced benefits by measuring the armunt of present net value (PW) 

foregme. The final criterion used to evaluate alternatives was net public 

benefit (NPB), which is the PNV plus consideration of “priced Forest 

resource benefits. 

Management activities modeled in FDRPLAN were determined bythe interdisciplinary (ID) team. This pre-FOFPLAN analysis included identifyiq: 

1. The acbvities that could be applied to National Forest system 

land. 

2. Those actinties that could be modeled in FDWLAN. 

3. The kinds of land to which each activity could be applied. 

4. The costs, outputs, and benefits which would result fm the 

application of each activity to a specific type of land. 

5. The caipabbility of activities when applied to the same land area. 

This pruvided the basis for a matrix of all psible management activities 

which Could be &led and their associated costs, outputs, and effects. 

Activities which were desired but not modeled as one of the abwe FOWLAN 

mputs required the use of additional constramts. 

Land units 

Capability Areas are the smallest unit of land (or water) used in Forest 

planning. They are discrete and reoognizable units classified mily 

according to physical (e.g. soil, watershed), biological (e.g. vegetation), 

and adninistrative (e.g. county lines, Forest boundary) factors. All land 

within a capability area is horogeneous in its ability to prcduce resource 

outputs and in its prcduction limitations. The Forest has 9,400 Capability 

Areas. 

Capability Areas were developed by overlaying existing map information. (See 

Table 1 for examples of the type of map information used.) The Wildland 

Resource Information System (WRIS) was used to calculate capability area 

536 
acreages and to Nsnber each area far ia2ntifiCaticn in the data base (Fclrest 

needed for each capability area to assess resource CppXAmitiB ad plbliC 

planniq File). The intexdisciplinary team decided what infonnaticn was 

issues and then mllected that Monnaticn about each area. Different 

resource attrihtes were determined for each capability area. This 

inforr~ticn was en- into a ccquterized data base system (Intel’s system 

2aoO). Qlce en- into the systen, Mmticn cn Capability Areas could 

be retrieved, sorted, aggregated, and analyzed. 

muse of their large lurmber, individual Capability Areas could mt be used 

in FORPLAN. use of such a large Nsnber of land units would be c”, 

expensive, and would have exceeded the match size limits that Can be 

utilized in FOWLAN. Analysis areas were created to handle this pIoblen. 

Analysis areas are an aggregation of like Capability Areas with sufficiently 

similar physical, biological, ard a&iniStratiVe -ti- that would 

probably resgmd in a like manner to “gement activities. Each capability 

area was given an analysis area identifier so the data base could be queried 

for the land information need4 to build the FORPLAN -1. 

The delineation of the analysis areas ?xpired several Steps. First, 

rescxlrce specialists on the intadisciplinary team decided which physical or 

biological ath-ibutes in the data base were necessary to datemum .their 

resource yields. The selectian of which resaurce outplts to “itor in 

FOWLAN was guided by the problem identified by the Forest issues, c!”s, 

andopprhm ‘ties. 

Next, the analysis areas were defined using each attribute propxed by the 

resource specialists as a level of stratification, or level identifier in 

FOWLAN. Because FORPLAN could accamDdate only six level identifiers, the 

nmhr of attributes initially selected by the resaurce specialists was 

greater than could be used. This forced the interdisciplinary team to select 

the rmst mitical attributes necessary to address the p1anni.q problew and 

to consider the reliability of the data for making yield and cost estimates. 

The attributes finally chosen were rcaded status, potential ski areas, 

vegetation and special land groups, slope, and Vegetati.cn strata (species, 

size classes, and stncking). It sbould be noted that rcaded status was 

selected as a level identifier, both to intrcd~ce the importaut costs of 

developing access for resource management, and to allow trackiq of possible 

yields fran each of the California Wildemess Act roadless areas cm the 

Forest. The other level identifiers are necessary to analyze the biological 

pAuction potential of an analysis area. 

The criteria used to develop analysis areas are the level identifiers in 

FORPLAN. The level identifiers used are shown in Figure B-1. Data 

reliability and the need to respcold to issues related to specific geographic 

areas (recreation zones, further planning areas, etc.) playd a major role in 

the delineation of analysis areas. In many cases, the data reliability for 

Capability Areas was such that large n”-s of Capability Areas were 

aggregated into individual analysis areas. The need to maintain the 

geographic identity of sane individual Capability Areas limited the anKnmt of 

aggregation that could cccur. The Inyo’s data base has a total of 300 

analysis areas based on actual National Forest System acres and 4 analysis 

areas not repmsentixq real acres. Analysis areas that do lrJt represent 

537 
actual land area, represent instead developea and dispersed recreaticxl 

facilities, or prcg-ran levels such as fire management. 

Table 1 

Level Identifi- Used in FORPLAN 

Level1 

OONC 

OPENNF 

c7n" 

SKI 

SPEC 

WILD 

029 

030 

031 

032 

033 

034 

035 

036 

038 

039 

040 

041 

042 

043 

044 

045 

046 

Level2 

ALPOT 

00"TRATED RECREATION AREAS 

OPEN NATIONAL FOREST LANDS 

LANDS IN OTHER OWNERSHIP 

EXISTING SKI AREAS 

SPECIAL INPEREST AREAS 

EXISTING WILDERNESS 

sm SIERRA 

WONOGA PEAK 

INDEPmENcE CREEK 

TINEMAHA 

OOY(TPESCUlWAST 

(ITYoTE NORTH 

TABLE KUiTARi 

NORTH LAKE 

BWTEWILK 

HORTON CREEK 

WHEEWR RIDGE 

NESSIE 

RCEK CREEK WEST 

WHISKY CREEK 

NEVAHBE RIDGE 

LAUREL MCGEE 

SHERWIN 

(RWLS, m.) 

ALPINE SKI AREA POTENTW; 

Level3 (not LIS&) 

Level 4 

BARWAT BARRENORWAm 

MXBRSH MIXEDBRUSH 

N" mNCCWERCIALTIMBER 

PI" PINYON-JUNIPER 

SUBRSH SUITABLEBRUSH 

SUlMBR SUITABLE TIMBER 

Level5 

0-3@ SLOPE 61+ 

31-60 ALL SLOPES 

047 

048 

049 

050 

051 

052 

053 

054 

055 

056 

057 

058 

059 

060 

061 

062 

063 

064 

288 

296 

988 

989 

"M 

WESTSD 

WJQASZUIN 

WLAKE 

NORSE MWXW 

TI03 LAKE 

HALLNATmAL.m 

Ixx: WIN SADDLEWG 

DEXTER c!A" 

WS r9xJ" 

mT" 

BE" RANGE 

DEEP WELLS 

WHITE t""?AIlis 

BLANC0 MOUNTAIN 

BIRCH CREEK 

BLAcKc!A" 

SOLDIER cA" 

ANDREWS M3uNTAw 

PW 

M)No CRATERS 

suGARu3AF 

m. OLSEN 

EXCELSIOR 

mBASI"FsA 

WESTSIDE HYW. 395 

PLNTAT PLANTATION 

OTHOWN LANDsIN(nnER 

SPEC SPEClX INTEREST 

WILD EXISTING WILDERNESS 

OWNERSKIP 

AREAS 

538 
Table 1 (am-) 

Level Identifiers Used in FORPLAN 

Level6 

BBm BITEXBRUSH 

BsG;?A BIG SAGEBRUSH 

cM;;?A MOUNTAWMAHOGANY 

PLIWI'AT PLANTATION 

L3P LQEEFOU, MEDIUM SAWTIMBER, POOR S"3 

P2P JEFFREY PINE, SMALL POLE & SAWI'IMBER, POOR S"G 

P2S JEFFREY PINE, SMALL SAWPIMBm, SPARSE SM(IcING 

P4p JEFFREY PINE, MED-LARGE SAWTIMBER, POOR STOCKING 

P4S JEFFREY PINE, MED-LARGE SAWTIMBER, SPARSE STOCKING 

P2G JEFFREY PINE, SMW SAWPIMBER, GOOD STOCKING 

P6G PINE, ?wD-SToRIED STANDS, GOOD STOCKING 

R6G RED FIR, 'Iwo-STORIED, GOOD SMCKING 

R4X mxE!J CONIFER, MED-mXE SAWTmER, VARIABLE STOCXING 

Management areas are delineated based on geopolitical factors (such as 

a&inLstxative boundaries, issue orientation, historical use patterns, 

access, landform, and vegetation type) and are used to facilitate 

achinistration or plan impl-tation. Managanent areas are deljneated on a 

map acanpanyirg the Plan. 

It is easier for a land manager to deal with specific geqraphical areas, 

such as watersheds, than with pnscriptions that may be assigred to many 

different locations. Often, geographic areas will have unique issues and 

"erns, even thugh the assigned Kescriptions may be the same as its 

neighkrs. Therefore, the Forest was divided into twenty Manag-t Areas, 

which are contiguous lands III saw identifiable geographic location, such as 

the White kx&ai" 

Rescriptions 

A prescription is a set of management practices and the schedule for their 

application on a specific area to achieve desired objectives. For a given 

analysis area, the range of presrriptions describe what cauld be done (i.e., 

the possibilities) on that analysis area. FOWLAN is used to deta" what 

should be done given the Ccastraints and objective fuxtion for an 

alternative. 

Management distinguishes between FORPLAN prescriptiom and Managenu?nt 

Prescriptions. FORPLAN prescriptions are sets of activities which could 

OCCUT on the analysis areas that are modeled in FORPLAN. They are specific 

activities that are mitt- without imposition of the standards and 

guidelines. Managanent Prescriptions are written as a result of delineating 

objectives of an alternative, or allocatjq specific land areas to FORPLAN 

prescriptions and imp3sirg the StaMjardS and guidelines. 'he management 

prescription includes the FORPIAN Kescriptiosl as me of its parts, but is 

broadad to include a&tional practices and diredx 'on needed to meet 

539 
standards and guidelines and to be ocmprehensive of all resource activities 

for field %@ementation. 

FORPLAN prescriptions were developea by the intdsciplinary team to respond 

to issues and to represent the range of managment oppzdxu 'ties. They were 

developed to represent five general dtions or levels of managemat 

intensity: r"rm level of manag-t, manag-t below current levels, 

current level of manag-t, manag-t at a greater intensity than current 

management, and management at the "m intensity level that is 

implementable. Past experience and Cost data were used to detennine the rnost 

cast efficient nux of practices to achieve the objectives at each level of 

management intensity. 

These prescriptions were quantified in terms of the outputs, costs, and 

benefits that mld cccur when the prescription is applied to a given 

analysis area or land unit. This quantification process prcduced the output, 

cost, and benefit coefficients that are used in the FORPLAN yield and 

e"c tables. 

KEWIAN prescriptions were developed to allow consideration of a full rqe 

of management activities on the analysis areas (see Table 2). A mini" 

level prescription was created for each analysis area to allow a choice 

between selecting the possible intensive practices or selecting m active 

manag-t practice. The choice of prescriptions identified for each 

analysis area was constrained only by tmcal feasibility. Linuting the 

prescription choices avalable for consideration is one type of constraint 

which was used to fonnulate alternatives and benchmarks. See Table 3 for a 

canparison of FORPIAN and Managemat Prescriptiuns, including prescriptions 

that are available for different catagories of analysis areas. 

The following is a brief description of the Forest's FORPIAN prescriptions 

(including their alphabetical mdes). 

Table 2 

&"q Description of FORPLAN Prescripticms 

MINLVL Muiteve1 applies "m 'a1 direcb 'on for all resources to 

all analysis areas. For the mDst part, only backgzmmd outputs 

cccur. There are m associated developed recreation, range, or 

timber outputs. The fire prcgram is maintained at a level needed 

to protect public safety fm the threat of fires originatjq on 

National Forest land. 

Clearcut is the mal of all merchantable "vsrical trees within 

a stand, without any thhnings prior to that clearcut. The 

objective of this method is to establish a new, fully-stocked 

stand. 

-/0 

=/0 Shelterwood without any thhnings prior to that &el-. 

Shelt- is cutting all but 8 to 12 overstory trees per au= and 

Planting. The overstory .trees are ramved the next decade. 

540 
sane as m/o, except growing stodc above desired levels may be 

sane as m/o, except gnwing stock above desired levels may be 

thilmedeachdscade. 

Re“al of fmn a *storied stand, followed by 

management as m/TH or m/TH, 

sane as m/o and m/m, except cpaurg . are limited to 3 to 5 

acres, at least 3 age classes with 20 years between age classes in 

the stand and 80 to 140 acres in a “aged uneven aged stand. 

salvage. occasicnal renwal of scattered dying -. Does xnt 

include large fire 

Stand maintenance. Stand managmat guic?ed by a resourc~ other 

than timber. 

High range developent with high utilizatim includes: me-mile 

pipe and trough, 4-mile fence, rejuvenate and seed 1.5 percent per 

year, and livestock utilize 60 percent of annual forage prcducticn 

c~1500-acre unit of bi-. 

High raq? developnent with msderate utilizatim includes: me-mile 

pipe and trough, 4-mile fence, rejuvenate and seed 1.5 percent per 

year, and livestack utilize 50 percent of annual fqe prc&cticn 

an 500-acre unit of bitbxbmsh. 

-ate range devalopnmt with lower utilizatim includes: 

one-mile pipe and trmgh, 4-mile fence, rejuvenate and seed 1.0 

percent per year, and livestock utilize 40 percent of annual forage 

production m 2,000-acre unit of bith-bnsh. 

High range developnent with high utilizatim imludes: me-mile 

pipe and trough, 4-mile fence, type amvert and seed 10 percent per 

year, and livestock utilize 60 percent of annual forage prcductim 

an 500-acre unit of big sage, m-m” ’al timber, m-suitable 

timber or pinyon. 

High range developnent with moderate utilizatim is the sm? as 

HMPIBS, except livestock utilize 50 percent of annual forage 

plw3Llctian. 

Maintain existing stsuctures in bittertaush. 

Maintain existing stxuctures in big sage. 

Maintain existing s.bructures in pinyon and ncm-carmercial timber. 

insed salvage sales. 

541 
Maintain existing s3zllw in other Ihn above-mtid lands. 

Brush release 081 winter deer ramp to rejuvenate brush to an 

earilier seral stage. Brush rejuvenation would take place through 

one of several methods using either herbicides, prescribed fire, or 

mechanical equipnent as ?qprcpriate. 

Brush release on sumner deer rqe to rejuvenate brush to an 

earlier seral stage. Brush rejuvenation would take place through 

one of several methods using either herbicides, prescribed fire, or 

mechanical equipnent as is appropriate. 

The low intensity stream prescription applied to streams that have 

a low quality fish habitat ratirg. Activities include planting and 

riparian vegetation from grazing. 

The low intensity stream prescription applied to streams that have 

a moderate quality fish habitat rating. Activities include 

streambanks and riparian vegetation fran grazing. 

The mderate intensity stream Lnescriptiool applied to streams that 

have a low quality fish habitat rating. Activities include 

streambanks and riparian vegetation from grazing. Additionally, 

instream strucixres are used to improve the fish habitat. 

The &ate intensity stream prescription applied to streams that 

have a moderate quality fish habitat rating. Activities include 

streambanks and riparian vegetation from grazing. Additionally, 

instream sbrudures are used to improve the fish habitat. 

The high intensity stream prescription applied to stream that have 

a low quality fish habitat rating. Activities include planting and 

riparian vegetation from grazing. Additicenally, streambank 

anmring is used to protect or enhance streambank stability. 

The high intensity stream prescription applied to &rx%nns that have 

a moderate quality fish habitat rating. Activities include 

streambanks and riparian vegetation from grazing. Additionally, 

shambank armoring is used to protect or enhance streambank 

stability. 

seeding of streambanks, and fencing to protect streambanks and 

Planting and seeding of streambanks, and feming to protect 

Planting and seeding of streambanks and fencing to protect 

Planting and seeding of streambanks and fencing to pmtet 

seeding of streambanks and fencing to protect streambanks and 

Planting and seeding of streambanks and fencing to protect 

542 
Table 2 (ccm-) 

Surmary Descriptim of FORPLAN presoripticms 

The water developnent prescriptian includes both structures and/or 

protective measures to ensure water within. an area where it is 

limited or unavailable for use. 'I" types of activities are 

included: spring developuent or design and cx"ctim of guzzlers 

and catchments. 

This activity includes all of fencing (drift, standard, 

electric, etc.) to pmtect an area (usually a wet maw). Usually 

refers to exclusion of cattle. 

The watershed activity which includes rock armxiq of headcuts and 

streambanks, planting willuds alq streams, and SXding grasses 

and legmeS. 

willaw plan- along skceams, seeding grasses and legumes, and 

This activity pmvides rock anmriq of headcuts and dmanh&s, 

placement of gully plugs. 

This activity involves rock anmrirg of headcuts and streambanks 

and fencing meadows to mkol livestock use. 

Public Standard. Develop3 recreation at standards includes the 

aCiministration, operation, and maintenance of sites and areas to 

full standard managemat objedives. Site facilities are 

maintained in a satisfadory dtim to meet standards and 

Facilities are maintahed to RIM Cond2ticm Class I. 

F'rivate Standard. The administxatim of recreation-related 

permitted use of National Forest landS. Includes LYXUKL~S granted 

to other public organizatians or private permittees and sites and 

faciliixes awned by the Forest Service, but qp~ated by others 

under permit or agreement. Sites and facilities are aperated and 

maintained to the full terms of the permit for health, safety, 

mort, 2nd cornrenience of the user. 

Developed recreation at low standard includes adninistxaticn, 

opration, and maink" of sites and areas at law standard 

managaent levels. public health and safety and site pmMm 

rquhments are met, but desired standards and objectives for 

visitor cunfort and convenience are not met. 

Rehabilitation of develop4 sites includes feasibility studies and 

project plans for rehabilitatim ta m+xm sites to designed 

capacity. Includes rehabilitatim of sites and facilities that do 

not meet present standards. Facilities in RIM Cordition Classes 

2-5 are waded to Condition Class 1. Resource treatment and site 

protectxon are also awmplished. Capacity of sites dDes not 

increase. 

objectives for public health, safety, canfort, and cxmve~~ 'erce. 

543 
Table 2 

Surmary Description of FORPLAN prescriptions 

DEW334 

sm” 

DISSTD 

DIW 

DISCON 

DISHRB 

Public Construction. Consbuction of developd sites includes 

developing plans, specificaticns, and a contract package aloq with 

construction of new recreation sites (including all developed site 

facilities in the design). The newly developed site or addztion to 

an existing site provide additional capacity. 

Private construction. Developnent of a prospectus and plans, and 

issuance of a permit for construction of a privately developed 

facility. The newly developed site or addition to an existlng site 

prwide additional capacity. 

(Developed recreation capacity was based on types of existing and 

potential develop3 sites, as shown in the current recreation 

3hVXltCIIy data and PrOJeCtiOIl Of this Use. ) 

The elimination of develop3 recreaticBl areas and all facilities 

and inipmenm?nts, including restoration of on-site resources to 

meet public safety and site-protection requirements. This action 

results in a reduction of capacity. 

Standard level of dispersed recreation managemsnt lncludes 

maintamiq roads and trails at assigned standards for public 

safety and resource protection. Use can approach design capacities 

and provide a safe and quality recreational experience. 

Dispersed recreation management at lm standard includes 

maintaining roads and trails at basic cusk& .al levels to protect 

lnvestrnents and ”ize damage to adjacent land and resources. 

Facility capacity and use can be expected to be at less than design 

capacity. Meets standards for public safety, but not for user 

ccmfort and ccorvenience. 

Dispersed recreation constzuction includes planning, design, and 

ccastruction of new trailheads and trails. The facilities are to 

be permanent, and construction and mtenance are to be at full 

design standards. An increase in RvDs and capacity can be 

expected. 

Dispersed recreation rehabilitation includes the reconstruction of 

existing roads and trails to original design standards, and when 

maintained at this level, to provide N1 public safety, oanfort, 

convenience, and protection of djacent land and resources. use 

may increase to designed capacity. 

The current fire prcgram at current funding represents the existing 

(1982) percentage &ination of suppression, detection, and 

prevcmtion in the fixe prcgram at current fundjng levels. 

544 
Table 2 (an-) 

Sunmry Descxiptitn of FolRpLAN Prescxipticns 

am-40 

CUR-20 

CUR+20 

aJR+40 

SUFaJR 

Sup-40 

svp-20 

svp+20 

Sup+40 

pRv(xIR 

The current fire nog gram at minus-4O-percent funding represents 

existing percentage CCmbinatIan of suppressim, detectim, and 

prevention in the fire program with a 40-percent acrcs-the-board 

reductIan in fLuding. 

The current fire program at minus-20-percent funding represents 

existing percentage cnnbination of mppession, detection, and 

prevention in the fire prcgcaq with a 20-percent acxcss-the-board 

lx?duction in flmding. 

The current fire prcgram at plus-20-percent funding represents 

existing percentage cnnbination of mppression, detection, and 

prevention in the fire program with a 20-percent across-the-board 

increaseinflmdiq. 

The current fire program at plus-40-percent funding represents 

existhy percentage cnnbjnatim of suppressj.cn, detection, and 

prevention in the fire pwgram with a 40-percent acxcss-the-board 

The suppressicm fire program at current funding increases eqhasis 

placed on the mppression element of the fire =am by increasing 

its percentage share of the total fire budget. The tatal fire 

budget is 

The suppmssim fire program at minus-40-peroent furidiq increases 

-is placed on the suppression element of the fire program by 

increasing its percentage share of the total fire hdget. The 

total fire budget is then decreased 40 percent below current level. 

The suppmssion fire at mlnus-20-percent fumlirg increases 

emphasis placed on the mppession element of the fire pxqram by 

increasing its percentage share of the total fire h-t. The 

total fire budget is then decreased 20 percent below current level. 

The suppression fire program at plus-20-percent fundiq increases 

emphasis placed on the suppression element of the fire prcgram by 

increasing its percentage share of the total fire budget. The 

total fire budget is then increas ed 20 percent above current level. 

The suppression fire prqram at plus-40-percent funding increases 

-is placed on the suppression element of the fire prcgram by 

increasing its percentage share of the total fire budget. The 

total fire budget is then increased 40 percent abwe current level. 

The preventim fire program at current funding bueases aphasis 

its percentage share of the total fire buaet. The total fire 

budget is then held at its current level. 

increaseinflmding. 

held at its current level. 

placed on the prwention element of the fire program by increas inc3 

545 
Table 2 (an-) 

Surmary Desccigtim of FORPLAN Prescriptions 

PIN-40 

PIN-20 

PIN+20 

m+40 

The prevention fire prcg-ram at minus-4O-percent finad.ing haeases 

emphasis placed on the prevention element of the fire ~orogram by 

increasing its percentage share of the total fire budget. The 

total fire budget is then decreased 40 percent below current level. 

The prevention fire program at minus-20-percent fundjq increases 

eqhasis placed on the prevention element of the fire -am by 

increasing its percentage share of the total fire budget. The 

total fire budget is then decreased 20 percent below current level. 

The prevention fire prcg-ram at plus-20-percent fundjq haeases 

emphasis placed on the prevention element of the fire program by 

increasm its percentage share of the total fire bu-t. The 

total fire budget is then increased 20 percent abave current level. 

The prevention fire program at plus-40-percent fundjq haeases 

emphasis placed on the prevention element of the fire program by 

increasing its percentage share of the total fire budget. The 

total fire budget is then imxssed 40 percent above current level. 

546 
Table 3 

canparism of FORPLAN Prescriptions and MaMgernent Prescriptia 

halysis areas which 

mclude the prescripticms 

LS eligible choices 

ill analysis areas 

u1 analysis areas with 

Z.A.S. timber except des- 

.gnaw wilderness and 

brio Lake National Forest 

;cenic Area. 

Cobe 

MINLVL 

Managment Ibc 

This FORPLAN 

Rx overlaps all 

Management Rxs 

9. Modified Thr 

m-t 

10.High Level 

Timber kQt. 

11.Rarqe 

12. concentrated 

ReCrEltiOll 

Em" 

MMPOT 

Wildlife My analysis areas with 

kwenbried suitable wildlife habitat. 

'roject analysis area 

mprovenents. 

wed on stream suitable 

:or fish habitat 

BRRELW 

BRRELS 

wATDE3l 

ma 

Rxs 

3. "ntajn 

Sheep 

Habitat 

4. Mule Deer 

Habitat 

9. Wdified 

Timber w. 

1O.High Level 

Timber kQt. 

11. Rarge 

13.Gn-c. Rec. 

ReCIl?EltiCHl 

14. Semi-ph 

FORPLAN Rxs 

anqatible 

with all Mgmt. 

Rxs. except 

#5, RNA. 

Fish PrOJeCt 

Lsm 

Lsm 

mm 

mm 

Hsm 

€Ism 

Descripticm 

r.k" Level - 

This allocation 

usually represents 

110 active manage- 

.. 

ment practice. 

Timber harvest 

Llnder a variety of 

silvicultural systems ranging €run 

sanitation harvest 

to intensive clearcutting. 

Lives- grazing 

with water 

deVelOpwnts, fencing, vegetation 

rejuvenation and 

type cconrersion. 

Wildlife habitat 

inipm-ts 

through vegetation 

rejuvenation, 

water developoents 

and fencing. 

Instream projects 

to inip- fisheries habitat. 

Area 

halysis areas with IFOW" Rxs are 

Nitable acreage forage lanipatible with 

IrCXiUCtiOll. al1-kQt. Rxs 

(with SQne 

limitations) 

except Dev. 

Rec. dRNA 

547 
Table 3 (mtirnaed) 

canparisan of MRPLAN Prescriptims and Managaen t Prescriptims 

FORPLAN Rx 

Alpha Atnev. 

Descriptian 

coae 

Recreation 

DEVCON 

DEVLCW 

DWSTD 

DEVHAB 

SHTDWN 

DISSTD 

DISLOW 

DISCON 

DISHAB 

Fire 

aJRm 

OUR-40 

OUR-20 

m+20 

m+40 

Sup(xIR 

SUP-40 

SUP-20 

suP+20 

SUP+40 

PPJUJR 

PPJ-40 

PRV-20 

PRV+20 

PPJ+40 

Developed and dispersed recreation 

tions include new 

construction, rehabilitatmn of low 

standard facilities, full service I Rxs. Management opmanagement, and IS& of sites. 

lwildfire acres 

burned, SuppreSSlon 

costs, and net 

resource value 

change were developed for each of 

the 15 fire program 

options available 

inmwLAN. The 

del selected a 

single fire program per decade 

based on PNV. 

Activities 

to rehabilitate 

degraded wet 

meadows and 

watersheds. 

Analysis areas Wch 

as eligible choices 

rpply only in concen.tra- 

:ed recreation areas, ski 

Eas, potential ski, 

'urther Pla"3 Areas, 

Id wilderness areas. 

rll analysis areas with a 

kre history have a pmbbility of burn fador 

lssociated with a net 

me coefficient based 

in the current program. A 

;pecial analysis area was 

sed to evaluate the 

!fficiency of the fire 

nxgralll options with 

mes in acres burned 

ry alt-tive. 

mjcxt analysis area 

lased an all wet meadows 

nd watershed acres 

eeding special 

lanagement. 

ManagmEnt Ffx 

mwL?N Rxs are 

canpatible with 

a broad raqe of 

scriptions with 

specific limitations. 

management preWildfire pmgram 

options are 

canpatible with 

a broad range of 

prescript%ons 

with sone 

specific 

limitations. 

FORPLAN Rxs are 

"patible with 

Vynagement Area 

Prescriptions 

except #5.,RNA 

548 
To assure that the scheaul&,timber harvest canbe achieved andmaintained, a 

16-decade planning horizon is used in FORPUN. The first decade of the 

pl- bizon is ttie perioa 1986-1995, and is the primqy pericd for which 

the Forest Plan applies. A tutal of 16 time pi&, each with a duratim of 

canplexity of data displayed in the FJS, 5 decades are used in all EIS 

10 years, is used in the m33ling process. However, in order to reduce the 

display tables. 

outplts 

Outputs are classified as either scheduled or m-scheduled outputs. Both 

types depend on the pmsxiptiom ChDSen for each analysis area, but caily 

schx%iLed outputs depend on the timing of the presxipticns. It is mt 

possible to schedule all outputs through FORPUN because of &ling 

limitatiom, but it is essential to include those that are closely related to 

impacts OBI PNV. Listed in Figure B-4 are the outpts tracked in the planning 

process. 

Outputs are estimated with the use of yield coefficients. For outpts 

&led in FORPUN, these coefficients are built into the yield tables and 

are used to estimate outputs for all prexxiptim/analysis area 

canbinatiom. For outputs accounted for outside FORPLAN, yield coefficients 

are applied to factors that are accounted for both inside and outside of the 

FORPLAN Illodel. The 7 used by the interdisciplinary t” to aevelop 

the coefficients are sumnarized in Table 5. For a detailed discussicm of 

yield coefficients, see the FOWLAN coefficient dxumentaticm in the planning 

records or in individual resource FOWLAN records. 

the activities being Performea on the Forest and that have significant 

549 
Table 4 

Outpts Used in the Analysis 

Wt of Nul- Inside (xrtside 

outplt Measure scheduled scheduled " FaRpLAN 

Timber m 

Timbersuit- Acres 

OptimalLTSY MCF 

able lands 

-ending= -" 

melwood cords 

Water yield Ac Ft 

Watershed Acres 

Waterquality AcFt 

DeVelOpea-. RVD 

Ros Class Acm 

Dispersed rec. RVD 

Land acq. Acres 

cxrlturalres. Acres 

Pl?qramcost Dollars 

Wildlife and WFUD 

Wildlife Acres 

Fish habitat Acres 

Animalnumber rbnt?er 

T&Especies Acres 

-Bald eagle Pairs 

falcan Pairs 

(3tth.R. Acres 

(3tth.h. Acres 

Fish Pounds 

Goshawk PaiI-S 

Wildfire loss Acres 

Roadconsix. Miles 

Road reconsix. Miles 

Trail consix. Miles 

Trail remn. Miles 

Facilities Mrmber 

Mit-ETalS 

-locatable Plans 

-leasable Plants 

Visual quality Index # 

Human resource Enrollee 

irnrentory 

irnrentory 

.. 

AUM 

i"ents 

fish use 

habitat 

-Peregrine 

-Lahontcol 

-Pauite 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

XX 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

.l -7 

550 
Table 5 

Surmary of Yield Coefficients 

optimal Lcng-Term sustained Yield (MCF) 

Water Yield 

Inside FORPWJ 

Timber yield coefficients were based on Forest 

inventory ccqleted in 1975 and Upaatea in 1982. A 

yield coefficients over time for each timber strab 

based on mlm, age, and gmwth rate. 

The 1q-term snx&"4 * yield is the maxi" timber 

This is calculated as a -ed output, based on 

the highest ' yield shown for each regimal 

timber type in the regeneration yield tables prcduced 

fm the RAMPREP model. 

Timber-suitable lands are those C.A.S. lands 

to timber management base for each aliJxrIative 

analyzed. This is a -ed output of timber 

lands assigned to timber Management hrescriptions. 

The optinnnn/"I erading inventmy sets the range, 

based on ami, which the standing timber inventory 

bewithinoraboveinordertoassureLTsy. These 

non-schedhiled outputs are based on w ' yield 

and regeneration yield tables proaUCea fm the 

RAMPREP model. 

Yield of c"d was developed based on historic 

outputs, timber strata, age, and thinnFng voltmias 

frcm RAMPREP data. 

These coefficients yield the ALMS per acm for all 

range land. They were develope3 by raqe 

canseNationists based on postea and existing grazing 

yield for specific types of brush vegetation. Yields 

fran type COINersicns of rrsl-carmercial and 

unsuitable timber lands - develqed using expected 

range forage prod~ction, seleded pblicaticms and 

capital investmen ts for range proaUct.i.cn. 

Water yield coefficients were based on historic 

precipitation and stream flow data. Vqetation 

remval for timber managment or ski area develcpnent 

yield through managenat practices. Factors such as 

soil permeability, precipitation, vegetaticm, and 

suitability for increased wa- yield to the timbered 

lands east of San Joaquh Ridge. 

ocnpxlter prcgcam called RAMPREP was used to predict 

harvest level that can be maintained indefinitely. 

was the only potential means for increasing water 

wilderness designation limited Forest-wide 

551 
Table 5 (continued) 

slnrmary of Yield Coefficients 

outprt: pmcess used for developing yield coefficients 

Watershed mts The effects of watershed impmwmmts are based on 

lunm historic sediment rates on specific streams of 

WIN-irnrentOrieed areas (Kern Plateau, cayote Mtn., 

Buttermilk, Horse Mdw., Pizona, White Wn. and Glass 

Mhzs). The -1 was forced to rehabilitate s~ne 

deteriorated watershed lands and to reduce the 

restoration backlog by applying a technical threshold 

constraint limitlng sediment pm3lCtion to less than 

2.911 tans per decade. Coefficients representing the 

amxult of sediment r~&ctian associated with each 

acre of restoration by intensity of watershed 

activity were aeVelOpea. Once the threshold sediment 

rate was attained, the model had the optical of 

con tin^ watershed hp"nt activities or 

selecw amrq other activities based on PNV. 

The sediment coefficients were derived fm historic 

data of WIN-irnrentoried damaged acres and were 

applied only to thoss acres, not Forest-Wide. NJ 

constraints or associated yield tables were linkd to 

any FORPLAN prescripticms outside the slngle 

analysis area Ccoltaining the WIN-inventoried acres. 

All the coefficients were develOpea by the Forest 

hydmlqist in cmjunction with the Forest soil 

scientist and wildlife biologist, based on nrmitoring 

activities needed to reduce s.treambank -ion and 

sedimentatim in streams and wet mea-, scientific 

literature, and data fm adjacent Forests. 

R€ueatim Dispersed All dispersed "ation use, (including wilderness 

(RvD) use was based an RVDs for various activities fran 

recreation info?3Mtion management (RTM) data. 

Dispersed recreation (including wilderness) 

coefficients were based on current use and the 

existing inventory of roads, trails, and trailheads. 

Recreation specialists also inventoried potential for 

new trails and trailheads, and asslrmed similar rates 

of use to determine dispersed recreaticslal capacity 

coefficients. Dispersed remeation we is valued 

only to demand capacity in FORPLAN. 

552 
Table 5 (unttnmd) 

Smmazf of Yield Coefficients 

OUtPt process used for dRlelcping yield coefficients 

Wildlife 

-Days (-1 

All aevelopea recceatiQl use is based an IivDs for 

various activities frun recreation info" 

management (RIM) data. 

Developea mcreatiO81 coefficients lmre based on 

inventoried existing aeVeloped sites and their PADT 

(persms-ate-time) capacities. The coefficients 

were derived fmn practical capacity 081 a mama 

basis. An iIlvent5Iy of potential aeVelapea 

r€creation sites was used to determine potential 

capacity 081 the Forest. 

WFUDs are a subset of dispersed RVDS. An initial 

a"t of WRlDS are based 081 RIM estimates. A 

ba&g"d coefficient of WFUDs was applied to 

amt for the level of use that would be 

to occur where XI special managenent is hpl-ted. 

In additim, coefficients were developed to reflect 

inmexed use based 081 prsscriptlcns that 

enhance habitat capability for Species that create 

WFUD use. For wildlife, the asampti081 was that deer 

are the major factor aff- wildlife-related use. 

Habitat capability provided cn an acre of deer winter 

or sumner range land (which may be improves or 

reduced as a result of manag-t activity) was 

-translated into --day coefficients by a fornula 

utilizing hunter success, days hunted, and percent of 

ppulatim harvested. These ccefficients were 

developd by the Forest wildlife biologist, in 

aOnj"ti081 with the California Deparhnent of Fish 

and Game. 

Cold water fish (mt) coefficients were developed 

using a similar prw=ess to that of wildlife WRlD 

developrent to reflect the "bsT of fish - days. 

Fish WFUD coefficients were related to fishing 

success, fish papulatims, and sin" with 

additimal habitat capability. Again, ba&g"3 

fisheries hp"nts. bxeasss in fish user days 

occur as a result of applying habitat hp"nt 

projects modeled in FORPLAN to enhance and inxease 

fish habitat, thus improving fishing success. These 

coefficients were developed by the Fo~est wildlife 

biologist, in ccnjunctim with the Califomia 

Deparhuent of Fish and Game. 

levels of use oc(5uT regardless of management and 

553 
Table 5 (ontinu&) 

Surmary of Yield Coefficients 

pmcess used for developing yield coefficients 

WFUDs attrihted to other than direct wildlife and 

fish Manag-t F%-escripticns are ccmddered induced 

WFUDS and were also tracked in FORPLAN. Irduced 

wildlife coefficients were associated with specific 

range prescriptions when applied to deer winter or 

sumner range. The coefficients were based upon 

wildlife habitat types, ba&g"d levels of wildlife 

use, types of Inoposed range developnents, and 

intensity of range utilization. Fish-induced 

coefficients were associated mly with specific 

watershed Management prescll 'pticms applid to 

specific riparian areas. These coefficients were 

based upcol stream habitat capability, acres of stream 

increased fish habitat. These coefficients were 

develOpea by the Forest wildlife biologist, in 

mjundion with the California Department of Fish 

and Game. 

olrtprt 

Wildlife/ 

Fish User Days (WEUD) 

imp"ent, types of watershed i"ents, and 

core nest areas for gC&awks were rodeled in F". 

The coefficients were based on Regionally defined 

acreage requirements necessary for a viable 

population and were applied to tbe capable, 

available, and suitable timber lands. About 450 

suitable timber acres were re"& fran the regulated 

cut for goshawk nest site protection to meet the 

pairs. Unregulated timber yields fran those acres 

muld be permissible when asiate for habitat 

requirements of this species. 

Burned acres, with associated suppression costs and 

resource value change due to wildfire were &led in 

FORPLAN. The a"t of wildfire expected to OCCUT 

was develop33 for three different fire 

options (i.e. -am strategies, such as prevention 

emphasis or suppression emphasis) using the FIREPLAN 

Initial Attack Wxkl. These were integrated into 

FOWLAN and the expeded wildfire acres occwxing is 

related to the fire -am option and buaet level 

selected by FOWLAN. 

Coefficients for eff-ve alteration (EFFALT) track 

the acres of vegetation visually mdified by 

regeneration cutting. The coefficients were 

developed based upon type of vegetative strata, 

growth rates and visual characteristics. 

mini" management "mt of nine nesting 

554 
Table 5 (amtinued) 

SUrmary of Yield Coefficients 

cuwt process used for develcping yield coefficients 

~ ___ ~ 

prosarm- This is the slnn of fixed Costs for " level man- 

(do-) agmt, the cost for ths fire progran, and all costs 

not directly associated with a single reswrca, as 

watershed and fisheries projects. All costs were 

developed by resource staff officers and the Forest 

ecanonist, using past recmras. 

pands of Fish 

Wildlife animal "bxs were p-dicted based 081 thair 

habitat requiremen ts. Using WHR (wildlife habitat 

ralaticnships) types and expected habitat cbangas 

arertime,animal"berswereestimatedforeach 

alternative. 

The Farest currently provides suitable habitat for 

well as the threatened Lalrmtan and Paiute cutthroat 

.trouts. These species can be maintained at levels to 

meet "eq Objedives by following established 

Forest diredian and lsoposed standards and 

@mines. mese species wale not jncluded in the 

rrodel, as thsy are assul& to maintain current 

ppulations or to reach recovery objectives in all 

t"&s and alternatives. 

Fwnds of fish were calculated as a -on of milas 

of stream, existing skeam dticm, and acres of 

stream -t. 

AnesbyrecreationoppxAml 'ty (lux) Class 

scheduled -tim developnent, timber 

the endangered bald eagle and perqnne * falcon, as 

were based on the existing sew, 

and road and trail l2ons&uction and/or &l?EEZE: 

-ative setting (e.g, ON restricticns) was 

also amsidered. 

.. 

Road- 'an The ccmstruction of roads for new developea 

recreation facilities and for timber harvest access 

were estimated cutside FORPLAN based on a 

transprtation plan develqxd fnm aerial pl", 

developed recreatiapl inventories, net acres of timber 

harvested, and local hledge. The costs of road 

ccolstrudian were embedded into the timber and 

developed recreation cost; howevar, the actual road 

mileage combxckd was not an output fran FORPLAN. 

555 
Table 5 (cmtinued) 

Surmary of Yield Coefficients 

outplt process used far developing yield coefficients 

Trail (3"ction 

(miles) 

mareas 

(miles and acres) 

Minerals 

Road rea"ction is based on existing road 

irnrentory and maintenance plans. costs for these 

activities were developed frcm historical timber and 

developed and dispersed recreation data and embedded 

in the costs for these resources in FOWLAN. The 

achal mileage of road reconstzuction was not txacked 

in the mdel. 

Trail miles and trailheads were calculated outside 

FORPLAN based on the current trail system, areas 

allocated to wilderness, and the potential trails and 

trailheads available for dispersed recreation 

activities. costs for these facilities and potential 

facilities were developed frcm historical data and 

embedded in the dispersed recreation and wilderness 

oosts in FORPLAN. 

Trail "st~~ction is based on the existing trail 

irnrentoIy and reconstzuction program. 

embedded in FORPLAN as part of wilderness and 

dispersed recreaticm oosts; miles were generated 

outside the mdel. 

There were m coefficients for this output. Based on 

the total number of dispersed ms, miles of road and 

trail, and the alt-tive theine, the recreatim 

staff develop3 the outputs for miles of open, 

Closed, and seascmal ow roads and trails and ow 

open areas. 

The predicted "br of opratiq plans was based on 

mineral potential of acres available for "ral 

en- in relation to the current availability and 

number of plans. 

costs are 

It was assumed that geothermal enefgy developnent 

muld m in Lease Blocks I and 11 in all 

alternatives and bs"uxks. Based on stipulaticns 

made in the environmental assessnents for these lease 

blocks, it was estimated that 6 pier plants muld be 

pr0aUch-g 250 megawatts of electrical power annually 

by the end of the planning kcizcm. This benefit was 

embedded in FORPLAN. 

556 
Facilities 

Visual Quality 

ydw 

There were rn coefficients for this output (Le. 

dams, reservoirs, or a&inwxative sites). It was 

assLnned that the cmly charge fran ths base year in 

of facilities vmld be the addition of a 

Visitcu center for the ksn Basin NatiQ.lal mK€& 

scenic Area. This is a" to all alternatives. 

-Management Pmsxiptim associated with each 

altarnative wxe mapped and the acres by visual 

omditim resultirg fmm these activities estimated. 

The RIC reflected intheseV,Jkwere calculated as a 

fumtim of visual quality changes. 

The visual quality index is calculated by multiplykg 

"rically weighted variety class acres by the 

visual ccmditicsl. The result is an 3lY3iCator of 

lpopcsed management activities charge the visual 

dtim. 

~estimateOfadditiCmallandsneededt0 

efficiently manage the Farest was based an the thane 

of each altematiive. 

mere were rn cxwfficients for this m*t. 

were estimated us- historical data and are expe&ed 

various levels of pqranl intensities to reflect the 

thene of each alternative were defined and the Costs 

were estimated. 

There were In coefficients C?€velop&i mrestwide for 

water meeting water quality standards. The volume of 

water meetitag state water quality objectives was 

estimated fron the soil and water program, acre3 of 

soil disk", new EM area and road a"Hm, 

a- in declinjng dticm, and total buaget. 

Based on the of proper applicaticn of 

"s, Forest standards and guidelines, and current 

ski area enxion peventim Plans, virtually all 

visual quality. VgI will change by alternatFve as 

"brs 

to remain the same for all alternatives. 

water yield would meet State water quality standards. 

Ek"ics are discussed in CAapter I1 of the EIS in the altsnative 

asvelopnent process and displayed in Varicus figures in chapter 111 of the 

EIS in the econanic -t. ulapter Iv discusses the ecDBlDRic 

557 
amsequences, and Appndix D &lines the use of eCOBlOTULCS in the entire 

c3xx”t. Demand analysis for indivialal resources is presented in the 

Affected FsnrircaMlen t, chapter 111. Demand cut-offs ate used for all 

dispersed and developed RVDS, SMer INDS and wilderness RVDS, and for 

wildlife WFUDs. 

All costs and benefits of the ecanarclc efficiency analysis were amhzted 

incorporated into FDWW are desQcibed below: 

Disxmnt Rate: An intd rate of 4.0 peFcent was used to det0rmlne the 

present value of future benefits and costs. This rate apLncodmates the longterm cost of capital in the private sector, as measured by the return on AAA 

coqxxate bonds after adjwtmsnt for inflation. 1/ For sensitivi- testing, 

a disccunt rate of 7-1/8 percent was used. TI& rate was used for water 

resource evaluation by the U.S. Water Reswxes Council in 1980 and also 

for use in the 1980 RPA. Use of the 7-1/8 percent discount rate 

reduces PNV fran that obtaihed with a 4 percent rate. Data on PNV for each 

altemative using the 7-1/8 percent discount rate is available in the 

with the use of the FORPW rmdel. Ecoarmic data and as?sq$5orLs 

Plannirag records. 

Base Year for Dollar Values: All dollar values are expressed in 1982 

dollars. The follwing factors based on the -licit price deflator for 

gross national prcduct kre used to adjust values fran other years to 1982. 

Year 

1978-82 

1979-82 

1980-82 

1981-82 

Factor 

1.39 

1.28 

1.18 

1.08 

~eal cost and price Trends: 

are shown below: 

The real cost and price trends used for timber 

Decade 

1 2 3 4 

Timber price increase, 4.78 1.09 2.06 1.57 

average annual percent 

Timber cost increase, 3.10 2.40 1.90 1.60 

average mual percent 

5 

1.84 

1.60 

- 1/ See Raw, Clark; H. FYed Kaiser, and John Sessions, “Di-t Rate 

for Lcolg-term Forest Service Investments” Journal of Forestry , June 

1981 for a ccmplete discussion of the rationale for the discount 

rate. 

558 
These timber price -trends are projections fran an eccBy3metTIc of 

Natimal and Regional timber markets. 1/ The timber cost tra& are based on 

pmjwtims of par capita aspasable parscslal incane muse timber manag-t 

cost hueases have historically been highly conelated with hcmases in per 

capita disposable itXmi-3. - 2/ 

costs and prices for all other resnmxs were held anstant since FORPLAN 

versim 1, Model 2, release 13, cannut Utilize Oost and price trends for both 

timberandncoltimberresources. 

Benefits: The dDllar values for outputs used to calculate PNV are the prices 

that cc~lsumers would be willing to pay far Forest Outputs, whether or mt such 

prices are actually collected by the federal government. At present it is 

~timal policy to provide mxt Forest outputs at either no charge to 

casmers or at a charge less than the willingness-ta-pq price. This is 

shown in the follmhg tabulations in Table 6. 

Table 6 - 

Benefits Used in the Analysis 

Average 

Average WillhpeS S-tOvalued valued Actualcash PayVal~USed 

in Outside Receiptsper inthis 

outprt unit FoRPImJl” UnitofOutprtAnal~ 

T* 

Initial Harvest 

0-30% Slope (Wm) 

-Jeff- Pine MCFX 

-Red Fir MCFX 

-Lodgepole Pine mx 

-Jeffrey Pine mx 

-Red Fir mx 

-L&pple Pine MCFX 

31-60% Slope (aerial) 

877 

482 

154 

-162 

-457 

-1308 

877 

482 

154 

-162 

-457 

-1308 

- 1/ Haynes, Richard W.; Kent P. Gmnaugh~; and Darius M. Mams: 

“Stungage Price Projeztions for Selected Westem Species”, USDA 

Forest Service Research Note PNW-367, “ber 1980. 

- 2/ USDA Forest Service, An assesgnent of the Forest and Raqe Land 

Situatim in the United States, January 1980. 

559 
Table 6 

Benefits Used in the Analysis 

A-!3e 

Valued Valued Actual Cash Payvalueused 

in Outside Receiptsper inthis 

Average Wiillingcess-tcOutput Unit FORPLAN FORPLAN Unit of Output Analysis 

Thhr (ccmw) 

Regenerated Timber-Final Harvest 

0-30% Slope (.tractor) 

Diameter class 8 

12 

-Jeffrey Pine 

16 

20 

24 

28 

-Red Fir 

Diameterclass 8 

12 

16 

20 

28 

-Lodgepole Pine 

Diameter Class 8 

12 

16 

20 

24 

3140% Slope 

-Jeffrey Pine 

Diameter class 8 

12 

16 

20 

24 

28 

-Red Fir 

Diameter class 8 

12 

16 

20 

24 

28 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

473 

614 .~~ 

728 

807 

850 

877 

250 

347 

419 

477 

472 

108 

128 

142 

149 

154 

-465 

-325 

-211 

-132 

- 88 

- 62 

-250 

-347 

-419 

-457 

-477 

-472 

473 

614 .~~ 

728 

807 

850 

877 

250 

347 

419 

477 

472 

108 

128 

142 

149 

154 

-465 

-325 

-211 

-132 

- 88 

- 62 

-250 

-347 

-419 

-457 

-477 

-472 

560 
Table 6 

Wits Used in .tfie Analysis 

Average Average W3UhglES-tovalued valued Actualcash Payvalueused 

in outside Receiptsper inthis 

outplt unit F" E" ut of olrtprt Analysis 

Timber (mtimml) 

-Locagepol0 Pine 

Diameter class 8 MCFX 

12 MCFX 

16 MCFX 

20 MCFX 

24 mx 

Fuelwood 

E!%F 

graz- Wild Nxse & Burro 

ReCreatim 

Dispersed, Std. 

Dispersed, Low Std. 

Devaloped. std 

Developed, Low std. 

Developed, Alphe ski 

Wilderness std. 

Wilderness, Low Std. 

Wildlife and Fish 

Resident Fish Use 

Big Game Use 

other Game use 

mngame use 

Water 

Water yield 

sediment 

cordsx 

ZUMX 

AnilnalX 

mx 

mx 

mx 

mx 

mx 

mx 

mx 

mx 

mx 

mx 

WFODX 

Ac-Ft x 

mx 

-1395 -1395 

-1375 -1375 

-1361 -1361 

-1353 -1353 

-1348 -1348 

5.00 7.89 

1.86 

200 

0 

0 

0.82 

0.82 

0.82 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

10.70 

200 

11.30 

5.99 

11.20 

5.94 

11.20 

13.75 

7.29 

12.00 

30.00 

18.00 

25.00 

59.00 

-10.00 

561 
Table 6 

-fits Used in the Andlysis 

Average 

in Outside Reeeiptsper inthis 

Average Willingress-%- 

valued valued Actualcash Payvalueused 

outprt Unit FORFUN EORPLAN Unit of olrtplt Analysis 

hergy 

Geothermal BBTUX 253.00 253.00 

Fire 

Wildfire Acres x 0 -1172.00 

chtpts abave the estimated demand were not valued. For outp~ts used 

off-site, benefits are based on the value of the outputs as they leave the 

land or pcroaucticol site. For autputs used on-site, benefits are valued when 

use takes place. However, in cases where it is easier to derive values after 

the output leaves the prcduction site, costs incurred am3 profits earned 

after the output leaves the site were deducted fran the values at later 

production stages. 

Recreation and Wildlife and fish user day values are the estimated average 

a"t that recreationists are willing to pay at the site. These values are 

based on a national survey of travel costs and cxmtirgent value recreaticol 

studies cmducted by the Forest Smce for the Draft 1985 Resource P1anm.q 

Act (RPA) evaluation. 

Range values are the average a"t that permittees are willing to pay for 

grazing on the Forest as estimated fran ranch livestock budgets developd by 

theUSDAECWIXnU 'c Research Service. 

Water values are the estimated a"t that users are willing to pay for water 

at the pint of use, less storage and delivery costs incurred to get the 

water fmn Forest Streams and rivers to the user. Values were &termin& 

fran studies surveyed by the Forest Service for the Draft 1985 RPA. - 1/ 

Sediment values are negative values that represent the cost of sediment 

remmal or cleanout. They are based on costs incurred bytheForestand 

other public agencies in the area, and studies canducted by the Forest. 

These values were applied only to the wet meadow areas and streams in the 

WIN-inventnried area. Otherwise, sediment is given a value of zero 

Forest-wide . 

- 1/ Draft Bwironmental Impact Statement 1985-2030 Resources Planning 

- Act 

562 
values for geothamal energy represent value of the energy at the 

wellhead as estimated by the Forest Service for the 1985 Resource Planning 

Act (RPA) evaluatia.l/ - 

Demand CUt-Offs for Benefit Values: Benefit values are applied only vhre 

there is a demand for the output by Forest users. Outputs that exceed &nard 

are given a benefit value of zero, while those that are produced at or below 

the quantity demanded by cnm" are assigned the benefit value described 

in the previcus section. This is handled with the use of a demand cut-off. 

Mxt of the outputs fnxn the Forest are c"ed in ti& and regional 

markets where the quantiig demanded is many times larger than the prcductive 

capacity of the Forest (see Chap- I11 for a resource-by-rasource 

description of the demand situation). For this ~easc~1, demand cut-offs were 

aeVelOpea only for recreation visitor days (RVDs) and wildlife and fish user 

days (WFUDs). For these resource Outputs, public demand cmld be less than 

the prductive capacity of the Forest. The demand cut-offs were generally 

effective in the early time perid limiting resource cutputs; lxwevex, 

cost-effective supply and/or cc" ' ts unique to alternatives were mom 

often limiting than were the demand cut-off limits in the case of recreaticBl 

outputs. 

The daMnd projecticns listed in Table 7 are based a historic RIM data and 

projected into the future us- factors developd in the 1980 RPA indexes of 

demand for outdoor recreation by type of activity. These facbrs were 

aeVelOpea by Regia; within Region 5, uley were based on growth in major 

population centers. The southern California area had a major influence upon 

the factors develop& for Regim 5, and provides the majority of the Forest's 

users.2/ - 

- 2/ EM Forest Service, An assesgnent of the Forest and Range Land 

Situation in tbe Unite3 States, January 1980. 

563 
Table 7 

Demand (xrtoffs used in MlRpLAN 

~ 

Decade 1 2 3 4 5 

Dispersed Recreation (MRVDs) 14190 18203 22123 26656 31769 

Demand by Decade 

Wilderness Demand by (MRVDs) 8626 9967 11861 13833 15647 

Decade 

Developed Recreation (MRVDs) 26654 32364 37913 43566 48673 

DemandbyDecade 

byby- 

-11 Ski Demand (MRVDs) 12633 17702 24798 32440 41953 

Wildlife WFUD Demand (IWFUDs) 531 606 694 794 888 

Fish WFUD Demand by (IWFULls) 3420 3685 4215 4711 5159 

Decade 

costs: All costs used in the analysis are estimates based on acwnmtrecords and the experience of pmject manages. costs for applyirg the 

different multiple resource prescriptions were estimated and built into the 

eccBloRics tables in FOWLAN. The cost associated with timber sale 

c"ction/-hctim are included. costs for ccmstxn~m rwds are 

included where a new area is being opened for timber harvest. Adninistxation 

and capital invatma t msts are included for soils and water, range, 

wildlife, and recxeatmn prcgram. Fimds for firefighting and fire 

manag-t are included. Finally, cxmstruction, re"ctim, and 

maintenance costs are included for campgrounds, interpretive facilities, 

trails, trailheads, administratim of special-use permits, water 

develapnents, fencing, and &rembrk stabilizirg hc-. 

Base level operational costs (fixed costs) include g-al aCMnistxation, 

program management, minerals managmt, special use manag-t, water and 

soil improvement main- and "itor-, road and trail systems 

maintenance, fire detection and initial attack, and law enforcement. 

Appmxhately 22 percent ($2,139,ooO) of the current budget re-ts fixed 

costs were checked for reasonableness by mnparing the first decade costs for 

expxdibres for FY 1982. 

preparation and a&inistraticm, regeneraton, and road 

costs which are not allowed to vary in any ten- or alternative. 

the current alternative aevelapea with use of F" against actual 

564 
constraints 

Each of the resxnxs discussed in 36 CFR 219.13 thnagh 219.26 ware 

addrassed by Stadaras and Guidelines, Management h-esnlptions, or crthee 

management dFrediotl jn the Plan. diredicn which Farests -- to follow is found in Resicplal Land Managemetrt Plarmilq 

Diredian. 

Sane management requhmmts ware iz-anslated into mOaelitg ccnstraints and 

shmlated or pmxied in KEGTAN. Ctmskahts are quantifiable limits placed 

on the model to ensure that lnixh" or - auxs or dollars aTB used, or 

that specific "l or maxi" amolltlts of outputs are prcxiUc!4?d. 

ocnstraints override the objective in linear Lprogml* analysis. Thus 

where a predetennhed level of cutpt, mini" @ysical dticm, or 

allocaticm is entered as a cmstraint, it is always achieved (or no feasible 

solution is famd). Cutpt levels and other desired effects en- as 

constraints ybly antrilmte "e to pblic benefits than their cost of 

ploaucUon Plus the foIegcme public benefits of any outputs or other effects 

they replace. For this reason, the interdisciplinary team tried to forrrollate 

CcBLStraints that met objectives with the lawest cast and least effed cm 

other outputs. In mst cases, this required the fomulatim and testing of 

several alternative sets of lx" ' ts to deter" the most cast-effective 

this analysis are divided into far categories: tecluwlqical ccnstraints, 

Farest constraints. The following is a dismssicm of the mOaeliq rules and 

impads associated with each type of constraint. 

l"icalcclnstraints: Technicalconsban * ts are needed to make the model 

mrk and to ensure technical implementability of the results. These are 

applied to all bndmxks and alte~~tives. Limiting the preaiptim set 

for an analysis area to mly those activities for which the area is available 

and capable of smtahbg is ane type of technological a" ' t. For 

example, limiting tintex harvest pescriptions to areas that are capable and 

available for timber harvest. Demand cutoffs and considering existing 

aeVelOpea Iiecreation sites suitable mly for developed mc~raticm are other 

exanples. In additim, thresbld limits are set that restrict the proaucUoPl 

of "ce mtputs either to meet demand or other identified technical 

limitations. Constraints Nsnbered 100 thmugh 170 1/ were needed to pevent 

the lll~del frun double countkg by a~ccating the s& acres of suitable range 

to two or mre prescripticms. 

Cmsbdnts 002 through 015 limit the nunbsr of RVDs, WNDS and tms of 

sediment that can be produced to an anrnmt less than or equal to the 

constraint in each perioa. The RVDs and WFUDs produce3 abwe the th"ld 

constraints are not valued, while sedhent prmhcti01-1 bepd the omstraint 

limits nodels the Forest's inability to restore backlogged mm-pint sources 

of sediment in the WIN-inventoried areas. (See the previous sd5cx-1 for 

additimal information on demand cutoffs. ) The sediment threshold cutoff has 

been develOpea fnxn historic data for the WIN-inventoq damaged acres. !key 

require the model to restore the backlog of m-pint sources of EEdimnt. 

The sediment yield threshold reflects an atternpt by the Forest to resolve the 

m-pint .5aurws of sediment. 

set (in terms of FNV) that would meet the objectives. C" -tsusedin 

"Um management requirenents, " implmk3ntation requirenents, and 

565 
Decade 1 2 3 4 5 

sedimart limit (M tans) 2.911 2.911 2.911 2.911 2.911 

ManaganentR * ts ("s): Mini" Management Resuiranen ts 

("s) are main-- standards set forth in 36 CFR 

219.27. - for defining the WlRs were specified by the Pacific 

southwest Regim. "s are applied to all b"rb and alte.mative-5 but 

are not applied to the FLW ("traimd max PNV with flm/ltsy--laq term 

FORPLAN nms. The "s generally represent re@remnts that are outside of 

Forest service authority to change. 'lh@ are based on statutes and 

regulations, in mtrast to manual diredi on or agency plicy. Sane examples 

of "s are: lands not available for timber pnxluction, T&E species "very, 

viable populatims of wildlife and fish, vegetative dimity, riparian area 

prubction, soil and water productivity, and certam ' timber policy 

maints. 

A discussion of the nwdeling rules and associated impacts for each WIR 

follows. See the &ling specificatiom in the benchmark sectim of this 

appendix for additional specifics. 

sustained yield--maints) or the MLV (mi" level Of management) 

1. 

2. 

Tentatively Capable, Available, and Suitable Timberland: Lands that were 

tentatively suitable for timber management were placed in analysis areas 

and were given a rqe of appropriate prescriptiom. Lam3 not suitable 

for timber managment were placed in other analysis areas where timber 

prescriptions were not an option. A detailed discussion of the timber 

suitability criteria is wntainefi in the timber Z+IG in the plrecords. The effect of limiting the land base to only tkse acres that 

are nm available, have a reasonable chance of successful reforestation, 

and for which lcrmwleage indicates no irreversible damage to soil 

prcductivi-ky or watershed condition defines the acres that are available 

for scheduled ha"g ' , reforestation, and -. This establishes 

the "m land base available to sustained yields of timber. 

Threatenedand~ ered Species: The bald eagle is a federally-lSstea 

endangered species. The Forest has a wintering population of bald 

eagles, but no nesting pairs. No coefficients were developd for .this 

species. 

The peregrine falm is also an endangered species. The Forest portion 

of the Peregrine Falcon Recwery Plan calls for the intzcduction of two 

pair within the planning period. No specific coefficients were developed 

for the peregrine falcon in the analysis. 

The Labontan cutthroat trout and the Paiute cutthroat txmt are 

federally-listed threatened species. The "ent management direzh 'on is 

to protect and enhance habitat to meet papulaticm recovery cb-jedives. 

Currently the Forest has m recwery target. 

- 1/ These constraint nL" refer to the actual wrstraint in the FORPLAN 

matrix, and are offered as an aid to readers who are interested in 

reviewing the actual mathmatical s.tructure of the constraints. The 

linear program matrixes and reports are included in the p1amb-g records. 

566 
Ooefficients were developd based upm habitat capability, stream acres; 

and managanent activities. The ~ecov~31y objectives ara five acres of 

increased stream habitat for the Lakmtcm cutthroat and eighteen acres 

for the Paiute cutthroat trwt. In the case of both trout, there is rmre 

suitable sbream habitat available than is needed to meet recovery 

objectives. The Paiute (xltthroat Trout Habitat Manag-t Plan is 

presently available, and the Lahclntan Cutthroat "ut Habitat Management 

Plan will be available in the near future. 

StandKds and guidelines designed to protect the bald eagle, peregrine 

falcon, Lahmkn trout, Paiute trcut, and their habitats do mt &li& 

with other resources, and were therefore mt IKdeled in FORPLAN. 

3. Viable Popul aticms: A viable population is regarded as me which has the 

estimated numbers and distributicm of reprductive individuals to insure 

its continued existence. Gxstxaints were entered in FORPLAN for for 

viable populations in two areas: goshawks, and snag-de-t species. 

Goshawks: Within its habitat range, manage gcshawk territories to 

maintain a density of at least one territory per eighteen square miles. 

Di.ShXXS between territories or cl- of territories shuld mt exoeed 

12 miles. The habitat range is defined as the area of land amtaining 

active or potential nesting habitat and was cansidered to etlc~npass the 

entire suitable timber base on the Forest. 

To meet the minimum managmt requirements for gashawks, the wildlife 

biologist determined that nhe pairs are necessary within the tentatively 

suitable timber base. Each territory will contain a "m of 5Oaof habitat which provides suitable ccmditims for the nest stand and an 

alternate nest stand. 'Ib maintain these nine pairs, 450 acres of 

prdudzive mature timber were forced in the -1 to salvage and stand 

maintenance tinhr management, which remsved these acres fm regulated 

harvest. Special camsideratian, identified in the Forest-wide Standards 

and Guidelines, is applied to these areas. 

Unique wnditions exist CBI the Forest for the goshawk. Because of the 

high recreation use, open timber stands, ease of access, and habitats 

ming CBI the southemnnst extent of their range, local studies 

indicate goshawks may need upwards of 100 acres of ptective area 

"diq the nest sites. Alternatives PRF, AMB, and AMN provide this 

awtional protective area. 

Snag-dependent Species: lb provide habitat for snag-de-t species, 

it was deta-"d that an average of 1.5 snags per acre were rquimft 

with the follawing specificatims: 

- 1.2 snags per acre between 15-24 inches dbh and great= than 20 

- 0.3 snags per acre greater than 24 inches dbh and greater than 20 

feat high: 

feet high. 

567 
TO provide this level of snags, evq other decade's thinning volume for 

high-site timber land was given up, slightly reducing the "nn 

Iq-term sustained yield. 

Diversity: 

providing threshold levels of vegetation types and seral stages. 

vegetative type/seral stage dinations are described below. 

Timber types: 

Jeffrey pine 

Red fir 

Seral stages: 

4. A diversity of plant and animal CcmrmnitieS was achieved by 

These 

1 = Grass/forb stage, with or without scattered shrubs and 

2 = Shmb/seedling/sapling stage. 

3a = Pole/medium tree stage with canopy mer less than 39 percent. 

3bc= Pole/m&mn tree stage with campy ma over 40 percent. 

4a = Large tree stage (mature and ovennature) with campy cover less 

4bc= Large tree stage with campy cover over 40 percent. 

4c+= Ovennature larye tree stage with tree campy of over 70 

percent. 

seedlings. 

than 39 percent. 

Shrub Types: Big Sage, Bitterbrush, and EJLxlntain Whcgany. 

Seral Stages: Early Stage, Middle Stage, and Late Stage. 

FORPLAN solutions were mnitored to irmre that at least 5 percent of 

each vegetatzve -/&era1 stage acmbination was prese.nt for each 

decade. This was never a problem in any of the &m&narb or 

alternatives, and m diversity constraints were ever explicitly imposed. 

5. Riparian Areas: The aquabc, riparian, and terrestrial habitat 

miated with riparian areas is hpxtant to a large variety of 

wildlife species. Riparian areas are defined as vegetative cmmmities 

Wch are prehmnantly influenced by, or associated with, water; they 

include: 

- Areas 100 feet horizontal distance fran the edge of standing bodies 

of water: 

- Areas 100 feet horizontal distance on both sides of 'al stream 

channels; 

- allwetlands. 

Riparian areas were identified on the Forest by calculating the acres 

associated with perennial streams or lakesbres, and acres of wet meadow 

in the Forest data base. Protection of riparian areas was modeled in 

FORPLAN by allowing only salvage and sanitation timber management 

activities within riparian areas, reducing the timber yield cm 360 

acres. An additicolal 23,500 acres of wet meadow were ccnstxajnd to 

accept only watershed inpawmat prescriptions. (Livestock grazjng was 

568 
limited to levels allowed in watershed jlq”nt prfsxiw in these 

areas.) All new aevelopea recreatianal facilities were to be located 

autside riparian areas. 

“ittent and ephemeral stre;mrs were adamledged to be important to 

riparian areas, but wem not amsbahd as part of the M4Rs. In 

addition, the Farest Standards and Guidelines amlie3 to all alternatives 

further described riparian areas, and the appcguiate activities and 

Soil and Water Productivity: 

those areas with steep slopes, very high erosion pukntial, or high 

instability, to rn mxe than 5 percent per decade. Disturbme is 

defined as any management activity that has the potential to accelerate 

arosian or mass “ent. steep Slopes are Slopas in excess of the 

natural aqle of repose. Very high erasion potential is defined in the 

No CCBLstraint was applied specifically for soil and water pmductAvity 

p”Aion, as the intent of this objective was already met by renaring 

the -le acres fran the capable, available and suitable (a) 

tiinbar land base. the 

limitation of range activities to 30 percent slopes or less, and the 

hp1-tati.m of the F&-wide Standards and Guidelines and Management 

Prescciption directzl ’on provide the intended protection for soil and water 

management within them. 

6. This CcBlStcaint limited the &&hance on 

R-5 supplement no. 18, FSM 2550, May 1976. 

The remDval of these lands from timber activiw, 

proauctivity. 

Timbar policy constraints (Tpcs): These ccolstraints ensure that timber 

harvest meets the requirements of sustaihed yield and harvest flaw, m 

harvest before the eulnlhatim of Mean m+l Ilx”nt (M), and 

di”requirements. 

1. RotatimLength: r.” ages ware established for merchantability, 

Culmination of Pkan Annual In”ent (M), and 95 percent of CXU based 

on =REP yield tables for the major forest types. Rotation 1- was 

extended based qxm RAMPREP yield tables in response to public issue with 

the appearance of the forest in the future. See Table 8 for display. 

Table 8 

Rotation LeqtAs 

(years ) 

Merchantable cwu PRF 95pera3ltamI 

Jeffrey Pine 

w/o thiMing 80 70 120 70 

W/thinning 80 80 140 80 

Red fir 

w/o 80 

w/ thiMing 80 

Lodaeaole nine 

50 80 50 

180 180 140 

w/G bliming 80 80 100 70 

80 100 120 80 .. w/- 

569 
3. Harvest Flaw ReqrkmF3t.S: The annunt that timber outputs Were allowed 

to fluctuate between prim was regulated to prevent wi% fluctuaticms 

fnm cme decade to the next. Twenty-two percent was the usual cx" * t, 

but a 99 percent increase was allowed in the RPA Alternative. 

4. Dispersion: FORPLAN was ccmstrahd to allow M mX-2 than 16 percent Of 

any watershed association to be regenerated in arry psricd. This 

ccmstraint assures that harvest units canbe situate3 in such a way as to 

leave logical harvest units between opndrg3 for future managanent. 

mplemntation Rqui" ts (MIRS): These are needed to 

ensure that alternatives are minimal ly acceptable and hpl-table m the 

ground. They are 

within agemy wmizol, but there is little discreti- mtrol regarding 

their application at the Forest level. MIFS do not apply to benchmarks but 

are applied to all altematives. my two MIFS were applicable to the 

Forest. Sensitive plants must be managed to insure that th0y do not becane 

threatened or endarg- because of Forest Service action. This requFrement 

is satisfied on the Forest by Standards and Guidelines. Partial Retention 

Visual Cuality must be maintained in the forqromd and middle ground of 

scenic corridors for roads officially designated in the 1970 California State 

and Chmty Scenic Highway System Master Plan. (State Highways 158, 168, 203 

Timber harvest was restricted to salvage and sanitation FOWLAN prescriptions 

on 4,207 acres of suitable timber stands along these corridors. 

procedures for defining MIFS %.re specified by the Region. 

and U.S. 395 and the western portion of U.S. 120 are in this category.) 

Forest constraints carmyfn to all alternatives: This category of ccmstraints 

is needed to ensure implementability at the local level. They are based on 

Forest (rather than Regional) dtions which are in addi-tion to M%s. 

Fixed allocations representing prior Forest Ccmnitments include the 

established and candidate RNAs, the Mom Basin National Forest Scenic Area, 

the Ancient Bristlecane Pine Forest Botanical Area, get- leasing in 

Lease Blocks I and 11, all designa- wilderness, and the Neath and South 

Fork of the Kern Wild and Scenic Rivers and the Middle Fork of the San 

Joaquh recannended wild and scenic rivers. Other than these land 

allocations, no Forest constraint was cormy3n to all alternatives. Forest 

constraints unicpe to an alternative are discussed under alternative 

descriptions. 

SlmllIXy of the Oonstraint Analysis: For a detailed discussion of ccmstraint 

analysis by subtraction, refer to czlapter I1 of the EIS. The follmirg Table 

M" 

displays the marginal costs of the Mini" Managemnt Requirements and the 

Implementation R-ts. 

The alternatives were develw frun the most e"ically efficient, 

unccastrained benchmark (FLW), with additicmal constraints added only as 

necessary to meet the theme of the alternative. The first set of constraints 

added were the M%s, which are necessary to meet the NFMA regulations. For 

the Inyo, these included protection of goshawk nest sites (450 acres), and 

protection of riparian areas (360 acres). The MW& restrict timber practices 

and cause a $0.3 million reduction in pM7. The MW benchmark is further 

.. 

570 
"skah& by the MIPS to create the mst efficient, inplementable 

altexnative (CE3). The visual quality MIRs affeded another 4,207 acres of 

timber that went to salvage and sanitation cuttjng in RIRPLAN. 

Table 9 

Present Net Value Ccmparison-Margnal Cost of C" 'ts 

in Millims of 1982 Dollars 

DisIn Disc. 

w cost cost -fits &fits 

I.D. PNV C%ange Dis- change 

Qde Jh counted InDisc. ccamted 

Fzw (PNV 

w/o -) 1879.4 WA 288.7 WA 2168.1 N/A 

"* (PNV) 

WFMRS) 1897.1 0.3 288.9 0.2 2168.0 0.1 

-(m 

W/MzRS) 1897.0 0.1 287.6 1.3 2166.6 1.4 

MLV 

(Min-lvl . Managenent) 1605.1 N/A 81.1 N/A 1686.2 N/A 

*&ground atput (MLV) benefits, costs, and PNV have been sub.tracted fmn 

thDse for each of the other benchmarks and alte?rlatim. 

m"ms 

This section presents the nudelirig specifications for the required 

bs"b. For a canplete discussion of the results of the benchnarks, 

refer to chapter I1 of the EIS. 

04MLV - MinLRm Level of ManaqaE¶ t (-w ) 

I 

. period that muld be needed if rrrrm" 

Because this k"rk is prhxcily used as an accounting tool, the --in 

level were actually implemented is 

i-. 

"B: The purpase of Ws benchmark is to determine mavoidable fixed 

costs, outputs, and associated benefits with main- the Farest in 

federal amershl 'P. 

Pbdeling Specifications: 

.. 

1. Objective function: Minimize cost for twelve perioas. 

571 
2. State and county mads and backgruund hunt- and fiw are 

allowed to p-ce a “m level of dispersed recreation RVDs and 

WRIDS . 

3. 0th- outputs (timber, range, developed recreation, etc.) were not 

pmcbced, as a result of the “ize-cost objective function. 

Othex constraints were not needed. 

The “m level fire lnogram included detection and initial attack 

only. 

4. 

04m - WKWns- Maxi” PNV Assigned with FLow/LTsy constraints 

- Them: This benchmark displays the most emnanically efficient allocation of 

resources. Management activities are constrained only by the production 

limitations of the land and by the recpkemmts of technical feasibility. 

FLW provides a basis for evaluating the cost of the W4R.s. 

Wling Specifications: 

1. 

2. Technical constraints and cutoffs were used for skiing, wilderness, 

dispersed and developed RVDs, sediment, and wildlife (scheduled 

output constraints #002 through 015). 

Objective function: Maximize PNV for 12 pericds. 

3. Timber Policy Gmstraints: 

rotation 1- at merchantability. .. - 

- Sustained yield requirements apply. 

- Harvest flow requirements apply. 

- 

- Dispersion requirements do not apply. 

Ncol-declining yield requirements do not apply. 

04” - &xi” PNV Assigned Values with F@E-IiDY-Ct+fAI 

=: The purpse of the WlR benchmark is to display the outputs that could 

be proaUCea if management were constrained only to meet Minir” l4anag-t 

Requirements. This benchmark damnstrates the opporhnu ‘ty costs of thase 

requirements, considered collectively. It forms the basis for evaluation of 

additional constxaints. 

Weling Specifications: 

The W4R.s are derived frcm 36 CFR 219.27. 

1. Objective function: Maxlrm ‘ ‘ze PNV for twelve periods. 

2. Technical constraints and cutoffs were used for skiing, wilderness, 

dispersed and developed RVDs, sediment, and wildlife 

cutput constraints #002, through 015). 

3. Timber Policy constraints 

Mu-” rotation age at least 95 percent of CIVIAI. - .. - Sustained yield requirements apply. 

572 
4. 

5. 

- Hanrest flow requiranents apply. 

- D- -* E1pp1Y- 

- ---lining yiad requirements apply. 

ocnstraints #061 ITmugh 064 -bit regeneratian harvest in 

riparian areas. 

Cm&raints #065 througfi 067 restrid; the timber harvest allowed in 

cartain strata identified as nesting areas for goshawks. 450 acres 

(50 acres/pair x 9 pair) BTB CCBLstrained for goshawks. These acres 

w3r0 allocated to timber salvage and sanitatim p?xscripticns. 

with the Forest siaY%rds and 

ts for wildlife 

Theseco&xaul . f=, - 

will be met. 

aidelines, insure that Minimum bgelient Rqlinma 

Thene: This beJwhM& demastrates the sensitivity of the Fl)RpLAN solution 

to m-mrket resources (water, fish, wildife and dispersed “aticm) pica 

assigrments. NZm-nEa-ket outputs are not valued and CorltribLIta to PNV only 

after the SOlUticn is found; therefore, they I% not affect the al1Ocatim of 

resaurces. 

Model- specl ’ficatims: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

objective function: Maximize PNV for twelve pericds. 

!“ical constraints and cutoffs were used for ski-, wildemsss, 

disparsed and developed RVDs, sediment, and wildlife (med 

output t” ‘ ts #CKl2 through 015). 

Timber Policy Gmstnu~ . ts: 

- 

- sustained yield requirements apply. 

- Harvest flow reyhmmts apply. 

- Dispersion requirements apply. 

- Nz~~-declining yield requirenents apply. 

Qmstxajnts #061 through 064 prohibit regeneratian harvest in 

riparian areas. 

accnstraintS #065 through 067 restrict the timber harvest allowed in 

certain strata identified as nesting areas for goshawks. 450 acres 

(50 acres/- X 9 pair) are ccolstrained for goshawlrs. These acres 

allocated to timber salvage and sanitation prescripticns. These “.sfZaints, ccmbined with the Forest Standards and 

aidelines, insurethat Minimum Management Requimwnts for wildlife 

will be mt. 

Water, WNDs, and dispersed RVDs were given no value in the FOWLAN 

run. The solution was then run through the rem writer to price 

out all assigned values, including the nonmarket outputs (water, 

ms dispersed “S). 

Minimum rotatim age at least 95 percent of CMAI. 

573 
04TBR-"uze Tinker fm 1 period with NDY - IXAI - WRS 

Theme: The thene of this tr3"& is to define the " timber output 

.. 

possible for the first decade, applyhq the CcaLStraints of NDY, CWiI and 

Mms. 

Mxieling Specifications: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Objective function: Maximize timber for one period. 

Technical constraints and cutoffs were used for Skiing, wilderness, 

dispersed and developea RVDS, sediment, and wildlife (scheduled 

output constraints #002 through 015). 

Timber Policy Ccazstraints: 

Mumnun rotation age at least 95 percent of m. - .. - Sustained yield requirements apply. 

- Harvest flow nqiramts apply. 

- Dispersion requirements apply. 

- Nm-declwyieldrequiremen ts apply. 

"straints #061 through 064 prohibit regeneration harvest in 

riparian areas. 

"straints #065 through 067 restrict the timber harvest allowed in 

certain strata identified as nest- areas for goshawks. 450 acres 

(50 acres/pair X 9 pair) are constrained for gos&&s. These acres 

were sent to timber salvage and sanitation prescriptions. These 

constraints, cmbined with the Forest Standards and Guidelines, 

insure that Mini" Managenent Reqrkemats for wildlife will be 

met. 

04WLN - Maximize pTN with Maxirrann Wilderness 

Theme: The theme of this benchmark is to display the opportunity ccst 

associated with a "rm wilderness allocation. 

lvweling spec ifications: 

1. 

2. Technical cmnslxaints and cutoffs were used for skiing, wilderness, 

dispersed and develaped RVDs, sediment, and wildlife (scheduled 

output constraints #002 through 015). 

Objective function: Maximize PNV for twelve periods. 

3. Timber Policy ConstraintS: 

M"nn rotation age at least 95 percent of CMAI. - .. - Sustained yield requirements apply. 

- Hamest flow requirements apply. 

- Dispersion requirements apply. 

- hbn-declining yield requirements apply. 

574 
4. 

5. 

6. 

Omstrahts #061 through 064 prohibit regeneration harvest in 

riparian areas. 

Cbstraints #065 through 067 restrict the timber harvest allowed in 

cerkain strata identified as nesting areas for goshawks. 450 acres 

(50 a-/pair X 9 pair) are constrained for goshawks. These acres 

were sent ta timber salvage and sanitation prescriptions. meSe 

Canstraints, canbined with the Forest Standards and Guidelines, 

insure that Mini" Management Rq&"nts for wildlife will be 

met. 

Wilderness allocations for all Further PlannSng Areas was assured by 

tuning on appropriate wilderness choices for aggregates 291 through 

993. 

04NOau- Maxi" PNV with No RDadless Areas to Wilderness 

Theme: The them of this be"rk is to display the opportrnrity cost 

associated wiw making m new wilderness allocations. 

Wdeling Specificatians: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

objective function: Maximize PNV for twelve periods. 

"ical ccmstraints and cutoffs were used for skiing, wilderness, 

dispersed and developd Rws, sediment, and wildlife (scheduled 

output "straints #002 through 015). 

Timber policy Qnstraints: 

Mm" rutation age at least 95 percent of M. - .. 

- Sustabedyieldrequiremen apply. 

- Harvest flow requirements apply. 

- DisperSian m&r"ts apply. 

- Ncordeclining yield -ts apply 

Cmsixaints #IO61 through 064 prohibit regeneration hamest in 

riparian areas. 

ccastraints W65 through 067 restrict the timber harvest allowed in 

certain strata identified as nesting areas for goshawks. 450 acres 

(50 acres/- X 9 pair) am constrained for goshawks. These acres 

were sent to timber salvage and sanitation prescriptions. These 

ccastraints, canbined with the Forest Standards and Guidelines, 

insure that Mini" Managemnt Reqirenmts for wildlife will be 

met. 

"wilderness allocations for Further Planning Areas was assured by 

"straining appropriate wild- choices for aggregates 291 

through 993. 

575 
04RGN-MaXinaanRange - Ckazing for Five Periods (50 Years) 

- Theme: 

the Forest to provide cam%srcial livestock grazing for five decades. 

Weling Specifications: 

The them of this benchmark is to display the maximum capability of 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Objective function: Maximize grazing for five perioaS. 

The resulting AUM proctuction is specified as a scheduled output 

CcBIstTaint in a subsequent (rollover) “m PNV run. 

Technical constraints and cutoffs were used for skiing, wildemess, 

dispersed and developed RVDs, sedmsnt, and wildlife (scheauled 

output wnstramts #002 through 015). 

Timber Policy Constraints: 

Muunnnn rotation age at least 95 percent of m. .. - 

- Sustained yield requirements apply. 

- Harvest flaw requirements apply. 

- Dispersion requirements apply. 

- Nm-declining yield requirements apply. 

Qnstraints #061 through 064 prohibit regeneratian harvest in 

riparian areas. 

ccolstraints #065 through 067 restrict the timber allawed in 

certain strata identified as nesting areas for goshawks. 450 acres 

(50 acres/pair X 9 pair) are mtramed fox goshawks. These acres 

were sent to timber salvage and sanitation prescriptions. These 

constraints, cunbined with the Forest Standards and Guidelmes, 

insure that Mini” Managmt Req~irementS for Wildlife will be 

met. 

om0 - Maxi” Water for Five Periods (50 Years) 

”e: 

the Forest to provide water for five decades. 

-ling Specifications: 

The theme of this benchmark is to define the maxi“ capability of 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Objective function: Maximize water yield for five perioas. 

The resulting water yield is then specified as a scheduled output 

constraint for a subsequent Max PNV (rollover) run. 

Technical constraints and cutoffs were used for skim, wilderness, 

dispersed and developed RVDs, sediment, and wildlife (scheduled 

output constraints #002 through 015). 

Timber Policy ccolstraints: 

Muzu” rotation age at least 95 percent of W. .. - 

576 
. 

4. 

5. 

- Sustaineayi~dreqUSrementapply. 

- Harvestflowrequirementsapply. 

- D-=wjJ==ntsaPPlY. 

- rzm-d€clMng yield rrquirements apply. 

czmtmints #061 thr0U;pl 064 -bit regemraticm harvest in 

riparian areas. 

czmtmints #065 through 067 restrict the timber harvest allowed in 

certain strata identified as nesting areas for goslmks. 450 ac-;res 

(50 acr€s/pair x 9 pair) are a"h4 for goshawlrs. 'Ihese acres 

were sent to timbar salvage and sanitaticm Lnescriptions. These 

constzaints, ccmbind with the Forest Standards end Guidelines, 

insUte that Minimum Management Requhwmts for wildlife will be 

met. 

For a "3 canplete discussion of the alternatives eli"3ted from detailed 

Studyandthe~fortheirel~tion, SeeChapterIIOftheEIS. 

04PRo-€EghpNXkKz& 'vity 

Theme: This alternative was designed to illustrate the effects of meatheRtzgionally-assigned high prcductivity - target altmmativa as 

disaggregated to the Forest for the years 2000 and 2030. other market 

ovtputs are povided at the highest level possible while meeting the assigned 

timber targets. "-market outputs are provided at ecornnically efficient 

levels CcBlSistent with the laoaudiopn of market outputs. 

M2delh-g Specifications: 

1. 

2. 

Objectiva function: Maxjmize PNV for twelve pericds. 

TeChicallxKdxam . aqersed and developed RVDS, sediment, and wildlife (scheduled 

cutput canstraints #002 through 015). 

ts and cutoffs were used for skiing, wil-, 

3. Timber Policy Ccasstraints: 

- 

- Sustained yield -ts apply. 

- Harvest flow rqdmmnts apply. 

- Disprsion requirements apply. 

- Wm-decliningyield requiremen ts apply, only in the 6th decade 

is the yield allcwed to decline. 

4. Cadxaints #061 through 064 prohibit regeneration harvest in 

riparian areas. 

5. Oonstraints #065 thragh 067 restrict the timber harvest allowed in 

certain strata identified as nesting areas for goshawks. 450 acres 

Mini" rwtation age at least 95 percent of CMU. 

577 
6. 

7. 

8. 

(50 acres/@ x 9 pair) are CCBlstrained for goshaujks. These acres 

were sent to timber salvage and sanitation pnscxiptims. These 

Wain-, canbined with the FOreSt Standards and GuidelineS, 

insure that Minir” Manag-t R-ts for wildlife will be 

met. 

Ccmtra.int 017 sets a mini” timber output to be produced, ranging 

from 33.8 MCF in the 1st perioa to 43.1 MCF in the 5th period. 

Ccmtraint 016 sets a mini” range output to be produced, ranging from 41.5 MAW in the first decade to 55.7 MAW in the fifth 

decade to meet the President’s national range target. 

The MIR wnstraint was not applied, in order that the timber harvest 

targets muld be mt. 

04MKT - Market opprhml ‘ties Ehphas is 

e: This alternative emphasizes high output levels of market resaurces 

(timber, range, and dwelopd recreation) with --market cutputs at 

econcmically efficient levels. 

Modeling Specifications: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

Objective function: 

Technical Constraints and cutoffs were used for Skiing, wilderness, 

dispersed and developd RVD, sediment, and wildlife (scheduled 

output constraints #002 through 015). 

Timber policy constraints: 

- 

- Sustained yield mqui”ts apply. 

- Harvest flow requirements apply. 

- Dispersion requirements apply. 

- Ncol-declhiq yield requirements apply, only in the 6th decade 

&mtraints W61 through 064 prohibit regeneration harvest in 

riparian areas. 

Ccmtraints #065 through 067 restrict the timber harvest allayed in 

certain strata identified as nesting areas for goshawks. 450 acres 

(50 acres/pair X 9 pair) are constrained for goshawks. These acres 

were sent to timber salvage and sanitation prescriptions. These 

cons.traintS, cunbined with the Forest Standards and Guidelines, 

insLln? that Mini” Managmerit Requirements for wildlife will be 

met - 

Constraint 017 sets a mini“ timber output to be produced, ranging 

fran 30.1 MulcF in the 1st perid to 38.5 PTKT in the 5th period. 

Maximize PNV for twelve periods. 

Miner" rotation age at least 95 percent of CMAI. 

is the yield allowed to decline. 

578 
7. Qastraint 016 sets a “I mixl output to be ranging frcm 45.1 MAUMs in the first decade to 55.7 lulAuMs in the fifth 

decade to meet the President’s national range targets. 

TheMIR- ’ t was rot applied in order that the timber harvest 

targets could be met. 

8. 

OllLBu-LClWBudge t Alternative (25 percem t Reduction to Bwiget ) 

Theme: This alternative is designed to estimate the expxked Outputs and 

xces that could be pruvided in the future if the current budget was mal 

to 75 mt of the 1982 fmding (or $7.3 million per year). 

luwelirig Specifications: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

Cbjectivefuncticm: Maxmu ’ ‘ze PNV for twelve periods. 

Technical Canstraints and cutoffs were used for Skiing, wil-, 

dispersed and develapea ms, sediment, and wildlife (scheduled 

output constraints #002 through 015). 

Timbez: Policy -aints: 

- Sustaineayieldrequiremen ts apply. 

- Harvest flaw requirements apply. 

- Dispersion requirements apply. 

- Ncol-declining yield requirements apply. 

CXmstraints #Ob1 through 064 prohibit regeneration harvest in 

riparian areas. 

CXmstraints W65 through 067 restrict the tjmber harvest allowed in 

certain strata identified as nestiq areas for goshawks. 450 acres 

(50 acres/pair X 9 pair) are constrained for goshawks. These acres 

were sent to timber salvage and sanitation Kescriptions. meSe 

cjmstxaints, canbind with Standards and Guidelines, insure that 

r.” Management Ret@" ts for wildlife will be met. 

MIRs for visual resources assignd 4,207 acres of suitable timber 

along State-identified scenic highways to salvage and sardtatim. 

Ccnstraints 031 through 049 set the visual restridicsl. 

A financial canstraint adjusted the budget to equal 25 percent of 

the 1982 funding level ($73 IN per decaae). 

228 were used to assign portions of White Mnmtains and ~aiute areas 

to wilderness. 

ccolstraints 090, 097, and 098 prohibited tinker harvest in 

concen+zated recreation areas to maintain visual quality and current 

recreational use. 

Pl”nn rotatian age at least 95 percent of (IUPLI. - .. 

Aggregates 582 and 642 were tumed on and cx” *ts2oothrough 

579 
10. Cbnstraints 93 and 95 provided for ski developnent to cccur only in 

the Sherwin Bowl area and existing ski areas. All other potential 

ski areas were available for full-scale timber hamest, as they are 

under present management. 

Constraints 017 through 021 proxy the current prcgram Output levels 

for timber, range and recreation. 

Constraint 095 requires the current fire program to be selected. 

11. 

12. 

' 04AM:-MaWru 'ze Wilderness While Maintaining current Market outpu t Levels 

Theme: Ws "izes wilderness by . all Further Planning Areas 

for wilderness designation. mize maintainirg current levels of market 

outputs through intmsive management on tbose lands outside of wilderness, 

while proaUcing cost-efficient levels of mn-market resources. 

- 

-ling Specifications: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

0. 

Objective funcbon: 

Technical oonstraints and cutoffs were used for skiing, wilderness, 

dispersed and developd RVDs, sediment, and wildlife (scheduled 

output constraints #002 through 015). 

Timber Policy ccastraints: 

Maximize F'NV for twelve perid. 

Mu" rotation age at least 95 percent of CMAI. .. - 

- Sustained yield reqsements apply. 

- Harvest flaw requirements apply. 

- Dispersion requirements apply. 

- Ncol-declining yield requuments apply. 

Cbnstraints #061 through 064 prohibit regeneration harvest in 

riparian areas. 

Constraints W65 through 067 restrict the timber harvest allowed in 

&am strata identified as nesting areas for goshawks. 450 acres 

(50 acres/pair X 9 pair) are constrajned for goshawk. These acres 

were sent to timber salvage and sanitation prescriptions. These 

constraints, mined with the Forest Standards and Guidelines, 

insure that iwui" Management Rec&"n ts for wildlife will be 

met. 

MIRs for visual resources assigned 4,207 acres of suitable timber 

alcq State-identified scenic highways to salvage and Sanitation. 

Constraints 031 through 049 set the visual restriction. 

Wilderness allocations for all Further Planning Areas were assured 

by turning on appropriate wildemess choices for aggregates 291 

through 993. 

Cmstraints 016 and 017 set the "m range and timber prcductim 

to at least reach the current output levels. 

500 
- Ihane: 

SaJbtantial aluxnts of quality acres for wilderness. Non-wilderness pcnticns 

of the FtlmSt are intensively managed to maintain or increase CQrmDditY 

Wb. 

Moaelins specificatians: 

'Ibis altatnative is designed to evaluate the effects of 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

objecuve functicul: Maximize PNV for twelve perioas. 

Technical CYmSkaints and cutoffs were used for Skiilq, wilderness, 

dlispersea and developed m, sediment, and wildlife (scheduled 

output ccmdxaints #002 thrxmgh 015). 

Timber policy Cmstraints: 

- 

- Sustained yield reqdr”ts apply. 

- Harvest flow requirements apply. 

- Dispersionrequirementsapply. 

- EJcpl-declining yield requirements apply. 

oonstraints #061 through 064 prohibit regeneratim harvest in 

riparian areas. 

C&nstraints #065 through 067 restrict the timber harvest allcxyed in 

certain strata identified as nesting areas for goshawks. 450 a- 

(50 a-/pair X 9 pair) are CCBlstrained for goshawks. These acres 

were sent to timber salvage and sanitation prescripticms. These 

lxnsiraints, canbined with standards and Guidelines, insure that 

Mu” Management Requi”ts for wildlife will be met. 

MI& for visual resources assigned 4,207 a- of suitable timber 

alq State-identified scenic highways to salvage and sanitation. 

CcgLStraints 031 through 049 set the visual restriction. 

Aggregates 582 and 642 were activated to add the White Wmtains and 

Cbnstraints 016 and 017 set the “I range and timber proauctlcsl 

to at least reach the current output levels. 

Minhnnn rotatim age at least 95 percent of CXU. 

.. 

Paiute Further Planning Areas to wilderness. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DFmLIL 

04m - PreferKed AMeInative 

Theme: This alternative provides a mix of managmt activities that is 

sensitive both to historic uses and new opportcnrties. A mixture of 

amnvdity and ameni-ty resource outputs is emphasized. There is M tnxQet 

lhitation. 

581 
1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

objective functicm: 

Technical CcBlStrafnts and cutoffs were used for skiing, wilderness, 

dispersed and dewelaped WDs, sediment, and wildlife (scheduled 

outpt ccolstraints #002 through 015). 

Timber Policy CcaStraints: 

Maximize PNV for twelve mi&. 

- Extended rotation age. 

- s- ' yield requirements apply. 

- Harvestflowrequiremen ts apply. 

- Dispersion requirements apply. 

- Ncol-decliniq yield requirements apply. 

Wildlife diversity constraints on specific analysis areas were 

applied on 6587 acres of suitable timber lands to pruvide old grcrwth 

diversity and @de for up to fifteen pairs of 

Aggregate emphasis 352 and 502 were set to allow all of the Table 

Mxmtain and Ticga Lake Further Plarnkg Areas to be 

wilderness. 

Aggregate emphasis 582 and 642 were set and constraints 200 through 

228 applied to allow portions of White Pbuntain and Paiute Further 

~1ann.i.q rea as be reconnended to wilderness. 

Constraints 057 through 059 prevent any timber hamest in the 

lvIcolache area. This reduces conflict with important wildlife, 

scenic, and dispersed recreation values in the area. 

Ctmtra.int 086 allows for regeneration hamest on 31 percent slopes 

and greater. This is to maintain these suitable timber lands to be 

managed as part of the timber caq"t and timber harvest to OCCUT 

as the stands becane eaamnically feasible for harvest. 

Ccozstraints 081 through 083 exclude concentrated rcxxeation areas 

fran timber harvest to maintain emphasis on a quality recreational 

experience. 

Ctmstxaints 080, 084, and 085 limit ski area developnent to current 

ski areas and 8,000 additional SACl"s. This limit on ski area 

developnent is to provide stable camunity growth as identified in 

local area ccnmmaw developnent plans. 

Constraints 067 thcough 069 prevent timber harvest on 882 acres in 

the Laurel-Md;ee further planning area to pmtect visual quality, 

prevent conflicts with recreationists, and protect imprtant 

wildlife values in the area. 

ConsWaints 041 through 053 protect visual quality in the foregnnmd 

zcoles of all Sensitivity Level 1 roads and kails; timber is 

managed only for salvage and sanitation on 6,596 acres under this 

goshawks. 

for 

582 
calsbaht. 

13. To maintain primitive recreation optiom by restxictiq access, 

consbdnt 025 ramves 245 acres of the Glass (Ireek area €run timber 

harvest. 

14. The tendency of the mdel to cut large acreages of . stratain 

the early decades is leveled by constraints 017, 018, 019 and 021. 

Wssy average the timber harvest acreage for PG, UP, P2S strata, 

and slopes greater than 31 percent for bald fuelwood and 

silvicultural prcqams. 

CXn-straink 018 and 019 force the potential alpine SM areas intn a 

modified timber harvest schedule. This harvest prescxiptim is 

primarily intended to protect the potential ski opti081 d 

seaxdarily to reduce potential timber conflicts with wildlife. 

Qmstraints 016 and 017 set the “I levels for range and timber 

outputs. The range levels praxy the limitation of livestock grazirg 

081 deer winter range and fawning areas. The timber . t sets 

the timber harvest schedule at 7.1 MF per year. This output level 

is derived by averaging the first 8 decades timber harvest schedule, 

and provides wnsistent hamest levels and silvicultural ~orograms. 

17. Qmstraint 099 requires the current fire fundiq level, with 

15. 

16. 

increased emphasis on suppression. 

04aIR 

Theme: This alternative displays the current -am of management 

activities on the Forest and projects it over the 50-year p1annix-g brim. 

The 1982 Forest budget is a limiting factor. The budget remains essentially 

ccmstant wer #e planning brim and continues to be distributed an-cq the 

resources in roughly the same proportions as in 1982. 

Moaeling Specifications: 

Current (1982) Prugram - No Acticm 

1. Objective function: Maximize PNV for twelve pericds. 

2. Technical ccolstraints and cutoffs were used for skiing, wilderness, 

dispersed and develOpea RVDs, sediment, and wildlife (Scheauld 

Output constraints W2, through 015). 

3. Timber policy C~~-~~traints: 

M,” rotation age at least 95 percent of CKU. .. - 

- s- * yield -ts apply. 

- Harvest flow requirements apply. 

- Dispersion requirements apply. 

- Nm-decljning yield requirements apply. 

4. Qmstraints #IO61 through 064 prohibit qeneratim harvest in 

riparian areas. 
5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

Ccmstcaints #065 through 067 restrict the timber harvest allawed in 

certain strata identified as nesting areas for goshawks. 750 acres 

(50 acres/pair X 15 pair) are constrained for gcshawks. These acres 

were sent to timber salvage and sanitation prescriptions. These 

constraints, oanbined with Standards and Guidelines, insJre that 

population levels of wildlife will be maintained at or abwe the lvMR 

level. 

MI€& for visual resoucces applied 4,207 acres of suitable timber to 

timber salvage and sanitation managwent along state-identified 

scenic highways. Constraints 031 through 049 set the visual 

restriction. 

A financial constraint adjusted to equal 1982 fundirg level. 

Aggregates 582 and 642 were turned on and constraints 200 through 

228 were used to assign portions of White bbuntam and Paiute areas 

to wilderness. 

Constraints 090, 097, 098 prohibit timber hamest in ccolcentrated 

recreation areas to maintain visual quality and current recreational 

use. 

Constraints 093 and 095 provide for ski developnent to OCCUT in the 

existing ski areas and 8,000 SAoTs in potential ski areas. 

Constraints 017 through 021 proxy the current programs for timber, 

range and recreation by limiting output to present levels. 

Constraint 095 requires the current fire prcgram to be allocated. 

04 RPA (1980 RPA Progr am) 

“e: This alternative is designed to meet the targets and goals of the 

and 

selected amenities. Sane of the assigned RPA targets and goals for the 

Forest are not mtually cmpatible; where there was a conflict, market 

outputs (timber, range, and develop& recreation) were given priority over 

“market outputs and amenities. In cases for which RPA goals could not be 

met in this alternative, they were met in one or mre of the other 

alternatives studied in detail. 

1980 RPA program, representing moderate to high outputs of cormodl ‘ties 

There is m budget limitation. 

Wdeling Specifications: 

1. Objective functions: Maximize PNV for twelve periods. 

2. Technical CcBlStraints and cutoffs were used for skiing, wilderness, 

dispersed and developed RVDs, sediment, and wildlife (scheduled 

output wnstraints #a2 through 015). 

3. Timber policy constsaints: 

M”n rotation age at least 95 percent of CMAI. 

Sustained yield requiremen ts apply. 

.. - 

- 

584 
4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

- Harvest flow requirements apply. 

- Ncn-declining yield m&r”ts apply. cmly in the 6th decade 

is the yield allowed to decline. 

ocnstraints #061 thrcnigh 064 prohibit regeneration hamest in 

riparian areas. 

aonstraints #065 through 067 restrict the timber hanrest allawed in 

certain strata identified as nest5-g areas for goshawks. 450 acres 

(50 acres/@ x 9 pair) are cclnstrained for gashawks. lbse acres 

were sent to timber salvage and sanitation prescripticns. These 

maints, ccmbined with standards and guidlines, will insure that 

t+lR popllation levels of wildlife will be maintained. 

MIRs for visual resources applied 4,207 acres of suitable tlmbet to 

timber salvage and sanitation managmat alq State-identified 

scenic higt’lways. Ctndxaints 031 through 049 set the visual 

restrictics. 

Ctmstrajnt 070 prwented any new wilderness fran being assignea. 

The Region did have a broad wilderness target under RPA; hawever, 

tha Forest chose to use RPA as the m-wilderness allmmatiw. 

Cimstraints 016 and 017 require this altmtive to meat or exceed 

specific range and timber output levels. The range taryet was a 

prqressive increase to meet 55.6 AUMs by the fifth decade. The 

assigned RPA timber output levels were set as decade harvest levels. 

Ctmstrajnts 021 through 026 allow timber harvest in portians of 

tkachm and Irryo Craters concentrated -tion areas. These 

concentrated rexeatim areas were eliminated in order to meet 

timber harvest targets. 

Cimstraint 027 prevents scheduled timber harvest in existing ski 

areas. This is to pwcnt dlict with current ski area managmat 

and to maintain the visual resource cpality of the area. 

caxhxlbt 030 prevents ti.l&x harvest jn all ccn=en~ted 

- DisparsiOn-tS apply. 

recreation zones other than those listed abwe. This must occur to 

reach the assigned -ation RVD target. (Timber harvest in 

concentrated rereation areas displaces recreation use. ) 

-is on suppression. 

Ctmstraint 099 ?xpires current fire funding with an increased 

0- - Maximize Cost Efficiency 

- ”e:This altemative seeks the mst cost-effective mix of land 

allocatims and management practices available on the Forest, given the 

application of Minimum Managexent ResuirementS (M\IRs), timber policy 

cxmstrhts (Tpcs), “I hpiementation requirements (MIRs), and 

Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines (EGGS). 

585 
mcleling specificaticm: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Cbjective Fbztion: 

TMCal (XmStXahts and Cutoffs Were Used for skim, WildeIneSS, 

”ize pM7 for twelve periods. 

dispersed and develapea RVDs, sediment, and wildlife (scheduled 

output constraints #002 through 015). 

Timber Policy Constraints: 

M”m rotation age at least 95 percent of CXU. - .. - Susbined yield -ts apply. 

- Harvest flow requirements apply. 

- Dispersion requirements apply. 

- Ncol-declinkg yield requirements apply. 

Gmsizaints #061 through 064 prohibit regeneration harvest in 

riparian areas. 

Cunstraints #065 through 067 restrict the timber harvest allowed in 

certain strata identified as nesting areas for goshawks. 450 acres 

(50 acres/@ X 9 pair) are constrained for goshawks. These acres 

were sent to timber salvage and sanitation pn?scripticm. These 

constraints, cxnbined with the Forest Standards and Guidelines, will 

insure that EJMR population levels of wildlife will be maintained. 

MI- for visual resources applied 4,207 acres of suitable timber to 

timber class I11 managanent along State-identified scenic highways. 

Constraints 031 through 049 set the visual restriction. 

No additional mmkaints were needed to meet the theme of this 

alternative. 

04AMN - Maximize All Amenities 

Theme: This alternative erghasizes high outputs and protection levels of 

m-market resources. Fish and wildlife, dispersed recreation, wilderness, 

and visual resources are maximized with market outputs held at ecoranically 

efficient levels. There is IYJ budget limitation. 

Moaeling Specifications 

1. Objective Function: Maxlrm ‘ ‘ze PNV for twelve periods. 

2. Technical constmints and cutoffs were used for skiing, wildemess, 

dispersed and develop3 RvDs, sediment, and wildlife (scheduled 

output ccolstraints #002 through 015). 

3. Timber Policy Constraints: 

- 

- Sustained yield requirements apply. 

- Harvest flow requirements apply. 

- Dispersion requirements apply. 

- Non-decljnhg yield requirements apply. 

Minu” rotation age at least 95 percent of o\IAI. 

586 
4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

Wildlife diversity CoIlStraints on specific analysis areas were 

applied on 6,587 acres of suitable timber lands to provide old 

growth diversity and provide habitat for up to 15 pairs of nesting 

goshawks. 

In addition to MI-, Sensitivity Level 1 and 2 roads and trails were 

added for a total of 12,237 foreground acres in timber salvage and 

sanitation. 

Aggregate emphasis 332, 352, 382, 402, 452, 292, 502, 512, 582, and 

642 were set to allow all of Coyote S.E., Table -bin, 

Buttermilk, Wheeler Ridge, Laurel-McGee, Horse Meadow, Tioga Lake, 

Hall Natural, Lcg Cabin Saddlebag, White Mountains, and Paiute 

Further Planning Areas to go to wilderness. 

developnent of new ski areas or concentrated recreatiDBl areas: the 

cmly developtents allmed are in existing recreational areas. 

ccolstraints 050 through 052 prevent scheduled timber haroest in 

wncentrated recreation areas. 

Tu maintain high visual quality objectives, mrdxajnts 035 through 

037 prohibit timbar harvest on slopes greater than 31 percent slope. 

Tu prevent conflict with key mule deer migration routes, wnstrajnts 

038 through 040 prevent tinker harvest in the Sherwin Bowl area. 

To maximize the visual, fish and wildlife, and dispersed recreation 

-, Constraints 089 and 095 prevent schduled timber harvests 

in the San Joaquin and Monache areas. 

ccolstraint 099 requires the current fire funding level with an 

increased emphasis on suppression. 

c"kk 031 through 033 restrict developed recreab 'on to m 

04AMB-hphaS ize Wildlife and Recreation 

"e: This altemative places a primary emphasis on the quality and 

quantity of wildlife habitat with a secondary emphasis on mderate expawion 

the degree cxmipatible with wildlife and recreation objectives. Amenity 

values other than wildlife receive a moderate degree of emphasis. There is 

M buaget limitation. 

of the developed recreation program. Other cormodl 'ty outputs are plxK%lced to 

M0aelix-g Specifications: 

1. Objective fdon: Maximize PNV for twelve pericds. 

2. Technical ccolstraints and cutoffs were used for ski-, wilderness, 

dispersed and developd RVDs, sediment, and wildlife (scheduled 

output "rhts #002 through 015). 

587 
3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11 a 

12. 

13. 

14. 

Timber Policy Constramts: 

Mrnu” rotation age at least 95 percent of aun\I. - .. - Sustained yield requirements apply. 

- Hamest flow requirements apply. 

- Dispersion requirements apply. 

- Nan-declining yield requirements apply. 

Wildlife diversity constraints on specific analysis areas were 

applied on 6,587 acres of suitable timberland to provide old growth 

diversity and provide habitat for up to fifteen pairs of nesting 

goshawks. 

Constraints 041 through 053 protect visual quality in the foreground 

zones of all Sensitivity Level 1 roads and trails; timber is “aged 

only for salvage and sanitation on 7,369 aaes under this 

constraint. 

Aggregate emphases 332, 462, 502, 522, 582 and 642 were set, and 

constraints 200 through 228 applied, to allow all of Laurel-Magee, 

Ticga Lake, Leg Cabin Saddlebag, Paiute and portica7s of Ooyote and 

White bb”ain Further P1amA-g Areas to go to wild-. 

To minimize conflicts with mule deer rmgration mutes, constraints 

084 through 088 located new ski areas to minimize conflict with 

kr” deer migration routes. 

To emphasize range in suitable timber lands, cnnstraint 081 

maintains current AUM levels in the Jeffrey pine stands in suitable 

rangeland. 

Ctmstraint 080 sends 500 acres of suitable timber lands to mini“ 

managemnt for fuwe recreation developrent in the San Joaguin 

area. 

To optimize wildlife habitat management options and to reduce 

conflict with mule deer in the Mmache area, constraints 038 through 

040 prohibit timber harvest in the Monache area. 

Pr-imarily to provide for high visual quality objectives and for 

quality recreational experiences, constraints 035 through 037 

prohibit timber harvest on slop greater than 31 percent. 

To emphasize high quality recreational opprtunities, mtraints 

032 through 035 prevent timber harvest in ccolcentrated recreation 

zanes. 

Constraints 021 through 024 prevent tlmber harvest in portions of 

the Glass Creek area to malntain primitive recreaticnal 

opprhmities and limited access in this area. 

To “ize conflicts with wildlife, visual resources, and 

recreational options, constraint 018 allocates much of the San 

588 
Jm Flather Planning &?Sa to rodifid timber Fnascriptccn, with 

extended rotaticm pericds of 150 years. 

Cmstraint 016 proxies the n”al of livestock fm key me deer 

winter range, and delayed grazing on key fawning habitat. 

increased emphasis on suppression. 

15. 

16. Cc”m . t 099 ?xc@res the current fire flmding levf?l, with an 

589 
Table 10 

canstraints Imposed cm Alternatives 

Gmsidered in Detail 

consh-aints Alternatives 

PRF aJR FWA m AMN AMB 

Objective Function Max. Max. Max. Max. 

NDY yes yes 6-16 yes 

SIEAXUld ’ Yield Ye Y= Yes yes 

Dispersion yes yes yes yes 

MrlRs yes yes yes yes 

MIR3 4207 4207 4207 4207 

Lvl 1 Rds. & hls. 2389 0 0 0 

Lvl 2 Rds. & hls. 0 0 0 0 

Budget Cmstxaint M 1982 m M 

TimberOutputcanstr. yes yes Yes m 

0 

TlmberHarvestCknstr. yes Yes M m 

PNV PM7 Rw PNV 

Timber Policy Cknstr. 

Y 

(WF cut per.l/5) 7.10/7.10 11.0/13.5 16.8/19.8 

(Harvest SPS. mix) 

P6G strata Acw. 3500 3500 

UP strata &/Em. 600 

P2S strata Ac/Dx. 2500 

C.A.S. Tbr. Mgmt. Lands 75.3 80.2 99.2 

Acres colzstrained/key areas 

Pota-ltial ski 708 0 0 

ccolc. Re. Aree 3443 5498 5498 

Mmache Area 4512 0 0 

30-60% Slope 0 0 0 

Red Fir 7373 0 0 

Range Output ccastr. Yes yes Yes 

Lvstk.AW 1-5 dec 40.9/40.9 36/38 41.5/54 

Lvstk.Ac.tO Timber 21.9 21.9 43.0 

Forest Veg. Diversity 6587 0 0 

Fin? Option Cknstx. M Yes M 

Fire prosram SUP cur SUP 

cur cur cur 

97.6 

m 

0 

0 

0 

m 

sup 

-20 

Max. 

PNV 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

4207 

1839 

6191 

M 

no 

0 

M 

Max. 

PNV 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

4207 

1839 

0 

m 

M 

0 

m 

61.8 69.8 

1966 708 

3443 3443 

4512 4512 

20892 20892 

0 0 

Yes yes 

38/38 4Q/44 

6.2 0 

6587 6587 

M M 

SUP SUP 

cur cur 

590 
Table 10 (ccnt’d) 

Ccmstrajnts Imposed on Alternatives 

Ccmsidered in Detail 

calsi3dnts Alternatives 

PRF aJR RPA CEE AMN AMB 

Watershed Inpxmmnts yes yes Yes yes yes yes const. Ac./Dec. 5000 400 2000 0 5ooo 5000 

Reard. Wilderness ccolst yes 

Coyote SE 

Table Mtn. 4.1 

Butt&* 

Wheeler Ridge 

Laurel-McGee 

Horse Meadow 

Tioga Lake 0.9 

Hall Natural 

Log Cabin-Saddlebag 

BII~KXI Rarge 

white m. 114.7 

Blanco Mtn. 

Birch creek 

Black Canyon 

Andrews Mtn. 

Paiute 49.4 

sug”af( Nv) 

Excelsior( NV) 

53.2 

54.4 

9.1 

0.9 

5.2 

17.1 

251.9 

yes yes 

55.6 11.8 

4.1 

0.9 

16.2 

9.1 9.1 

5.6 

0.9 0.9 

5.2 

17.1 17.1 

251.9 53.2 

13.6 

130.6 130.6 

This section gives a brief description of the other -1s used to generate 

jnput data for use in FORPLAN and to interpret output data fran FORPLAN. 

RAMPREP is a PSW Region Timber Management model that is used to develop 

timber yield tables. RAMPREP sumnarizes the potential yields of the Forest 

based on the Forest 1974 timber irnrentOnr. For a detailed discussicn of -~ how - 

RAMPREP calculates the potential yields, see The Region Five TimberInvenm 

procesS, July 1981. 

591 
Fire MaMgemen t Analysis Process 

The fire management analysis process A/ ccmprises four levels of analysis and 

a series of eight cutquter programs. Of the four levels of analws, dy 

two (descriW below) are used in the planning process; the other two levels 

affect implementation and evaluation. The eight cmpter ~ograms are 

simulator rep& miters used to define the historical and current fire 

management situations and to evaluate alternative fuels, -tion, 

detection, and suppression programs. 

Fire Manag61E~ t Analysis Level I is basically an analysis of the historical 

and current fire managenent situation usq fire and weather infonn&ion, 

records of fire o"ces, and fire behavior (number of fires, acres burned 

by fire size and intensity). 

1. Display the general effectiveness and cost, includirg FFF, of the current 

fire management program. This program cost may be used as a basis for 

estimating expected future costs where the fire program is relatively 

stable and will not vary significantly between prescriptions on a 

Forest-wide basis. 

Sane uses of Level I analysis are to: 

2. As a tool to aid the formulation and developnent of organizations in 

reqxmse to Plan alternatives and prescriptions. Level I analysis 

idenkfies areas hch can be further analyzed m the areas of 

mtion, suppression, and fuels management. 

Fire Ma"n t Analysis Level 11 is an analysis of various fire management 

program options (suppression versus prevention -is), budget levels 

(costs), and their effectiveness. This analysis is based upon the simulation 

of representative fires using varying fuel models, differing suppression 

resources, historical occurrence patterns, and by changing occurrence 

patterns based upm prevention efficiency. Some uses of Level 11 analysis 

are to: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

- I/ 

Evaluate fire program options appropriate for the principal Plan 

alkmabves identified by FORPLAN to provide detailed resource output, 

net value change, and program cost data for selection of the mxt 

efficient program level where fire program cost and effectiveness will 

affect the choice between these alternatives. 

muate the efficiency of fire program options for a "ber of Plan 

alternatives to provide general estimates of fire program cost and 

ccJn=w-. 

Evaluate the effectiveness of fire program options for a single Plan 

alternative within a constrained budget to establish the msst effective 

prcgram mix where the budget level is fixed. 

For a mnplete descriptim of the fire management analysis w, see 

El3 5109.19 (National Fire Management Planning and Analysis Handbook). 

592 
Fran Fire Managemnt Analysis Levels I and 11, inputs by alternative to 

FORPLAN are: 

- Various program costs reflecting different fire management 

organizations, 

- Suppression costs reflectirg the fire managanent organizational 

efficiency, and 

- probability of acres bd. 

Then FORPLAN responds by alternative withsthe following infomation: 

- Acres burned, 

- Suppression msts, 

- Net resource value change, and 

- Gptinnnn organization and bueet level by period. 

The U.S. Department of Comnerce's Regional Industrial Multiplier System L/ 

(RIMS) was used to develop impact multipliers and employment and incane 

estimates for the alternatives analyzed in the EIS. This system provides 

input-output del multipliers for 56 inwtrial sectors for Bureau of 

Ecollcmic Analysis (BFA) Ecomnic Area 165 (Los Angeles Area including Inyo 

and Mom Counties). Most of the ecoIlcsnic activity associated with the Forest 

takes place within BEA Econorm. 'c Area 165. 

Estimates of historical expenditures by sector associated with Forest outputs 

and purchases fm the local eco~my with the RIPIS input-output model 

multipliers were used to estimate employment and incane effects of the 

alternatives. 

A numw of asmnptions used in the input-output meling technique must be 

kept in mind when interpreting the resulting income and employment estimates: 

1. Historical transaction pattems associated with Forest outputs and 

purchases are assumed to hold in the future. 

2. Transaction patterns (prcduction functions) for industries m the local 

ewnmy are assumed to be similar to those in the national ecoq and 

are assumed to hold in the future. 

3. Income and employment impacts are assumed to occur in the same time 

period as the underlying changes in Forest outputs and purchases (m 

lagged effects are assumed). 

- 1/ Industry - Specific Gross Output Multipliers for BFA Economic Areas, 

Regmnal Economic Analysis Division, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. 

Deparbnent of Omnerce, January 1977. 

593 
As a result of these basic assumptions, employment and incune effects 

estimated for the alternatives have relatively low reliability in absolute 

term in future time periods. Haiever, the inme and employment estimates 

are reasonably accurate indicators of relative changes between the 

alternatives in the first decade. 

Wildlife and Fish Habitat CapabiliQ Model 

The Habitat Capability Models (HCMs) are a management to01 developd by 

plamhg biologists in the Pacific Southwest Region. 1/ The HCM is a resume 

of biological infonnation that describes the habiTat requirements of a 

Management Indicator Species. 

Although the developnent of HCMs was related to Forest planning, the models 

are detailed enough to apply to project work. Therefore biologists and land 

managers may use rhis information both for large-scale p1-g and inventoq 

and for site-specific habitat management within a single stand. 

Because these models contam only biological information, they do not imply 

policy decisions. The tie to policy witkin the Forest Sexvice will me as 

each Forest allocates land areas to high, medium, or low capability 

standards. This will be done in an interdisciplinary manner through the 

Plan. However, the models provide appropriate information for wildlife 

biologists m establishing goals for managing habitat quality through project 

work. 

- 1/ Hurley, Janey F. et. al.; 

Wildlife Habitat Capability Models and Habitat Quality Criteria for 

the Western Sierra Nevada, Stanislaus National Forest, May 1981 

594 
Appendix C 

Further 

Planning Area 

Description 

and Evaluation 
APPENDIX C . mTRTHER PLANNING AREA DESCXLFTION AND EVALUATION 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

Intrduction ............................... #5033 Coyote SE ............................ #5035 Table Wuntam ....................... #5038 Buttemulk ........................... #5040 Wheeler Ridge ........................ #5045 Laurel-McGee ......................... #5049 Horse Meadow ......................... 

#5051 Hall Natural Area .................... #5052 Log Cabin-Saddlebag .................. 

#5058 AG3 - Wte Wuntams ................ #5059 Blanm Wuntain ...................... #5060 Birch Creek .......................... #5061 Black Canyon ......................... #5063 Andrews Mountain ..................... #5064 A&B - Paiute ......................... #5296 Sugarloaf ............................ #5989 Excelsior (Nevada part only) ......... 

#5050 Tiqa Lake ........................... 

#5056 Benton Range ......................... 

596 

604 

612 

617 

622 ~ ~~ 

628 

636 

642 

647 

653 

659 

665 

675 

681 

687 

692 

697 

705 

710 

595 
The Inyo National Forest has 623,818 acres in 18 separate areas that have 

been evaluated during the Forest planning precess for possible wildemess 

designation. The planning process has developd alternative wildemess and 

nonwilderness scenarias for each further plw area. A final 

recormendation for future manag-t of each area has been made in the 

propsed Forest plan. 

The following narratives describe individual Inyo National Forest further 

plaming areas, analyze their wilderpess values, address current and 

potential rnmwildemess uses, and exmine the wnsqences of managing each 

area under altemative management prescriptions. 

Each narrakve contains five major subheadings: description, capability, 

availability, need, and enviranmental cansequences. The following annotated 

outline describes the kind of material included in each section and defines 

the terms and abbreviations used. 

OVIZINE FOR FVRTHER PLANNING ARFA mTJYFS 

Nam/ncrmber Acres*: National Forest (other ownershl 'PI 

A. DESCRIFTION 

This section describes the area in terms of its geographic location, 

pranimnt physical and biological characteristics, attractions, and current 

use. Location is described in terms of County, ranger district, and access 

by road and trail to and into the area. The boundary is defined by namirg 

surmunding roads, wildemesses, and/or "-Forest lands. 

Mountain range, watershed, range of elevation, and g-tric shape constitute 

the area's geography. Tmgcgraphy is described in terms of slope, geology, 

miles of perennial stream, and number of lakes. 

Vegetation types in the area are described using a oondensed version of the 

wildlife habitat types according to the R-5 Wildlife Habitat Relationship 

(WHR) System. (For correlations between the condensed and the canplete set 

of WHR types, see the planning records.) Unusual species or associations of 

plants are also noted. 

Scenic values are described in terms of variety class, and scenic lmks 

within the area are listed. 

*The acreages in these narratives are derived fm the Forest planning data 

base: they differ fm acreages found in the FARE I1 literature. In 

a&kon, certain areas for which included private land was indicated in FARE 

I1 do not indicate private land here. In sane cases, the land has been 

acquired; m other cases, the land is on the area's periphery and was 

inappropriately included by RARE I1 within the area boundary. 

596 
"other attractions" include primarily mteworthy wildlife species or 

associations of species. (Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species are 

discussed below under the capabililty section.) 

The current uses of the area are "narized here; greater detail is found in 

the availability section of the narrative. 

B. CAPABILITY 

This section describes the area in t- of wilderness attributes, boundary 

manageability, and special features that -enhance the area's wildemess 

values. 

The wildemess attributes discussed are those identified m the Wilderness 

Act of 1964: 

Natural integrity - the degree to which natural ecological processes in 

the area are free fm the influence of human activities. 

Natural appearance - the degree to which the area appears to the observer 

to be free fm the influence of human activities. (This can &ffer fm 

natural integrity. For example, a mad that has veq little influence on 

natural processes may be quite evident to the observer: or, conversely, 

grazing may have caused major vegetation charges whch are not evident to 

the observer. ) 

Opportunitv for solitude - the opportunity to be separated frcin other 

pple and fm evidence of human activity. This attribute is a function 

of the area's size and shape, topzgraphic and vegetative screening, and 

the visibility of human activities outside the area. 

opportutllty for primitive recreation - the oppxturuty to recreate 

without the aid of mtor vehicles or developed facilities. Primitive 

recreation, lLke solitude, is related to size and screerung. It also 

includes the elements of diversity (water sources, campsites, destlnation 

points, and kinds of recreatmnal activity available); challenge 

(possibility of getting lost or mjuring oneself in pursuit of 

recreational activities); and absence of developd facilities. 

"Special features" include habitat for sensitive, threatened, or endangered 

species: and scientific research opportunities m the area. 

This section of the narrative includes a discussion of boundary 

manageability. A wildemess boundary is considered manageable if conflicting 

uses can reasonably be excluded and if areas high m wilderness value can be 

separated frcin areas of lower value. In many cases, the further plaruung 

area boundary originally defined would not be manageable if the area were 

designated wildemess. However, in mst cases, a manageable boundary for the 

area could be described without SigTLificant loss of acreage. This &scussion 

addresses the manageability of the existing boundary and the feasiblity of 

altemate boundaries. 

597 
Sane Inyo Nakonal Forest further planning areas adjoin roadless lands 

afhunistered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Specified BLM 

wilderness study areas adjoin two Inyo National Forest further planning 

areas: Area 5056 (Benton Range) and Area 5064 (Paiute). The amount of 

adjoining roadless E334 land, its status, and the Forest's role in evaluating 

that land is dxm.~~sed in the capability section of the narratives for the 

affected areas. 

The availability section of each narrative addresses the subject of 

trade-offs between wilderness values and other resources and uses for a given 

area. The section discusses current and projected uses and/or developents 

by resource or activity. The following paragraph define the tm and units 

of measurement used to describe each resource and highlights ways in which 

Wilderness designation could involve a trade-off with other activities. 

Recreation use is expressed in recreation visitor days (RVDs) . Recreation is 

described in terms of the following categories: developed (involving 

facilities); dispersed noMlotorized (hiking, camping, nordic skiing); 

dispersed motorized (vehicle-based); and wildlife-related (hunting, fishing 

and wildlife observation). Motorized recreation, which includes much of the 

=sting hunting and fishing, would be excluded fm an area if it were 

designated wilderness. 

Wildlife management opportunities are expressed in terms of acres suitable 

for habitat manipulation; fish habitat management is discussed in terms of 

propsed improvement projects such as construction of instream structures. 

Habitat manipulation and use of motorized construction equpnent or vehicles 

would be prohibited or restricted in wilderness. 

Water resources are described in terms of the downstream uses of water fmn 

the area and small hydroelectric proposals. If water is destined for 

dcanestic use, an undisturbed and undeveloped watershed (such as one would 

expect in Wilderness) would have positive value. Small hydroelectric 

developent represents a potential trade-off, as it would be precluded by 

wildemess designation. 

Watershed condition is described in t- of watershed restoration projects 

pmpsed for the area. Such projects might be more costly without the option 

of using motorized -pent normally prohbited in wilderness. 

Current and potential grazing levels are expressed in mal unit months 

(ALII%). The hstmction 

between actual and potential use reveals a possible wildemess/nonwilderness 

trade-off. Grazing m wilderness has typically been allowed to continue at 

or below those levels that were grazed before wilderness designation. 

Whereas grazing need not be reduced in wilderness, the potential to increase 

use may be foregone. The value of range mprovments is an inhrect 

indicator of the mprtance of the area to the range permittee and of the 

amount of vehicular access currently required to maintain hpmements. 

The value of -sting range impr"ents is noted. 

598 
Ecological resources include existing or proposed research natural areas and 

spcial interest areas set aside to preserve or interpret noteworthy natural 

features. Wilderness management could conflict with the managment 

objectives of such areas. 

Timber in the area is described in terms of acres suitable for timber 

management and the commercial tree species present. Timber harvest would not 

be pernutted in wilderness. 

Acres by mineral potential ratmg and the number of active claims within the 

area are displayed. The results of recent mineral surveys are smarized. 

Areas which lie within a known geothermal resource area (KGRA), areas whch 

have been withdrawn from mineral entry, and outstanding meral rights are 

also noted. Muung claims can not be located m designated wildemess; valid 

exrstng rights as of December 31, 1983 will be rewzed. Mineral 

development under existing clm, while not automatically excluded from 

wilderness, is mre restricted there than on nonwildexness lands. Lands 

which have been withdrawn are not avalable for mineral entry, regardless of 

the wildemess/nonwildemess decision. 

Cultural and hstorical resource values are described within the limits of 

our knowledge abut the area (mst Forest lands have not yet been inventoried 

for cultural features). Whereas wilderness designation could add a layer of 

protection to archaezLogica1 sites, it could also conflict with culbxal 

resource management, if excavation or the retention of an historical 

structure not consistent with Wilderness values were desired. 

Finally, existing uses under special-use permit and included non-National 

Forest land are described. Special uses are identified by type of activity. 

Non-Forest land is identified by ownership [i-e., private, City of Los 

Angeles (DWP), Inyo or Mono Counties, or Southern California Ehson (SCE)] 

and present or proposed use, if k”. In the case of either special uses or 

inholdings, conflicts could arise from the desire for vehlcle access across 

wilderness land and/or the type of use in relation to wildemess values. 

D. NEED 

The need for mre wilderness acreage is examined in terms of several 

factors: current use of and geqraphical relationship with neighkormg 

wildernesses and further planning areas; distance from population centers: 

interest by wilderness proponents; the results of public mvolvement for €?ARE 

11; the results of other public involvement activities related to the area; 

and the desire for representation of a full range of emsystms in the 

wildemess preservation system. 

Individual further planning area narratives address only those need variables 

specific to a giva area. A discussion of variables that affect all Inyu 

National Forest further planning areas, or groups of similar areas, is 

contained below under the heading: “The Need for More Wildemess on the Inyu 

National Forest. ‘I 

599 
E. 

This section displays the range of management prescriptians that were 

considered for the further pl- area in question and the consequences of 

applying those prescripticms. It is iqxrbnt to note that the choice is not 

simply between wildemess and nonwildemess management, but also “g 

different rxmwildemess managanent options. 

Factors that were examined include effects on present use, developnent 

opprturdties foregane, and wilderness values foregone. Effects are 

quantified wherever possible and include relevant econaRic factors. A table 

of management prescription allocations #by alternative and a table of key 

resowce outputs from the area under each alternative are included in this 

section. 

For purposes of this analysis, an alternative that was eliminated from 

detailed study is displayed in the discussion of envirommtal consequences. 

The reason for doing so is that some of the further plannirg areas analyzed 

were not “ended for wildemess in any of the alternatives studied in 

detail. Amenity C (AMC), an alternativs eliminated from detailed study, &d 

reccmunend all further planning areas for wilderness. 

’ 

THE NEED FOR MORE WILDERiESS ON THE I” NATIONAL FOREST 

CwTent Use of Neighboring Wildernesses 

The Inyo National Forest presently includes five wildernesses: the Hoover, 

the Ansel Adam (formerly Minarets), the John Mir, the Golden hout, and the 

South Sierra. All of these areas but the South Sierra are heavily used; 

daily use quotas have been placed on trailheads for the Ansel Adam and John 

Muir in order to manage those areas within their capacities. There are mxe 

requests for wilderness permits on quota trailheads than there are permits 

issued. It would therefore appear that the public would make use of 

considerably more wilderness acreage on the Inyo National Forest if it were 

available. 

The amount of use that can be projected for new wilderness is, hmever, 

influenced by factors other than the number of people who currently seek 

wildemess recreation in neighbring wildernesses. Current levels of use m 

existing wilderness are linked to the kind of terrain and the kind of 

recreational experiences available there. Water is almst an absolute 

requirement for most wildemess users--not only as a life-support factor, but 

also as a major ccmtpnent of wilderness aesthetics. Scenic variety and 

well-defined recreational destination points are also imprtant to many 

people. Finally, people seem to seek those areas with the least evidence of 

human activity. Those wilderness attributes that foster heavy wilderness use 

are limited (or lacking) in many of the further planning areas on the Forest. 

i%st Inyo National Forest further planning areas lack reliable sowces of 

water, recognizable destination points, and/or scenic variety. Many are 

visibly influenced by human activity and/or are visually intruded by 

activities outside the boundary. 

600 
In assessing need, it is important to note not only the current use levels in 

geographically neighkcring areas, but the type of current use in physically 

and biologically similar areas. All of the Forest‘s existing, heavily-used 

wilderness is in the Sierra Nevada physiographic prwinCe. It is therefore 

difficult to directly assess the need for wilderness recreation opprtuuties 

m the Basin and Range pmince. Indirect measures of need are: 1) the 

types of recreation presently found in those areas, and 2) the attitude of 

wilderness propnents toward those areas during public involvement for the 

RARE I1 study. 

There appears to be a low level of wilderness-type recreation use on lands in 

the Basin and Range. Due primarily to the lack of dri.n!ung water and the 

bfficulty of carrying water over long distances, most recreation in arid 

countq is vehicle-based. On the other hand, wilderness propnents in State 

and national organizations have targeted parts of the White and Inyo 

Mountains for wildemess designation. Local environmental pups were 

divided on this subject and responded mre specifically to individual areas. 

Distance fmm Population Centers 

Appromately 60 percent of sunnner wilderness users on the Inyo National 

Forest me from Southern California; most of the remaining 40 percent cane 

from the San Francisco Bay area. Further plaming areas on the Forest are a 

four-to 

Interest by Wilderness Pxpments 

Wildemess advocacy organizations singled out only a few futher planrung 

areas on the Inyo for wilderness recamendation. The Boundary Peak subpart 

of the White i%untains area has received the greatest amount of attention. 

The part of the Inyo bbuntains around Seephole and Side Hill Springs is seen 

as desirable wilderness by some local environmental advocates. 

RARE I1 Wlic mvol~t Results 

Written responses to the RARE I1 Draft EIS were weighted heavily in favor of 

wilderness designation for each area. On a Forest-wide basis, by signature, 

70 to 80 percent of written responses favored wildemess. Most of these were 

personal letters, and approximately 85 percent came fm within California. 

My 20 to 30 percent of the total responses favored nonwilderness, of whch 

most used response forms and abut 70 percent came fm within California. 

Very few respondents in either group addressed specific areas; most parties 

made broad statements whch applied mdiscrimmately to all roadless areas on 

the Forest. 

The majority of local opmon strongly opposed any additional wilderness 

acreage on the Inyc National Forest. Although only in a few cases was a 

measureable effect on local rxmnunities anticipated, overriding sentiment 

resisted additional restriction of public lands. The feeling is strong that 

big government is already too powerful (a sentiment that reflects the fact 

that only three percent of Inyo and Mono Counties are privately owned.) 

There is a perceived lack of local control over land-use decisions. 

601 
In addition, the majority of local people do not themselves seek wildmess 

recreation. The typical area resident hunts, fishes, gathers fuelwood, and/or 

camps frcin a pickup txuck or 4-wheel drive vehicle. Many of the Forest's 

further planning areas represent the local "back-yard'' for such people, and a 

sense of proprietary ownership is strong. Such people do not want to see the 

exclusion of vehicles frcln traditional recreation sites. 

Various Forest user groups have expressed interest in the influence 

wilderness management would have on their activities. These groups are 

concerned with the situation that affects them, wherever it arises, rather 

than being especially interested in any particular area. 

The mineral industry favors nonwildemess management of any lands with 

mineral potential. Geothermal interests favor nonwildemess for lands with 

geothermal potential. Small hydroelectric proponents favor nonwildemess 

where there is developent potential. 

Hunters and fishermen typically favor nonwildemess management so that they 

can reach their recreation sites by vehicle. 

Range permittees favor nonwildemess where they access the range by vehicle, 

and/or where there is the potential to increase grazing. Special-use 

permittees and inholders generally favor rmnwildemess in order to avoid 

further restrictions on access and/or activities. 

Specific e"ic interests include ti" management, mining, grazing, and 

recreation. 

Need for Ecosysten Representaticm 

The Inyo National Forest has further planning areas with ecosystems belongins 

to two physiographic pminces. The southern Sierra Nevada physicgraphic 

pmince is already well represented in wilderness on the Inyo, on other 

National Forests in the Pacific Southwest Region, and in the National Park 

Service backcountry. 

On the other hand, ecosystems typical of the southem Basin and Range 

province are not represented in existing wilderness on the Forest or in the 

Region. If it is, indeed, desirable to designate wildemesses that represent 

major ecosystems, the Inyo National Forest could be in a gwd position to 

contribute to that end. 

Results of Other Public Involvement 

The Inyo National Forest has conducted public involvement activities for 

several reasons since the RARE I1 study. These efforts have included public 

involvement for the Forest p1atmh-g prccess, for Mannmth Mountain Ski Area 

developent, for geothennal leasing, for management of the Golden R-out 

Wilderness, and for the 1983-84 reevaluation of madless areas. In addition, 

public hearings have been held by other gwerrnnent parties to review 

proposals for the Mom Basin National Forest Scenic Area and an alternate 

access road to the cannunity of Mamnth Lakes. 

602 
These efforts have revealed little change in local public opinion during the 

years between RARE I1 public lnvolvement and the present. There is stdl 

vocal resistance to any kind of additional restriction on public land. 

Econcmic g-mwth is still seen as dependent on developent, primarily in the 

recreation industry. Developents such as geothmal and small hydroelectric 

projects, which could potentially reduce the recreational attraction of the 

area, are viewed with more caution. There is considerable support for 

maintaming exlsting mining and commercial tunber operations. Support for 

additional wildemess is represented by a small but mal group of local 

citizens, as well as State and national wildemess advocacy orgmzations. 

603 
CoyOTE SE (#5033) Acres: 56,148 (410) 

A. DESCRIPI'ION 

The coyote SE area is located in Inyo Clnmty, on the white Mountain Range 

District. The coyote jeep mad leads six miles fran Bishop to the area 

boundary, parallels the boundary for 15 miles, and forks to form a corridor 

that penetrates the area. Trails lead into the area fran Big Pine Creek, 

Bishop Creek, the jeep road, and the foothills northwest of Big Pine. 

The bunda~~ is defined by the Glacier Loage Road and the John P4vi.r 

Wilderness on the south, the Bishop Cree$ Road on the west, Coyote jeep road 

on the northwest, and BLM and City of Los Argeles land on the east and 

northeast. 

The area lies on the east side of the Sierra Nevada in the (x.lens River, 

Bishop Creek, and Big Pine Creek watersheds. It is mghly triangular, 

measures 13 miles long by 12 miles wide, and is nearly bisected by a road 

corridor. Elevatiom range frun 4,800 feet on the east to 12,226 feet at The 

Hunchback. 

Terrain forms an &ensive, steep-sided, high-elevation plateau. The 

plateau is geologically significant for tzm reasons: 1) the rolling 

topgrapfy is the remnant of an ancient erosion surface that has been 

uplifted by earth "nents, and 2) it is the only place in the eastern 

Sierra where the bedrock has bent (downwarped) rather than broken along fault 

lines as the rountains have risen relative to the valley. Twenty-six miles 

of perennial stream, of which 11 miles contain trout, cross the area; there 

are five lakes. 

Primary vegetation types are big sagebrush, bitterbrush, and pine-juniper 

woodland. 

Scenic variety in the area falls into class A, 35 percent; class B, 65 

percent. The entire eastern side of the Sierra Nevada is a major landmark 

fran Highway 395, which is State-designated as a scenic highway in the Cwens 

Valley. Sugarloaf, Piper Peak, and Round Mmntain are identifiable features. 

The mundirtg area is also scenic, includiq the dramatic glaciated canyons 

of Big Pine Creek and Bishop Creek, the rugged high peaks of the Sierra 

crest, and the Cwens Valley. 

Another attraction is Grouse Spring, which supports five species of one genus 

of chim. 

Current uses include recreation and cattle grazing. 

B. WABILITY 

The natural ecological int-ity of the area has been influenced to a low 

degree, and natural appearance to a very low degree. A range improvement 

project replaced sagebrush with grasses 20 years ago, and grazing is 

scattered across the area. There are my fences and trails and me 

unimproved roads. 

604 
Opportunities for solitude are mxlerate. The intruding road corridor limits 

the benefits of the area‘s large size. The area is topgraphically isolated 

from the John Muir Wilderness and adjacent backcountry. Veyetative and 

topographic screening is moderate. Aircraft using the neighbring Coyote 

airstrip are seen and heard within the area. 

Opportunities for prirmtive recreation, including diversity and challenge, 

are also moderate. 

A sensitive plant species, Lupinus dedeckeras, grows in the area between High 

Meadaws and Logging Flat. A population has also been found near the area 

boundary west of Ford Flat. 

The original inventory boundary would be unmanageable as wilderness. Vehicle 

access (4-wheel drive) to much of the area is easy, and evldence of hman 

influence on the area could not be easily separated. A major boundary 

adjusbent could allow for the western one-third of the area (that is lowest 

in conflicts and impacts) to be added to the John Muir Wildemess. 

Slx parcels of roadless BLM land, encarrpassing 2,231 acres, adjoin the area. 

There are no developed facilities. 

C. AVAILABILITY 

There are several potential trade-offs between wilderness designation and 

other resources and activities. Wildemess management would close the area 

(except on identified road corridors) to vehicles, limit the potential to 

increase grazing or impme wildlife habitat, pmbit or severely afy 

potential small hydroelectric developent on Baker Creek, and restrict or 

prohibit mineral exploration and developent. 

Dispersed nomtorized recreation, includmg camping, sightseeing, 

backpacking, and nordic mountaineering, account for 1,000 RVDs a year; 

motarized recreation arnxlnts to 5M) RVDs. Other recreational activities 

include big game hunting (700 WFVDs) and fishing (700 WFUDs). Most 

recreationists are local area residents. 

Approximately 4,230 acres are suitable for wildlife habitat manipulation. 

Green Lake and Rocky Bottan Lake are CDFGdesignated for special management 

of Kamlmps rainbw trout. Both lakes are also bemg considered for 

designation as wild trout fisheries. 

Water from the area flm into the Owens mver. Wst of the water is 

exprted for dmestic use; the remainder is used for local irrigation and 

dcsnestic needs. A small hydroelectric project has been proposed for Baker 

Creek. 

Watershed restoration projects have been proposed for several meadows in the 

area. Vehicle access would be hprtant for project sites in the Rawson 

Creek drainage. 

Cattle grazing represents 1,050 AUMs of use; maximum potential is estimated 

at 2,140 ALP@. Existing unprovements are valued at $14,000. 

605 
The area is incapable of producins cmmercial timber. 

Of the lands in this area, 9 percent are rated high in mineral potential; 0 

percent are medium, and 91 percent are low. There are four active mining 

claims in or innnediately outside the area, of which none are currently 

proaucing. mere are mall, su- ‘c tungsten resources, but the geology 

is not favorable for large deposits. 

Cultural resource values include evidence of prehistoric human activity, 

historic mining and cattle ranching, and the Baker creek Ranger Station site. 

Special uses include a cabin and two fences. The bunday includes 410 acres 

of undevelopd private and DWP land. 

D. NEED 

The area belongs to the southern Sierra Nevada physicgraphic prwince; 

current use of wildemesses in that province is exh-emely heavy. The area is 

typical of the province. This area adjoins the existing John Mum Wilderness 

and is near the Table Mountain further planning area. 

public involv-t for RARE I1 indicated s.trong local support for retaining 

this area as nonwildemess. The Cnyote plateau symbolizes unrestricted 

recreation for local residents, who do not think of it as a madless area. 

Many retired people dependent on vehicle access use the area. Local Paiute 

Indians use the area for teaching their children to live off the land. 

E. ENvIIMNMENTALcONsEWJiXJS 

- 

Table C-1 indxates which management prescriptions were applied to (all or 

part) of the madless area under each alt-tive. The narratives following 

the table discuss the effects of each prescription on the area in terms of 

present uses, wilderness attributes, and nonwilderness developnent 

opprhmities. Resource and activity outputs for the area under each 

alternative are displayed in Table 02. 

Table 01 

Managanent Prescription Allocations 

by Alternative (M Aaes and Percent of Area) 

Coyote southeast (5033) 

Alternatives 

Managenen t Prescxiption pRF(xIRRPACEEAMNAMBAMc 

2. proposed Wilderness 55.6 55.6 11.8 55.6 

100% 100% 21% 100% 

11. Range 13.6 13.6 

24% 24% 

17. Senu-Fz5.mitive Rec 55.6 42.0 43.8 

100% 76% 79% 

18. Multiple Resource kea 42.0 

76% 

606 
Designation: Wilderness 

Prescription: # 2 

Altemative(s): CEE, AMN, AMC 

Effects on the Area: Wilderness designation would maintain the natural 

mtegrity and appearance characteristic of the area. Opprtunities for 

findmg solitude would -ease, as mads penetrating the area would be 

closed to velncle use. Management of the area as wilderness would be 

bfficult and costly. The terrain does not prwide a natural barrier for 

preventmg illegal vehlcle access, and the evidence of human mfluence would 

not be easily mitigated. 

A loss of motorized recreation would result: a consequence that would be of 

local concem, as the activity 1s deeply rooted in the area. Prixutive 

recreation would dramatically increase. The quality of the wilderness 

experience offered would be high, but lower than eqxxiences available in the 

adjacent John Muir Wilderness. 

Gpprtumties to manipulate vegetation to enhance livestock grazing would be 

foregone, though current grazlng would be maintained. 

Watershed restoration projects could not use motorized eqUipent. The 

proposed mall hydroelectric project would not be allowed to develop. 

The area would be withdrawn fm mineral entry upon designation as 

wilderness, resulting in a loss of rmneral opportunity. No new mining claims 

could be located, and activities on mirung clams with existlng valid clams 

could be restricted. 

Access to and developnent of private lnholdmgs would degrade wilderness 

values. A pernut authorizing a cabm occupancy would be terminated. 

Econcsnic consequences would mclude those associated with motorized 

recreation (including some hunting and fishing), grazing, hydroelectric 

development, and mining. Eight miles of trail and two trailheads would 

represent the imtial costs of wilderness management. Annual a&ninistrative 

costs would increase considerably. 

Confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most corxLtions. 

No other foreseeable environmental changes or major resource trade-offs 

requiring mtigation would result. 

Designation: Wildemess (revised boundary)/nonwildemess 

Prescription #: 2 

Alternative( s) : AMB 

Effects on the Area: The intent of remending thls combination of 

prescriptions with the revised wildemess boundary would be to lmprwe 

wildemess manageability and to recamnerd only those lands with the highest 

level of wilderness values, especially primitive recreation opportunities, 

for wildemess designation. 

The revised bun- would reduce potential conflicts, as most other uses and 

resource opportunities are located on the nonwildemess part of the area. 

607 
The exception to this rule, hawever is "ral potential. Lands recarmended 

for wildenless under this canbination have higher Ermportianal 

potential ratings (21 percent high; 79 percent law) than the entire area (9 

percent high; 91 percent law). The wilderness part of the area muld be 

withdrawn fran mineral entry upcol designation as wilderness, resulting in a 

loss of mineral opprbnity. No new mining claims could be located, and 

activities on mining claims with existing valid claims could be restricted. 

For this reason, the increased likelihood of Congress designating wilderness 

with this revised boundary muld be ccmpranised by the potential for wnflict 

with mineral activity would oanpnmise that overall benefit. 

Wilderness designation would maintain the natural integrity and appearance on 

lands managed under prescription 2. Opprhmities for solitude and primitive 

recreation would be also be maintained. Manag-t of the area as wilderness 

wald be fairly easy; terrain would discourage vehicle entry; there is little 

sign of human disturbance, and existing and roost likely potential use 

pattems are cmpatible with wilderness. Wimitive recreation on those lands 

would be expected to increase sawhat with the attraction of wilderness 

designation. The quality of the wildemess experience muld be similar to 

that found in the adjacent John Muir Wilderness. 

The wilderness characteristics of the mwildemess lands would remain at a 

level similar to the current situation. Vehicle use would be restricted to 

existing mutes, and any new mining mads would be closed to public use. 

Opportunities to directly enhance livestock grazing and wildlife habitat 

would be maintained on nonwilderness lands. Current grazing and hunt* 

would continue, and the opportunity to mrease outputs maintained. 

Manag-t of wildlife and grazing could make use of vehicles, new structural 

irrrprwements, and vegetation manipulation. 

Watershed restoration pmjects could be cunpleted by conventional methods 

using motorized equipent. The proposed mall hydroelectric project would be 

allmed to develop. 

There muld be ~3 public roads constructed for discretionary purposes. 

ndsting vehicle mutes would be maintained and new mining roads, though 

closed to the public, could be constructed. 

Access to and developent of private inholdings would not represent a 

conflict, as those properties lie in the mnwilderness part of the area. 

Eccolanic consequences would include the maintenance of those benefits 

associated with motorized recreation (including most hunting and fishing), 

grazing, and hydroelectric developat, with the additional benefits 

associated with wilderness recreation. Sane mineral opportunities muld be 

lost. Six miles of trail and one trailhead would represent the initial costs 

of wilderness management. Annual ackinistrative costs would increase 

considerably. 

Confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most conditions. 
No other foreseeable dromtal changes or major resou~ce trade-offs 

requiring mitigation would result. 

Designation: Nonwilderness 

Prescription #: 17 

mtmtive( s> PRF 

Effects on the Area: Wilderness attributes would be essentially maintained, 

as the area would be managed to limit vehicle access and public road 

construction. The present motorized and nomtorized recreation would 

continue to steadily increase. Vehicles would be limited to existing roads 

and trails; primitive and semiprimitive recreation would be enrphasized. 

Natural appearance would be maintained, except for localized impacts 

occurring from "g, motorized vehlcle use, special use facilities and 

wildlife or grazing vegetation treatment. The overall impact would not be 

significant, however, primarily because vehicle use would be limited. 

Cattle grazing AUMs would be allawed to increase; vehicle access for range 

management would be allowed. 

Options to wnsider hydroelectric projects would be maintamed. Watershed 

restoration proje~ts wuld be accomplished with motorized equipnent. 

The area would remain available for nuneral exploration and developent. 

Activities on valid mining claims would be affected only by applicable mining 

restricbons. 

Conflicts between private land uses and managemat under ths prescription 

would not be significant in caparison with managwent under a wildexness 

prescription. Vehlcle access to private land would not present a serious 

wncem. Special-use activities would not be affected, and the option would 

exist to allow other special uses. 

Econanic consequences would include benefits asscciated with recreation 

(motorized and non-motorized), fish and wildlife, grazing, hydroelectric 

developent, and "g. A social consequence would be the loss of the area 

as potential wilderness. 

confinement or containment would be the appmpriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under mt wnditions. 

No other foreseeable environmental changes or major resource trade-offs 

requiring mitigation would result. 

Designation: Nonwildemess 

Prescription #: 11, 17 

Alternative (s): CUR 

Effects on the Area: The effects of these two prescriptions on wilderness 

values would be somewhat greater than those described abe for Prescription 

# 17 alone. Lands managed under Prescription #11 are available for road 

construction, and any mining roads wnstructed on lands undex that 

prescription wuld be left open for public access. 

New "ng roads would be closed to public entry. 

609 
In amtion, #11 indicates a greater likelihood of vegetation izeatrnent and 

structural improvement for range management purposes than # 17. 

If the number of fences and other structural impmements increased, some of 

the existing dispersed recreation in the area could be displaced. 

All wildfires would be oontrolled under the (XIR alternatxve. 

The primary opportunrtY gained and ecomc benefit derived fm this 

canbumtion of prescriptions is the option of impmed access for livestock 

management and associated benefits for range permittees. In addition, mining 

opportunities would be enhanced as access throughout the area would be 

increased. 

Designation: Nonwildemess 

Prescription #: 11, 18 

Alternative (s): RFA 

Effects on the Area: The effeds of these two prescriptions on wilderness 

values would even ureater than those described above for Prescriptions 11 and '- 

17. Lands managed-under both of these prescriptions are available for mad 

construction or open ORV designation, and any mining mads constructed on 

lands under these prescriptions could be left open for public access. 

Motorized recreation would be expected to increase: access for range 

managanent purposes would be virtually unrestricted, and mining opportunities 

would be enhanced as access throughaut the area would be increased. 

Confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

stxategies applied under most conditions. 

The primazy opprtunities gained and ewmc benefits derived from this 

canbination of prescriptions is the option of increased opporturuties for 

wtorized (including ORV) recreation. In addition, mining opprtunities 

would be enhanced as access throughout the area would be increased. 

610 
Table C-2 

Averag-e Annual. Outputs for Decades 1 and 5 

Coyote Soul5east (5033) 

Resource or Alternatives 

Activity Decade PRF alR RPA CEE AMN AMB AMC 

Recamended Wilderness -- 0 0 0 55.6 55.6 11.8 55.6 

(M acres) 

Nonwildemess __ 55.6 55.6 55.6 0 0 43.8 0 

Total Developed 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Recreation (M RVDs) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dispersed Recreation 1 1500 1500 1500 0 0 1185 0 

(RVDs) 5 2250 2250 2250 0 0 1178 0 

(M acres) 

Wilderness Recreation 1 

( RVDs ) 5 

0 0 0 0 9300 1950 9300 

0 0 0 0 11400 2925 11400 

Total Wildlife and 

Fish User Days 1 1400 1400 1400 1000 1000 1320 1000 

(WS) 5 2100 2100 2100 1350 1350 1980 1350 

Grazing (AW) 1 1268 1268 1268 1050 1050 1268 1050 

5 2140 2140 2140 1050 1050 2140 1050 

Suitable Timber Land 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

( acres ) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

(") 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Timber Volume 

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Gross Benefits(@) 1 66 66 66 178 178 153 178 

5 86 86 86 220 220 189 220 

Costs (M$) 1 18 18 18 336 336 291 336 

5 21 21 21 140 140 122 140 

Net Benefits (M$) 1 48 48 48 -158 -158 -138 -158 

5 65 65 65 80 80 67 80 

611 
Anes: 4.138 

A. DESCRIFl’ION 

The Table Mountain area lies in Inyo County on the White lulountain Ranger 

District. The Tyee Lakes trail leads across an arm of the area fm the 

south Lake Road into the wildemess. The center of the area is mxt 

accessible on foot, c~0ss-c”~ north fm the trail. 

The boundary is defined by the South Lake and Lake Sabrina Roads on the 

northeast and northwest, and by the John Muir Wilderness on the south. 

The area lies on the east side of the Sierra Nevada, in the Bishop Creek 

watershed. It is roughly triangular, appraximately six miles long and two 

miles wide. 

Terrain forms a steep-sided plateau. The plateau represents an ancient 

erosion surface that has been raised by mnmtain-building and separated fm 

similar lands on the Coyote plateau by stream erosion. There is one mle of 

prerudal stream, with trout found throughout, and no lakes. 

primary vegetation types in the area are eastside pine, big sagebrush, and 

subalpine fir forest. 

The en- area falls into variety class A. The surroundjng countzy is also 

scenic. The deep, glaciated canyons of Bishop creek’s middle and south 

forks, the rugged peaks of l“pscn Ridge and the Sierra Crest, and two 

large, scenic resermirs are visible at close range. The Owens Valley, the 

White Mountains, and the volcanic highlands north of Bishop can be seen in 

the distance. 

The only current use is recreation. 

Elevations range frcm 8.200 to 11,936 feet. 

B. CAeABILITY 

The natural ecological integrity and natural appearance of the area are 

essentially unmodified. The wee Lakes trail is the only sign of human 

influen(%. 

Opprtunities for solitude are high. The area is large in “bmation with 

adjo- wilderness and National Park backcxnmtzy. Topographic scxe-g is 

high: vegetative screening is moderate. The visual intrusion of the two 

adjacent roads is moderated by the steep slopes of the area and vertical 

distance fm the traffic. 

Opportunities for primitive recreation are low. Although the area (in 

“bination with neighboring areas) is large and there are no facilities, 

diversity is limited by the steep topography and lack of water. There are 

few challenges. 

The inventory boundary would be manageable as wilderness, with only minor 

adjushents at most; steep slopes form a natural barrier to vehicles. 

612 
C. AVAILABILITY 

There are no trade-offs between wilderness designation and other resouTces 

and activities. 

Hiking and caniping account for 500 RVDs of use each year: big game hunting 

amounts to 80 WFUDS. 

Water fm the area flows into Bishop (seek, where it is used to generate 

hydzuelectic power. Sane is then used for local hstic needs; the rest 

flows into the Owens River €ran which it is exported for domestic use. 

The area is not capable of menial timber production. 

Of the lands in this area, 7 percent are rated high in mineral potential; 51 

percent are medium, and 42 percent are low. There is one active mining claim 

in the area, which has a subecoranic tungsten deposit. 

D. NEED 

The area belongs to the southern Sierra Nevada physiographic pmmce; 

current use of wildernesses in that pmince is extremely heavy. The area is 

typical of the province. !I'his area adjoins the existing John Muir Wildemess 

and is near the Coyote Southeast and Buttemlk further planning areas. 

Public involvment for the RARE I1 study indicated that mst local residents 

already see this area as wilderness; there appear to be no conflicts. 

E. ENVI"bD3TCFiLCONS~CES 

Table C-3 rndicates which management prescriptions were applied to (all or 

part) of the roadless area undw each altemative. The narratives following 

the table discuss the effects of each prescription on the area in texms of 

present uses, wilderness attributes, and nonwilderness development 

opporturuties. Resowce and activity outputs for the area under each 

altemative are displayed in Table C-4. 

Table C-3 

Managansnt prescxiption Allocations 

by Alternative (M Acres and Percent of Area) 

Table Mountain (5035) 

Alternatives 

Managmen t Prescription PRFOVRRPACEEAMNAMBAMC 

2. Proposed Wildemess 4.1 4.1 4.1 

100% 100% 100% 

17. Semi-Primitive Rec 4.1 4.1 

100% 100% 

18. Multiple Resource Area 4.1 4.1 

100% 100% 

613 
Designation: Wildmess 

Prescription #: 2 

Altmative(s): PRF, AMN, Ai% 

Effects on the Area: Wilderness designation would preserve the wilderness 

attributes of the area. The quality of the experience and quantity of use 

received would be lower than that found in the contiguous John Muir 

Wilderness area. The inventory boundary would be manageable as wilderness; 

it would not be difficult or mstly to administer. 

Current uses would not change: recreation use would continue to be 

"rotorized (primarily hiking, camping and big game hunting). Because of 

the lack of water and few challenges, the use level would remain low. 

The area would be withdrawn fmn mineral entry upon designation as 

wilderness, resulting in a loss of mineral opportunity. No new mining claims 

could be located, and activities on mining claims with existing valid claims 

could be restricted. 

There am 110 lamwn social or ecoMmic depenaenCies related to the area. 

social benefit would be fonnal wilderness designation. 

Cbnfhement or contaiment mld be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under mst conditions. 

No other foreseeable environmental changes or rewurce trade-offs requiring 

mitigation would result. 

Designation: "wilderness 

Prescription #: 17 

Altemative(s): CUR, AMB 

Effects on the Area: Wilderness attributes would not be affected. The area 

is steep and difficult to access, hence it muld be feasible to continue 

limiting vehicle acess to the area. There mld be no effect on the present 

low level of nonmotorized recreation. 

The area would remain available for mineral entry and leasing: only 

applicable nuning restrictions muld affect activities. New roads 

constructed for mhiq access would be closed to the public. 

E"ic and swAal benefits would not significantly change. 

would be the loss of a potential wilderness designation. 

confinement or containment mld be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under mst conditions. (All wildfires would be oontrolled 

under the OUR altemalxve. ) 

No other foreseeable envhnmental changes or resource trade-offs requiring 

mitigatiun would result. 

A 

A social cost 

614 
Designation: Nonwildemess 

Prescription #: 18 

Altemative(s): RFA, CEE 

Effects on the Area: The effects of Prescription # 18 would differ very 

little frcm those of # 17 in this area. Although road construction would be 

allowed, the terrain would tend to prevent such construction on all but the 

outside edges of the area. If a nuning mad were constxucted, it could be 

left open for public access and increased motorized recreation 

opportunities. 

Confinanent or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most conditions. 

615 
Table C-4 

Average Annual Outputs for Decades 1 and 5 

Table bbuntain (5035) 

ResxJurceor Alternatives 

Activity Decade PRFOURRPA CEEAMNAMBAMC 

Reccmnended Wildemess -- 4.1 0 0 0 4.1 0 4.1 

(M acres) 

Nonwilderness -- 0 4.1 4.1 4.1 0 4.1 0 

(M acres) 

Total Developea 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Recreatim (M RVDs) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dispersed Recreation 1 0 500 500 500 0 500 0 

(RVDS) 5 0 750 750 750 0 750 0 

Wilderness Recreation 1 700 0 0 0 700 0 700 

(RVDs) 5 1090 0 0 0 1090 0 1090 

Total Wildlife and 

Fish User Days 1 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 

(-S) 5 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 

Grazing (Am) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Suitable Timber Land 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

(acres) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

(-1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Timber Volume 

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Gross Benefits (Ms) 1 12 8 a 8 12 8 12 

5 18 12 12 12 18 12 18 

Costs (Ms) 1 20 4 4 4 20 4 20 

Net Benefits (I@) 1 -8 4 4 4 -8 4 -8 

5 5 8 8 8 5 8 5 

5 13 4 4 4 13 4 13 

616 
(#5038) Aces: 854 (300) 

A. DESCFSFTION 

The Buttermilk area is located in Inyo County, on the White Mountain Ranger 

District. The Buttermilk jeep road leads four miles fm the Bisbp Creek 

Road to the area boundary. The area is accessible on foot cross-countxy fm 

that road. 

The kxnmdaq is defined by the John Muir Wildemess on the west, the 

Buttermilk jeep road on the east, the McGee-Creek road on the south, and the 

Horton Creek mining road on the north. 

The area lies on the eastern escaxpnent of the Sierra Nevada, in the Owens 

River and Horton Creek watersheds. It is rectangular, and measures 1 mile 

wide by 2.25 miles long. Elevations range fm 7,660 feet on the east to 

8,4W feet on the west. 

Terrain is moderately steep, consisting mainly of alluvial material. 'Ityo 

miles of peremial stream, of which one mile contams trout, cross the area; 

there are no lakes. 

The predaNnant vegetation tvpe is bitterbrush; snall amounts of eastside 

pine are present at hlgher elevations. 

Scenic variety ~II the area falls into class A, 50 percent; class B, 50 

percent. The surruundiq area is also scenic. Uphill and to the west, 

terrain rises steeply to the rugged peaks of the Sierra Crest. A cluster of 

jumbled, mthly eroded granite hes lies east of the area. The White 

Iv13untams, Owens Valley, and Casa Diablo area are visible m the &stance. 

Current uses include recreation and cattle grazing. 

B. CAPABILITY 

The natural ecological integrity and natural appearance of the area have been 

influenced to a low degree. Grazing has changed the vegetation on mre than 

50 percent of the area, and a fence bisects the area. 

Opportunities for solitude are low. Although the area is large when combined 

with the adjoimng wildemess and National Park backcounky, there is little 

vegetative or topgraphic screening. Recreation use is concentrated m the 

aspen groves along the streams. Many dirt roads are easily seen, even fm 

the center of the area. Opportunities for prxnitive recreation are also 

low. 

The original mventory boundary would not be manageable as wildemess; 

although conflicting uses could be excluded with an adjustment, the evidence 

of human mfluence is scattered throughout the area and could not be 

separated. 

There 1s little &versity, and no challenge within the area. 

617 
C. AVAILABILITY 

There are few potential trade-offs between wilderness designation and other 

resources and activities. 

Dispersed mtorized recreation represents 200 FWDs and big game hunting 

200 WUDs a year. 

Approximately 20 acres are suitable for wildlife habitat manipulation. There 

is scme deer winter range in the area. 

Water fm the area is used locally for irrigation and domestic needs; most 

then flows into the Owens River, frcm which it is exported for danestic use. 

Cattle grazing represents 100 AW of use; "I potential is estimated at 

152 AUMs. 

The area is incapable of pnducing CQrmerCial timber. 

Of the lands in this area, all are rated low in mineral potential. 

no active mining claims in the area. 

The boundary includes 300 acres of private and DWP land; the only developnent 

is a water transmission line. 

D. NEED 

The area belcolgs to the southern Sierra Nevada physicgraphic pmince; 

current use of wildernesses in that provjnce is extremely heavy. The area is 

not typical of the province, as it is low in elevation and lacking in 

recreational attraction. This area adjoins the existing John Muir wilderness 

and is near the Table Moutltain further planning area. 

Neither wilderness prupments nor opponents, locals nor "-locals have 

expressed much interest in the area. 

E. -CXXiSTable C-5 indicates which management prescriptions were applied to (all or 

part) of the area under each alternative. The narratives following the table 

discuss the effects of each prescription on the area in terms of present 

uses, wilderness attributes, and rmnwildemess developent opportunities. 

Resource and activity Outputs for the area under each alternative are 

displayed in Table C-6. 

Existkg range improvements are valued at $2,000. 

There are 

618 
Table C-5 

Management Prescription Allocaticms 

by Alternative (M Acres and Percent Of Area) 

Buttermilk (5038) 

Alternatives 

MaI3apneI-I t Prescription PFU? alR RPA (3EE AMN AMB AMC 

2. hroposed Wilderness 0.9 0.9 

11. Mule Deer Habitat 0.9 0.9 

100% 100% 

17. Range 0.9 0.9 0.9 

100% 100% 100% 

100% 100% 

Designation: Wilderness 

Prescription #: 2 

Altexnative(s): AMN, AMC 

Effects on the Area: Wilderness designation would maintain the wildemess 

attributes of the area. However, as the evidence of human influence and 

encroachment is distributed hughout the area, those attributes are not 

especially high. Developnents or activities on private inholdings could 

further wade the area‘s wilderness values. 

Recreation use, primarily nomtorized hiking, fishing, and big-game hunting, 

muld remain low. The conditions necessary for attracting intensive 

wilderness recreation would not exist. 

The options of constructing improvements or using prescribed fire for 

wildlife habitat improvement would be foregone. 

Existing grazing use would wntinue under mre stringent regulations. 

However, opportunities to improve range conditions and increase use would be 

foregone. The area would be withdrawn fran mineral entry upon designation as 

wilderness, resulting in a loss of mineral opprtuni~. No new mining claims 

could be located, and activities on mining claims with -sting valid claims 

could be restricted. 

There are no kn” social or economic dependencies on the area except for 

grazing. Income generated in this area by increased recreation use would be 

insignificant. Formal wilderness designation would represent a social 

benefit. 

confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most conditions. 

No other foreseeable environmental changes or major resource affects 

requiring mitigation would result. 

619 
Eesignation: "wilderness 

"ription#: 4 

Altemative(s): PRF, AMB 

Effects on the Area: The natural appearance and i.ntqi- of the area would 

be temporarily reduced where wildlife habitat was i.qroved by vegetation 

treatment. 

Optiors to manipulate wildlife habitat would remain available. However, only 

"r benefits would be received as the acreage suitable for treatment is 

limited. Cattle grazing muld be held to current levels, as any increase in 

forage would be allocated to deer. 

The area would re" ' available for new mineral claims. 

private inholdings would not present a conflict with managmt of the area. 

A slight ecolMnic benefit wmld occur fran increased big-game hunting 

oprbnities on or near the area. These benefits muld sonewhat offset by 

the social loss of a potential wilderness designation. 

confinement; or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most conditions. 

No other foreseeable environmental changes or major resource trade-offs 

requiring mitigation would result. 

Designation: Nanwilderness 

Prescription #: 11 

Altemative (s): aJR, CEE, RPA 

Effects on the Area: The effects of this prescription on the area would be 

similar to that of Prescription 4, describd above, except that new public 

roads for range management would be allowed, and any mixkg mads that 

develop3 would be open to public use. The major difference would be an 

increase of up to 50% in cattle grazing, as any increase in forage would be 

allocated to livestock. 

confinement or 'containment &d be the appmpriats fire suppression 

strategies applied under most conditions. (All wildfires would be contmlled 

under the CUR alternative. ) 

620 
Table C-6 

Average Annual Outputs for Decades 1 and 5 

Buttermilk (5038) 

Resource or Alternatives 

Activity Decade PRFaIRRPACEE AMNAMBAMC 

Recarmended Wilderness -- 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0.9 

(M acres) 

Nonwildemess -_ 0.9 0.9- 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 

(M acres) 

Total Developea 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Recreation (M RVDs) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dispersed Recreation 1 200 200 200 200 0 200 0 

( RvDs ) 5 300 300 300 300 0 300 0 

Wilderness Recreation 1 0 0 0 0 250 0 250 

( RVDs ) 5 0 0 0 0 310 0 310 

Total Wildlife and 

(WFUDS) 5 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 

Fish User Days 1 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 

Grazirg (AUiXs) 1 100 112 112 112 100 100 100 

5 100 152 152 152 100 100 100 

Suitable Timber Land 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

( acres ) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

(W) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Timber Volume 

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

~ross Benefits(*) 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 

5 9 9 9 9 10 9 10 

costs (Ms) 1 2 2 2 2 6 2 6 

5 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 

Net Benefits (a) 1 

5 

7 7 7 7 3 7 3 

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 

623 
WHEELER RmGE (#5040) Acres: 16,229 

A. DESXIPTIW 

The Wheeler Ridge area lies in Inyo (29 percent) and Mono (71 percent) 

&unties, on the. White Mountain Ranger District. The area is accessible to 

4-wheel drive vehicles by urulmpmved road, or on foot crass-country fm the 

Kenneth and Dorothy Lakes areas in the John Muir wildmess. 

The bnmdary is defined by the Pine creek Road and the Pine Creek mining road 

on the southeast and southwest, the Forest boundary on the east, and the Sand 

Canyon mjnirig road on the mrth and west. The area curves around a 

protrusion of the John Muir Wilderness. 

The area lies on the east side of the Sierra Nevada, in the Rcck Creek 

watershed. The area is long (11 MLles) and narrow (3.75 miles wide), and 

curves around the lower slopes and north end of a projecting ridge. 

Terrain includes the dissected, precipitous slopes on both sides of a riclge 

between deep canyons, and part of the rolling ridgetop area. Geology 

cansists primarily of exposed mtamrphic rock which has been upthrust 

several thousand vertical feet, then eroded by water and glacial action. 

There are four miles of perennial stream, but m fisheries, and one mall 

lake. 

Primary vegetation types are lcdgeple pine forest, big sagebrush, and 

mxlntah mahogany, with smaller amunts of eastside pine and subalpine fir 

forest. 

Scenic variety in the area falls into class A, 93 percent; class B, 5 

percent; class C, 2 percent. Wheeler Ridge and Pine &eek canyon are major 

la"&s fran Bishop and Highway 395. The .%mounding area is also scenic, 

and views fnrn the roadless area spectacular. The hens Valley, Mt. Tan, the 

rugged high peaks of the Sierra Crest, the deep canyons of Big Pine and Rock 

Cheks, the White Mountains, and the volcanic highlands of the Casa Diablo 

Peak area are all visible fran the center of the area. 

Current uses include recreation and wildlife management. 

B. CAPABILITY 

The natural ecological intq-rie of the area is essentially unmodified; 

influences on its natural appearance are moderate. The top of Wheeler Ridge 

shows localized evidence of mining, including tailings and vegetation damage: 

cut-and-fill roads to Morgan Pass, and onto Wheeler Ridge are highly visible; 

air pollution fm the Pine creek tungsten mill affects the extreme southem 

end of the area. 

Gpprtunities for solitude are high. The area is large, especially in 

canbination with the adjoining wilderness and National Park backcountry. 

Screening is derate, and visual intrusions separated by steep slopes. only the Pine Creek mine and mill are visible at close range, and those only fran 

a mall part of the area. 

622 
Opportunities for primitive recreation are low, pas there are few challenges, 

and little diversity. 

Special features include a herd of California bighom sheep transplanted to 

the area in 1978. 

Although the original inventory boundary would not be manageable as 

wilderness, major boundary adjuSi”tS could be made to exclude human impacts 

and conflicting activities. 

Tim parcels of roadless BLM land, encanpassing 3,197 acres, adjoin the area. 

C. AVAILABILITY 

The Wheeler Ridge area represents two notable trade-offs between wilderness 

designation and other activities. Wilderness management would close the area 

to vehicular recreation, and would linut the feasibility of wildlife habitat 

mampulation. 

Four-wheel drive recreation amounts to 100 RVDs, dispersed nomtorized 

recreation 100 RVDs, and small game hunting 100 WFUDs a year. A State-funded 

green sticker project has been approved for the Wheeler Crest mine road area. 

California bighom sheep were reintrcduced into the area in 1978. 

Approximately 40 acres are suitable for wildlife habitat manipulation. 

Water from the area 1s used locally for irrigation and domestic needs, then 

flows into the Owens River and is exported for domestic use. 

The area is incapable of ccmmercial timber production. 

Of the lands in this area, 15 percent are rated high in “era1 potential; 85 

percent are rated low. There are no active mining claims in the area. The 

Pine Creek Mine and other mmes along the southem boundary of the roadless 

area have produced a large part of the world supply of tungsten. 

D. NEED 

The area belongs to the southem Sierra Nevada physiographic provmce; 

current use of wildernesses in that province is extremely heavy. The area is 

typical of the province, except for its lack of water. This area adjoins the 

=sting John MLUr Wilderness; no other further planrung areas are nearby. 

Neither proponents nor opponents of wildemess have expressed interest in 

this particular area. 

E. ENVIFtO~ALcONSlQJE” 

Table C-7 indicates which management prescriptions were applied to (all or 

part) of the roadless area under each altemative. The narratives following 

the table discuss the effects of each prescription on the area m terms of 

present uses, wilderness attributes, and nonwildemess development 

opportunities. Resource and activity outputs for the area under each 

altemative are displayed in Table C-8. 

623 
Table 07 

Manamt Prescriptim Allocations 

by Alternative (M Acres and Percent of Area) 

Wler Czest (5040) 

Alternatives 

MaMgenren t Presniptim FRF CUR RPA CEJZ AMN AMB AMC 

2. Propxed Wildemess 16.2 16.2 

100% 1Kl% 

3. Wnmtain Sheep Habitat 7.7 7.7 7.7 

48% 48% 48% 

17. Semi-primitive Rec 8.5 8.5 8.5 

52% 52% 52% 

18. Multiple Resource Area 16.2 16.2 

100% 100% 

Designation: Wildemess 

prescription#: 2 

Altemative(s): AMN, AMC 

Effects on the Area: Wildemess designation would maintain the attributes of 

solitude and nakal intearitv that are characteristic of the area. Bicrhom I 

sheep managemnt "s-wouid be an essential consideration in determining 

wilderness recreation capacity. The many conflicting activities and human 

influences in the area would make wildemess administration difficult. 

Motorized recreation muld be eliminated fran the area. While limited by the 

lack of water, the amunt of primitive recreation would grow, particularly in 

the absence of vehicles. The experience offered would be of lower quality 

than that found in the adjacent John Muir Wilderness. 

Options to improve wildlife habitat mld be forqone. Bighorn sheep habitat 

would receive adequate protection. The scenic quality of the area as seen 

fran Highway 395 would receive maxi" protection. 

The area muld be withdrawn fran mineral entry upon designation as 

wilderness, resulting in a loss of mineral opportunity. No new mining claims 

could be located, and activities on mining claims with existing valid claims 

could be restricted. 

The Wells Meadow admnistrative site (of historical significance) would be 

hpacted, as the facility is currently used to for gwemment livestock 

grazing: that use could not continue in wilderness. 

There are m direct ecoIlcmic dependencies on this area. Social benefits 

would result fm increasing the munt of wildemess on the Forest and 

protecting an important viewshed. Econcmic costs muld be incurred fran the 

adminis.tration of wildemess regulations and construction of a trailhead. 

confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied undex mst conditions. 

No other foreseeable environmental changes or resource trade-offs repiring 

mitigation muld result. 

624 
Designation: hbnwildemess 

FTescription #: 3, 17 

Alternative(s): PRF, CUR, AMB 

Effects on the Area: Wildemess attributes would be essentially maintained 

for the eastem portion of the area, which would be managed with a bighom 

sheep emphasis. Roads, trails, and recreation use would be prohibited or 

modified. 

Wildemess attributes on the western portion of the area would be slightly 

mre affected than those on the east. Four-wheel drive recreation on 

existing mutes would be allowed to continue-and to increase. The potential 

for visual degradation would not be severe, however, as vehicles are mainly 

seen only fm within the area. 

Wildlife habitat manipulation options would be maintained. Managiment of 

bighorn sheep habitat would take priority over other management 

considerations on the eastem portion. 

Mimi-g opportunities would be retained: any new mining roads would be closed 

to the public. 

Use of Wells Meadow area for administrative livestock would remain unchanged. 

Eoonamic and social benefits would be few. The most significant cost wauld 

be the loss of potential wildemess designation. The option of sew State 

funding to develop a green sticker project for off-road vehicle use would be 

maintained. 

Confinement or contment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most conditions. (All wildfires would be controlled 

under the CUR alternative.) 

No other foreseeable envnn”ta1 changes or resource trade-offs would 

result. 

Visual quality would be maintained. 

Designation: Nonwildemess 

Prescription #: 18 

Alternative(s): FPA, CEE 

Effects on the Area: Wildexness attributes would deteriorate over time under 

this mesmiptions. As vehicle access i“ved, ORV use would increase with 

corresponding effects of natural appearan-ce and opportunities for solitude. 

As motorized use mcreased, opporturuties for primitive recreation would 

decrease. 

Four-wheel drive recreation would be allowed to contmue and to mcrease. 

Visual quality would deteriorate scmewhat, especially If new “ing roads 

were constructed or ORV tracks proliferated. 

625 
Options to imp- wildlife habitat wauld be maintained. Bighom sheep 

habitat would be managed for population viability, but would mt be 

emphasized. 

Mining opprhmities would be enhanced as access .throughout the area 

increased: any new mining roads could be left open for public access. 

Use of Wells Meadow area for achinistrative livestock would remain unchanged. 

Eamnic and social benefits would include improved opportunities for 

mtirized recreation and mining. The most significant wst would be the loss 

of potential wilderness designation. The option of seeking State fun- to 

develop a green sticker project for off-road vehicle use would be maintained. 

Confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under mst conditions. 

No other foreseeable envi?x”tal changes or resource trade-offs would 

result. 

626 
Table C-8 

Average Annual Outputs for Decades 1 and 5 

Wheeler Ridge (5040) 

Res- or Alternatives 

Activity Decade PRFCXJRRF'A~ AMNAMBAMC 

Reccmnnended Wildmess -- 0 0 0 16.2 0 16.2 

(M acres) 

Nonwildemess __ (M acres) 

16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 0 16.2 0 

Total Developed 1 

Recreation (M RVDs) 5 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dispersed Recreation 1 200 200 200 200 0 200 0 

(RVDs) 5 300 300 300 300 0 300 0 

Wildmess Recreation 1 0 0 0 0 352 0 352 

( RvDs ) 5 0 0 0 0 546 0 546 

Fish User Days 1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Grazing (AUMs) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Suitable Timber Land 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

(acres) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total Wildlife and 

(WFUDS) 5 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Gmss Benfits(M$) 1 3 3 3 3 5 3 5 

5 4 4 4 4 8 4 a 

costs (MS) 1 2 2 2 2 22 2 22 

5 2 2 2 2 6 2 6 

Net Benefits (M$) 1 1 1 1 1 -17 1 -17 

5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

627 

, 
LAUREL-M: GEE (#5045) Acres: 9,090 (80) 

A. D-PTIW 

The Laurel-McGee area lies in Mono County on the I”th Ranger District. 

The Md;ee Creek, Convict Lake, Laurel Canyon and Sherwin Creek Roads lead to 

and/or parallel the boundary. Several jeep roads and four conshcted trails 

lead into or across the area. 

The boundary is defined by the McGee Creek Road on the south, the Sherwin 

(seek Road on the north, the Sherwin Lakes trail on the northwest, the John 

Kuir Wilderness on the south and west, and the Forest Boundary on the east. 

The adjoining land is administered by the BLM, with some parcels in private 

ownership. The Laurel Canyon jeep road intzudes the area. 

The area lies on the eastem escarpnent of the Sierra Nevada, in the Lake 

(=mwley and Hot Creek watersheds. It is long and convoluted, and wraps 

around the lawer slopes of McGee, Laurel, and Bloody Pbuntains. Total lex-@& 

is 9 miles; width varies frcm 0.75 to 3 miles. Elevatims range from 7,160 

to 11,067 feet. 

Terrain ranges from steep to gradually slopirg, rolling to flat. The -sed 

rock of the upper slopes is metamorphic; the lower slopes consist mostly of 

glacial till. The oldest fossils yet found in the Sierra Nevada are in this 

area. The lateral mraines of Convict, Laurel, and Md;ee canyons and the 

terminal moraine of Sherwin (seek are classic examples of those features. 

Six miles of perennial stream, with fisheries throughcut, cross the area; 

there are four lakes. 

The pr ‘ t vegetation type is bitterbrush. 

Scenic variety in the area falls into class A, 65 percent; class B, 28 

percent; class C, 7 percent. McGee Mountain, the unnamed peak just east of 

Mt. Momism, and the lateral moraines listed above, are scenic landmarks 

from Highway 395; mst of the area serves as a scenic backdrop for the 

Mananoth Lakes Ccmrmnity. The sunmunding countryside is also scenic. Mt. 

Morrison, Laurel and Blmdy I%mtainS rise steeply to the west. Lake 

Crowley, the Glass Mmntains, Marrproth Knolls, “mth mmtain, and the 

Sierra crest are visible fm within the area. 

Current uses include recreakon, cattle grazing, and wildlife management. 

B. cApABU;ITY 

The natural ecological integrity of the area has been influenced to a low 

degree, and its natural appearance to a very low degree. I%st impacts are 

localized and/or very near the area houndq. Signs of human influence 

include several dirt roads, trails, an irrigation ditch, a powerline, a 

waterline, trailhead facilities, an organization camp, a cattle water tank, 

range fences, an effluent storage pcold, spoil piles at the Tiptop and Laurel 

mines, grazing, vegetation type ccolversion areas, and several cabins. 

-*ties for solitude are high. The area is large, especially in 

ccpnbination with adjoining wilderness. Tcpqraphic screening is high, but 

628 
vegetative screening is low. 

but high on the periphery. 

heard frcm the westem end of the area. 

Opportunities for prinutive recreation are also high. Large size is a 

factor, a1or.g with limited developnent and very diverse opportunities. Ski 

muntaineering offers significant challenge. 

The original inventory boundary would not be manageable as wilderness without 

adjustments. Terrain does not serve as an effective barrier against vehicle 

access. bbst of the impacts, conflicting uses, and terrain accessible by 

vehicle are near the periphery and could be excluded by a boundary revision. 

One parcel of roadless BLM land, encanpassing 100 acres, adjoins the area. 

C. AVWABILITY 

There would be several potential conflicts between wilderness designation and 

other resources and activities. Wilderness management would close the area 

to vehicles; if mads were not excluded by boundaq adjustment, me 

motorized recreation muld be lost; management of the grazing area would be 

mre difficult; use of the organization camp would be restricted. The 

effluent storage pond would represent a conflict unless the area boundary 

were revised to exclude the pond. The western half of the area would be 

affected by the sights and sounds of ski area use if the Sherwin Bowl 

potential ski area were developed. 

Developed recreation accounts for 4,500 RWs a year; hiking, stock travel, 

and camping, 5,000 RVDs; 4-wheel drive recreation, 6,400 RWs; and 

cross-countzy skiing, 200 RVDs. Big game hunting amounts to 6,000 WFUDs, 

anall game hunting, 2,600 WEWs, and fishing 11,000 WFUDs. There is sane 

helicopter skiing on McGee Pbmtain, and snowmobiling on the lower slopes. 

The Sherwin mule deer herd migrates through the area. 

are suitable for habitat manipulation. 

Water fm the area is used for local irrigation. It then flows into Lake 

Crowley, is used to generate hydroelectric per, and is .then exported for 

dcsnestic use. An effluent storage site is located near the boundary at 

Laurel Pond. 

Grazing represents 1,890 AUMs; maxi” potential is estimated at 2,265 AUMs. 

Existing qmements are valued at $9,000. 

The area contams 880 acres of tentakvely suitable timber land. Collnnercial 

species include Jeffrey pine and red fir. The remainder of the area is 

unsllltable for timber management. 

Of the lands in this area, 16 percent are rated hgh in mineral potential; 84 

percent are rated low. There are mre than 100 active mining claims in, or 

imnediately adjacent to the area, of which “e is currently prcducing. Some 

tungsten has been produced fm mines and prospects in, or adjacent to, the 

area. Subeconorm ‘c deposits of zinc, cop, silver, and lead have been found 

at Lucky Strike be; the potential for mre, similar deposits is high. 

Intrusions are low at the higher elevations, 

Noise fm the Sherwin mto-cmss track can be 

Approximately 30 acres 

629 
cultural resource values include an exceptionally large Indian encampnent 

site near Laurel Springs; there are also historic mining and range management 

sites. 

Potentially conflicting special uses include the Laurel Pond effluent 

facility and the Tobacco Flat Road. There are 80 acres of undevelopd 

private land. 

D. NEED 

The area belo~lgs to the southem Sierra Nevada physiosraphic province: 

current use of wildernesses in that province is extremely heavy. Most of the 

area is typical of the province. This area adjoins the existing John Muir 

wilderness; there are m neighkorhg further pl-g areas. 

Public inmlvment for the RARE I1 Study indicates little interest in the 

outcame of this area. 

E. 

Table 09 indicates which mgement prescriptions were applied to (all or 

part) of the area under each alternative. The narratives following the table 

discuss the effects of each prescripticm on the area in terms of present 

uses, wilderness attributes, and ranwilderness developtmt opportunities. 

Resource and activity outputs for the area under each alternative are 

displayed in Table 010. 

Table C-9 

Managansat Prescription Allocations 

by Alternative (M Acres and Percent of Area) 

Alternatives 

Lad McGee (5045) 

Managenen t Prescriptinn PRFClJRRPACEEAMNAMBAMc 

2. Proposed Wilderness 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 

1m 100% 1m 1m 

4. Mule Deer Habitat 0.8 

9% 

10. High Level Timber 1.1 

12% 

11. Range 0.5 1.3 7.0 

5% 14% 77% 

17. Semi-primitive Rec 7.8 7.8 1.0 

86% 86% 11% 

630 
Designation: Wilderness 

prescription #: 2 

Alternative(s): CEE, AMN, AMB, AMC 

Effects on the Area: Wilderness characteristics would be maintained, as new 

activities capable of affecting those characteristics would not be allowed. 

Opportunities for solitude would be enhanced, since numerous four-wheel drive 

roads would be closed to vehicle use. Management of the area as wilderness 

would be costly and difficult near the periphery; the many conflicting uses 

and potential for illegal vehicle encroachment would pose problems unless the 

boundary were adjusted. 

The primary recreation opportunities foregone would be motorized and wheeled 

vehicle use (including vehicle-based hunting, flshmg, camping, snowmobilmg, 

and all-terrain bicycle riding) and developed sites (such as the existing 

organization camp). Opportunities for primitive recreation, on the other 

hand, would be enhanced. 

The critical visual quality of the area would receive protection, 

preventing further degradation of this resource (except for impacts caused by 

the developent of existing nuning claims). 

An important deer migration route would be protected. Hunting and fishing 

would decline SCBnewhat, as much of the existing use is vehicle based. 

Although grazing would not be eliminated, opportunities to increase grazing 

outputs would be foregone. Use of the range allotment would be mre 

restrictive. 

Suitable timber occupying 880 acres would not be available for harvest. 

The area would be withdram from mineral entry upn designation as 

wilderness, resulting in a loss of mineral opportunitY. No new mining claims 

could be located, and activities on mining claims with existing valid claims 

could be restricted. Since profitable mining operations exist, and since 

there is evidence of additional mineral resources, there would be a predxted 

adverse effect on mineral opprhuuties. 

Social and e"ic dependencies mclude sheep and cattle grazing, mining, 

recreation, and special-use activities. Wilderness designation would not 

eliminate grazing or mining, but these activities would be considerably mre 

restricted. Costs associated with these operations would be greater than at 

present, with little or no opprtunity to increase outputs. 

Other adverse socioeconanic impacts would be associated with a sewage 

effluent storage pond, an organization camp, recreation residences, and 

helicopter skiing. 

Social benefits would be gained with mre Wilderness and lost with the loss 

of a popular four-wheel drive area. "derness management, including the 

enforcement of regulations (particula mg the north and east boundaries) 

would be costly. hail and tralhea. wts would also be associated with 

implementing this prescription. 

631 
or 0Coltai"t would be the awiate fire SUpFnession 

strategies applied under mst cnnditims. 

Designation: NcOlwilderneSS I 

Altemative(s): PRF I 

Prescription #: 4, 11, 17 

Effects on the Area: For the mast part, wilderness characteristics would be 

maintainea in the area. as the activities most cauable of affectins tbosd 

characteristics (such E& new road cM1st;NcticB1 or Eimber harvest) w&d 

restricted or prohibited. Gnly mineral activity and vegetation treatment foq 

wildlife could affect natural intfqrity and natural appearance.8 

wrturdties for solitude and primitive recreation would remain. essentiallx 

the same as at present. ~ 

I primary recreation opportunities would still include motorized and wheeled 

vehicle use (including vehicle-based hunthg, fishing, camping, Smwmobiling,~ 

and all-terrajn bicycle ridkg) as well as hiking and equestrian use. 

exi- organization camp oould continue in mation. The critical visum 

quality of the area would receive a high level of protection. 

An important deer migratiun mute would be protected, and vegetation could be, 

"ipulated to benefit wildlife. 

Although grazing would not be eliminated, oppx-hmities to increase grazirg 

outputs would be foregone as wildlife would have priority for any increases 

in forage. 

Suitable timber cccupying 880 acres would not be available for harvest, as 

those acres would be managed with an enphasis on primitive recreation. 

New mining claims could be filed, and mining activities would be subject only 

to applicable mhhg laws and coordination with other resources; any new 

mining roads would be closed to public use. 

The need for access to private inholdings would not conflict with the 

management of adjoining lands. 

Social and ewncnnic dependencies such as grazing, mining, motorized 

recreation, and special-use activities would benefit fmn the range of1 

management options available (in contrast with Wilderness). other 

sociceconanic benefits would be associated with maintenance of a sewage 

effluent storage pond, the organization camp, recreaticm residences, 

four-wheel drive recreation, and helicopter skiing. There would be a social 

chst in the lack of wilderness designatiun for an area with wilderness values 

slmilar to those in the adjoining John Muir Wilmss. 

Confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most conditions. 

No other foreseeable environmental changes or major resource tcadwffs 

requiring mitigation would result. 

I 

632 
Designation: Ncolwilderness 

Prescription #: 11, 17 

Alternative(s): (3uR 

Effects on the Area: Wildemess attributes of solitude, natural integriw 

and appearance would be little affected for most of the area. Near the 

periphery, however, those attributes would be degraded by activities such as 

recreation, grazing, wildlife, timber, and special uses. 

Motorized recreation would continue to increase; the increase would be 

greater under Prescription 11 as new public-roads would not be constructed 

under Prescription 17. "otorized recreation, especially in wmter, would 

also maintain a steady gmwth rate. 

There would be many potential jnipacts on visual resources; although overall 

visual mtegrity would be maintained, isolated impacts would occur throughout 

the area. 

Vegetation could be manipulated to impme grazing with temporanl effects on 

natural appearance. Other range improvements could be develaped; duck 

nesting habitat would probably be constructed at Laurel Pond and water 

sources and fencing added to the range alloiments. Range outputs would 

increase. 

Timber harvesting would be prohibited, as it would adversely affect 

emphasized recreation and wildlife values. 

The area would remain open to new mining claims. Mining activities muld be 

affected only by applicable regulations. New road construction or uwading 

of existing roads would be likely to result. New "ng mads would be 

closed to public use unless they fell within lands administered under 

Prescription 11. 

Existirg ~rovements mld not be affected. 

special uses would exist. 

Eooncsluc benefits would occur fm increasing grazing, motorized recreation 

(including hunting and fisking), and mining opprtumties. Social costs 

would include a loss of potential wilderness designation for an area with 

wilderness qualities canparable to the existing John MLllr Wildemess. 

All wildfires would be controlled under the CUR alternative. 

No other foreseeable environmental changes or major resoucce tradeaffs 

wring mitigation would result. 

'The option to permit additional 

Designation: Nonwildemess 

prescription #: 10, 11, 17 

Alternative(s): RPA 

Effects on the Area: The effects of this mbmation of prescriptions would 

be similar to the effects of 11 and 17 discussed above. The only difference 

would be mercial timber harvest affecting 880 acres of .trees over a 

1,100-acre area. Additional roads would be built, mpming access to the 

633 
area. The appearance of vegetation would shift from nahral to managed. 

Existing recreational use of those lands would drop. Mining opportunities 

would be enhanced as access throughout the area would be increased. All 

wildfires would be controlled on lands under Prescription 10. 

The ec"ic hefit muld munt to 134,OM) bard feet of timber in the 

first decade, dropping to 78,000 board feet by the fifth decade. 

634 
Table C-10 

Average Annual Outputs for Decades 1 and 5 

Laurel-MCGee (5045) 

Resource or Alternatives 

Activity Decade PFU? (XTR RPA CEEAMNAMBAMC 

Rem&& Wildexness -- 0 0 0 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 

(M acres) 

Nonwildexness -- 9.1 9.1 9.1 0 0 0 0 

(M acres) 

Total Developed 1 4500 4500 4500 0 0 0 0 

Recreation ( RVDs) 5 4500 4500 4500 0 0 0 0 

Dispersed Recreation 1 11600 11600 11600 0 0 0 0 

( RVDs 1 5 17400 17400 17400 0 0 0 0 

Wildexness Recreation 1 0 0 0 18000 18000 18000 18000 

( Rms ) 5 0 0 0 19500 19500 19500 19500 

Total Wildlife and 

Fish User Days 1 19600 19600 19600 15000 15000 15000 15000 

(WFUDS) 5 29400 29400 29400 22500 22500 22500 22500 

Grazing (AUMs) 1 1890 1965 1965 1890 1890 1890 1890 

5 1890 2265 2265 1890 1890 1890 1890 

Suitable Timber Land 1 0 0 882 0 0 0 0 

( acres ) 5 0 0 882 0 0 0 0 

(-) 1 0 0 .021 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 -012 0 0 0 0 

Timber Volume 

1 0 0 .134 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 -078 0 0 0 0 

Gross Benefits (PI$) 1 597 612 616 572 572 572 572 

5 791 799 801 848 848 848 048 

costs (PI$) 1 465 475 479 46 46 46 46 

5 123 131 132 64 64 64 64 

Net Benefits (I@) 1 132 137 137 526 526 526 526 

1 668 558 669 784 784 784 784 

635 
HORSE MEADohl (#5049) Aces: 5,580 

A. DE€RIPJ!ICBI 

The Horse Meadow area lies in MOM3 Caunty on the Pknm Lake Ranger District. 

Several dirt roads lead fran Highway 395 or the Tioga Pass Road to the area 

boundary. 

The boundary is defined by the Parker Lake road on the south, the Big Bend 

mqxpmmd road on the mdh, the Minarets Wilderness on the west, and 

several dirt roads on the east. 

The area lies on the east side of the Sierra Nevada in the "I Lake 

watershed. It is irregular in shape, consisting of three arms projecting 

fmm a center. Each arm is 2-3 miles long and 0.25 to 0.5 mile wide. 

Elevations range fran 6,880 to 8,841 feet. 

The terrain ranges fmm rolling to steep. The lower slopes lie on glacial 

mraines; the upper elevations on precipitous cliffs of exposed metamrphic 

rock. The lateral moraines below Bloody Canyon are geologically significant 

because they provided the evidence that led to Russell's hypothesis that 

there had been mre than one glacial episcde in the Sierra Nevada. There 

are four miles of perennial stream, of which two miles contain trout, but m 

lakes. 

Primary vegetation typs are eastside pine, bitterbrush, big sagebrush, and 

pine-juniper woodland. There are several large, scenic meadows. 

Scenic variety in the area falls into class A, 67 percent: class B, 33 

percent. The footkills of the Sierra Crest, Williams Butte, the lower 

slopes of Lee Vining Canyon are scenic landmarks fm Highways 395 and 120. 

There are several large, scenic meadows and aspen stands within the area: 

fall colors are outstanding. The surrounding area is also scenic. I@m 

Lake and the MOM3 Craters are seen to the east: Bloody Canyon and the 

dramatic peaks of the Sierra Crest rise steeply to the west. 

Current uses include recreation and sheep grazing. 

Three trails cross the area. 

B. CAPABILITY 

The natural ecological integriw and natural appearance of the area have 

been influenced to a derate degree. Impacts include a buried penstock 

associated with hydroelectric generation on Lee Vining Creek, a mall water 

transportation ditch, sheep grazing scattered through the area, and a few 

unimproved roads. 

Opportunities for solitude are moderate to low. The area is fairly large, 

and screening is derate to high. There are, hever, intrusions frcm 

surrounding highways and scattered developnents: one protruding finger of 

the area lies within a mile of Highway 395. 

--ties for primitive recreation are low. There is little challenge 

or diversity. 

636 
The area would not be manageable as wildemess. Al.ulough me impacts could 

be excluded by major boundary adjustments, the natural intwity and 

appearance of the remaining area would not be significantly improved. The 

ease of access fm roads near and parallel to the boundary would make 

wilderness permit administfation quite difficult. 

C. AVAILABILITY 

The Horse Meadow area represents several trade-offs between wilderness 

designation and other resources or uses. In particular, wilderness 

management would eliminate the dispersed "corized recreation that now 

occurs in the area, and would "plicate interaction between National Forest 

management and the owners of adjoimhg private lands. 

Dispersed "otorized recreation amounts to 400 RVDs; motorized recreation, 

200 RVDs; big game hunting, 200 WRTDs, and fishing 100 WFUDs. 

App"ate1y 540 acres are suitable for wildlife habitat manipulation. 

The majority of water from the area is channeled under Deahan S"c into 

the Owens River, used to generate hydroelectric power, and exp3rted for 

astic use. The remainder is used locally for hestic and livestock 

needs, or flows into Mono Lake for wildlife needs. 

Grazing accounts for 2,000 AUMS of use per year; maximum potential is 

estimated at 2,150 AM. 

The area contains no land suitable for ccmnnercial timber management. 

Of the lands in this area, 29 percent are rated med" in mineral potential; 

71 percent are rated low. There are no active mining claims. 

Special uses include water gauging devices and an associated access road. 

Range improvements are valued at $6,000. 

D. NEED 

The area belongs to the muthem Sierra Nevada physicgraphlc province; 

current use of wildmesses in that provmce is extremely heavy. The area 

is mewhat typical of the province, but is lower in elevation and more arid 

than the most popular wildmesses. This area adjoins the existing Ansel 

Adams wildemess and is near the Tioga Lake and Log Cabin-Saddlebag further 

planrung areas. 

public involvement for the RARE 11 study indicated local interest in 

maintaining this area as nonwildemess. The area receives heavy recreation 

use, much of which is vehicle-based. The e"ny of the June Lake Loop 

depends on revenue related to that recreation. Due to the amount of 

adjoining private land and the nuinber of unimproved roads, local peaple do 

not see wilderness values in the area. Local Indians use the area for pine 

nut gathering. 

637 
E. ~CDNSEXWEXES 

Table C-11 indicates which management prescriptions were applied to (all or 

part) of the area under each alternative. The narratives following the 

table discuss the effects of each prescription on the area in terms of 

present uses, wildmess attributes, and mwilderness developnent 

opprtunities. Resource and activity outputs for the area undw each 

alternative are displayed in Table C-12. 

Table C-11 

Managanent Prescriptirm Allocations 

by Alternative (M Acxes and Percent of Area) 

Horse Meadow (5049) 

Alternatives ~~~ -~ 

Managanen t Prescription PRFCURRPACEEAMNAMBAMC 

2. Fropsed Wilderness 5.6 5.6 - 

100% 100% 

11. Range 5.6 5.6 

100% 100% 

17. Semi-&unitive Rec 5.6 5.6 5.6 

100% 100% 100% 

Designatiun: Wildemess 

Prescription #: 2 

Altemative(s): AMN, AMC 

Effects on the Area: Where they exist, the wilderness attributes of natural 

appearance and integriw muld be maintained. Opprhmities for finding 

solitude would increase upon eliminating vehicle use. However, it would be 

difficult to avoid the evidence of human influence in much of the area. It 

would be difficult and costly to manage the area as wilderness, since the 

terrain does mt readily restrict vehicle access at many locations. 

&sting motorized recreation use would be lost. The primitive recreation 

that would displace the motorized recreation would OC(SUT at a relatively low 

intensity canpared with that found in the adjacent Ansel Adams wildemess. 

The valuable visual quality of this area as viewed fran local scenic highways 

and the Mom Basin National Forest Scenic Area would receive 

protection. 

Options to manipulate vegetation for wildlife habitat improvement would be 

foregone. 

Grazing would be maintained. However, activities associated with the grazing 

of the area would be considerably more restricted, and ultimately, rmre 

costly. 

The area would be withdrawn fran mineral entry upon designation as 

wilderness, resulting in a loss of minexal opportunity. No new mining claims 

could be located, and activities on mining claims with existing valid claims 

could be restricted. 

638 
Conflicts would be likely between management of this area and that of 

adjoining private lands would be evident. 

Grazing is the only econanic depadency on the area. Recreation use 

generates the greatest revenue associated with the area. While the type of 

use would change, the munt of use would remain fairly constant. Therefore, 

mdc changes would be minor. Costs for developins trails and a trailhead 

would result. The greatest social benefit would be a formal wilderness 

designation. 

Confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under mst conditions. 

No other foreseeable envirunmental changes or major resource trade-offs would 

result. 

Designation: Nonwildemess 

Rescription #: 17 

Altemative(s): PRF, AMB, CEE 

Effects on the Area: Wilderness attributes would be little affected by 

auulication of this urescriution. as vehicle access would be limited to 

existing routes. 

Visual resources would be protected to a high degree by application of visual 

quality objectives and limitations on the proliferation of roads. Wildlife 

would also benefit from limitations on increased access. 

Options to manipulate vegetation for wildlife habitat or livestock would 

re" available; under this prescription, "eased forage would probably go 

to wildlife. 

The area would remain open to new mining claims; any new mining roads would 

be closed to public use. 

Activities Occurring on adjacent private lands, and under special use permit 

on National Forest Lands, would generally not be in conflict with the overall 

management objectives of the area. 

Social and ecodc consequences would be few. The greatest social cost 

would be a loss of potential wilderness designation. Grazing and recreation 

activities would continue with opportunities for some further developent. 

Confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under mst conditions. 

No other known environmental changes or resource trade-offs requiring 

mitigation muld result. 

Designation: Nonwildemess 

Prescription #: 11 

Altemative(s): RPA, CUR 

Effects on the Area: The effects of this prescription would be similar to 

those of Prescription 17 discussed abare. The primary difference would be a 

subtle change of emphasis fm dispersed recreation and wildlife to domestic 

The present- recreation use would be maintained. 

639 
livestock grazing. Any vegetation -treatment would probably be undertaken to 

benefit livestock rather than deer. Although road construction would be 

allowed, it is unlikely that any new roads would be developd for wses of 

grazing administration. If any roads were constructed, they could be open 

for public use. 

confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most wnditim. (All wildfires would be controlled 

under the (XIR alternative. ) 

640 
Table C-12 

Average Annual Cutputs for Decades 1 and 5 

Horse Meadow (5049) 

~esource or Alternatives 

Activity Decade PRFCXRRPA CEEAMNAMBAMC 

Remended Wildemess -- 0 0 0 0 5.6 0 5.6 

(M acres) 

Nonwilderness __ 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 0 5.6 0 

(M acres) 

Total Developd 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Recreation (M RVDs) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dispersed Recreation 1 600 600 600 600 0 600 0 

( Rms ) 5 900 900 900 900 0 900 0 

Wildemess Recreation 1 0 0 0 0 700 0 700 

(RVDS) 5 0 0 0 0 800 0 800 

Total Wildlife and 

Fish User Days 1 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 

(WS) 5 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 

Grazing (AUMS) 1 2030 2030 2030 2030 2000 2030 2000 

5 2150 2150 2150 2150 2000 2150 2000 

Suitable Timber Land 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

(acres ) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

(") 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Timber Volume 

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

42 39 42 39 

56 47 56 47 

Gross Benefits(%) 1 42 42 42 

5 56 56 56 

Costs (PSI 1 

5 

20 20 20 20 27 20 27 

28 28 28 28 23 28 23 

Net Benefits (M$) 1 22 22 22 22 12 22 12 

5 28 28 20 28 24 28 24 

641 
TICGA LAKE (#5050) Acres: 920 

A. DESCRIPTION 

Tl-e Ticga Lake area lies in I%no county on the Mono Lake Ranger District. 

The Tioga Pass Road leads to within 0.1 mile of the boundary. An unimproved 

trail leads across the area into the wilderness. 

The boundary is defined by the Tioga Pass Road on the north and west, the 

Minarets Wilderness on the east, and the Forest boundary on the south. 

Adjoinirg lands are administered by the National Park Service. 

The area lies on the east side of the Sierra Nevada in the MOM, Lake 

watershed. It is mughly rectangular, 2 miles long by 1 mile wide. 

Elevations range fm 9,500 to 11,360 feet. 

Most of the terrain is very steep, as the area lies on the upper wall of Lee 

vining Canyon. There are a few small benches, and gentle meadmy slopes. The 

exposed rock is metavolcanic and metasedimentary. The canyon has been 

glacially scoured, and the area lies at the muth of a hanging valley cut off 

by a glacier. Flowirg across the area are 1.5 miles of stream, but ra 

fisheries; there are a few mall tans in the southwest corner. 

The primary vegetation type is lodgepole pine forest. 

alpine shrub, and barren areas are also present. 

The entire area falls into variety class A. The canyon wall and hanging 

valley are scenic ldarks from the Ticga Pass Road. The surrounding area 

is extremely scenic, with Mt. Dana and the Dana Plateau above, Lee Vining 

Canyon below, and "o Lake in the distance. 

The only current use is recreation. 

B. CAPABILITY 

The natural ecological integrity of the area is essentiall.7 unmodified; its 

natural appearance has been altered to a very low degree. A perline that 

crosses the area is buried, but the scar of vegetation remmal remains; an 

maintained trail is the only other sign of human disturbance. 

Opprtunities for solitude are derate. The area is larye in canbination 

with adjoining wilderness and National Park backcountry, and there is gd 

vegetative screening. Topographic screening, however, is pr and there are 

many visual intrusions from developnents and activities along the Tioga Pass 

Road. 

opportunities for primitive recreation are high. Size and the absence of 

facilities enhance these opportunities and there are some challenges. 

The existing boundary would be manageable as wilderness; the only impact is a 

pipeline which would not be easy to separate by a boundary adjustment. 

Subalpine fir forest, 

642 
C. AVAILABILITY 

The Tiqa Lake area represents no major trade-offs between wildemess 

designation and other resources and uses. 

Recreation includes dispersed nomotorized recreation (200 RVDs) and big game 

hunting (200 WFUDs) . 

Water from the area flows into Lee Vining Creek, where it is used for power 

generation. Pbst of this water is then channeled into the Owens mver and 

exported for damestic use; the remainder is used locally for irrigation, 

mining, or livestock watering or released into Mono Lake for wildlife. 

The area is incapable of cannercia1 timber pduction. 

Of the lands in this area, all are rated low in mineral potential. There are 

two active mining claims for mlyWenm and tungsten in the area, of which 

neither is prcducmg. Samples show low value for those merals and a low 

level of potential for other valuable minerals. A mineral entry withdrawal 

covers 100 acres. 

D. NEED 

The area belongs to the southem Sierra Nevada physiographic province; 

current use of wildemesses in that province is extremely heavy. The area is 

typical of the province. This area adjoins the existing Ansel Adams 

wildemess and is near the Hall and Lcg Cabm-Saddlebag further plmg 

areas. 

public involvement for the RARE I1 study indicated little lnterest in the 

outccsne of this area. Wildemess proponents did not identify it as a target 

area. Local residents see it as wildemess already. 

E. IPWIFX3~ALcoNs~CES 

Table C-13 mdcates which management prescriptions were applied to (all or 

part) of the area under each altemative. The narratives following the table 

discuss the effects of each prescription on the area in terms of present 

uses, wilderness attributes, and mnwildemess developent opportunities. 

Resource and activity outputs for the area under each alternative are 

displayed in Table C-14. 

643 
Table C-13 

MaMgenent prescription Allocations 

by Alternative (M Acses and Percent of Area) 

Tioga Lake (5050) 

Alternatives 

Manag” t Presmipticn PRFCURRPACEEAMNAMBAM: 

2. Proposed Wilderness 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

17. Semi-primitive Rec 0.9 0.9 

Designation: Wilderness 

prescription #: 2 

Alternative(s): PRF, CEE, AMN, AMB, AMC 

Effects on the Area: Wilderness designation mld maintain the wilderness 

attributes of the area. The type of use received would be similar to the 

contiguous Ansel Adams Wildemess and Yosemite National Park backcowtry; the 

amount of use mld be expected to increase under wilderness designation. 

The inventory b0wCh-y would not be difficult or costly to administer as 

wilderness. 

Designation as wilderness would provide the highest degree of visual 

protection for this area as it would be viewed fram the Ticga Pass Road (a 

scenic highway). 

The area muld be withdrawn from mineral entry upon designation as 

wilderness, resulting in a loss of mineral opprtunity. No new mining claims 

could be located, and activities on mining claims with existing valid claims 

could be restricted. 

There are m k” direct social or BcoM3mic dependencies on the area. A 

slight ecoraanic benefit would result €ran increased wilderness recreation. 

Social benefits muld me fm formal wilderness designation. Wilderness 

management of this area would ccmplement that of the surrounding wilderness. 

Confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under mst oonditions. 

No other foreseeable environmental changes or resource trade-offs wring 

mitigation muld result. 

Designation: Nonwilderness 

hrescription #: 17 

Alternative(s): CUR, RPA 

Effects on the Area: Wilderness values would be little affected as vehicle 

access would be limited, both by the management prescription and by the steep 

terrain. The only other potential impact on wilderness quality would be road 

access for mining purposes. 

Dispersed recreation activities (hunting, hiking, ice-climbing and camping) 

would increase only slightly. Visual quality would remain high, to meet the 

retention VQO. 

644 
The area would remain open to new rmning claims; only applicable mining 

restrictions would affect activities. New roads constructed for mining 

access mld be closed to the public. 

Eccolanic and social benefits would mt change. 

of potential wilderness designation. 

confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under mst conditions. (All wildfires would be controlled 

under the CUR alternative.) 

No other foreseeable envimmmtal changes or resource trade-offs requiring 

mitigation would result. 

A social cost would be a loss 

645 
Table 014 

Average Annual Outputs for Decades 1 and 5 

Tioga Lake (5050) 

Resource or Altematives 

Activity Decade F'RF(I1RRE'A CEXAMNAMBAMC 

Remended Wildemess -- 0.9 0 0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 

(M acres) 

Nonwildemess -- 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 0 0 

(M acres) 

Total Develop3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Recreation (M RVDs) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dispersed Recreation 1 0 200 200 0 0 0 0 

( RVDs ) 5 0 300 300 0 0 0 0 

Wildemess Recreation 1 620 0 0 620 620 620 620 

( RmS ) 5 750 0 0 750 750 750 750 

Total Wildlife and 

(WS) 5 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 

Fish User Days 1 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 

Grazing (AUMs) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Suitable Tim& Land 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

( acres ) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

(") 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Timber Volume 

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

11 11 11 11 

16 16 16 16 

mss Benefits(%) 1 11 6 6 

5 16 9 9 

Costs (MS) 1 7 3 3 7 7 7 7 

5 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 

Net Benefits (W) 1 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 

5 15 5 5 15 15 15 15 

646 
Hw NATURAL- AREA (#5051) Acres: 5,029 

A. DESCRIFL'ION 

The Hall Natural acea lies in Mono County on the Mono Lake Ranger District. 

The Tioga Pass and Saddlebag Lake Roads lead to and parallel the boundary. 

An improved road leads into the area to rustic facilities at the qrment 

station. There are no unproved .trails, but cross-wuntry foot travel is 

easy. 

The boundary is defined by the Tioga Pass Road on the south, the Hwver 

Wildemess on the north, the Saddlebag Lake Road on the east, and the Forest 

boundary on the west. Adjoining lands are achinistered by the National Park 

Service. 

The area lies on the east side of the Sierra Nevada in the Mcolo Lake 

watershed. It is rectmgular, 6 miles long by 2 miles wide. Elevations 

range fm 9,600 feet to 12,590 feet at Mt. Conness. 

Terrain is extremely rugged: slope varies fm moderate to steep. There are 

many points of geologic interest. The eastern fourth of the area is 

metasedimentary: the westem three-fourths, gramtic. Cirques, U-shaped 

valleys, polish, and till are signs of recent glaciation. There are also 

several currently active glaciers in the area. There are 12 miles of 

perennial stream, of which 5 miles wntam trout. 

Primary vegetation types are lodgepole pme forest and alpme shrub, in 

roughly equal proprtions. There are mre than 500 species of flowering 

plants, and a grove of outstanding muntain hemlock specmens. 

The entire area falls into variety class A. The surrounding area is also 

extremely scenic. The rugged granite peaks of the Yosmite National Park 

backwuntry can be seen west fm the ridge: Saddlebag Lake and the Twenty 

Lakes Basin are visible to the north, and Mt. Warren and Lee VWg Peak to 

the east. 

The area is currently used prmarily for scientific research, and sewndarily 

for daytme recreation. 

B. CAPABILITY 

The natural ecological integrity of the area has been influenced to a very 

low degree: its natural appearance to a low degree. There is a cut-and-fill 

road and rustic facilities associated with an experiment station belonging to 

the Carnegie Insitution. 

Wrtunities for solitude are high. The area is large, especially 111 

ccpnbination with adjoining wilderness and National Park backwmtry. 

Topographic screening is excellent, though there is little vegetative 

screening: there are ~3 visual intrusions. 

Opprtunities for primitive recreation are high. Challenge and &versity are 

limited only by existing managment of the area, which precludes overnight 

use. 

647 
Spcial features include the essentially undisturbed alpine plant "unity, 

and a rare insect (Behr's sulfur butterfly). The Hall area has been heavily 

used for botanical research since the late 1920's. Dr. John C. Merriam wrote 

in 1932, "this natural area may be one of the most significant opportunities 

for certain aspects of scientific research in this wuntcy." R.V. Stuart, 

Chief of the Forest Smite, proposed the area for management with a research 

emphasis in the same year with the following words: "There was ccmplete 

agreement that the future value of the area for such [scientific] pu1p3ses 

undoubtedly transcended any other values or uses to which it might be 

dedicated. " 

The original inventory boundary would not be manageable as wilderness. 

Although adjustments wuld separate all impacts, even the revised boundary 

would not be definable on the ground. 

C. AVWABILITY 

The Hall Natwal area represents one potential trade-off between wilderness 

designation and other management opportunities. The majority of the roadless 

area is designated as a research natural area (RNA). The uses and managemnt 

direction appropriate to an RNA may Mt always be ccanpatible with those 

appropriate to wilderness. 

Dispersed mtorized recreation munts to 5,000 RVDs; fishing munts to 

1,100 WFUDs. There is a short interpretive trail to the Bennetville hlstoric 

site. 

Water from the area flows into Lee Vining Creek, where it is used to generate 

hydroelectric per. Much of the water is then exported for dcsnestic use, 

while the remainder is used locally for dmestic and livestock needs, or 

released into Mono L&e for wildlife. 

Appmxhately 260 acres are suitable for wildlife habitat manipulation. 

The Hall Research Natural Area includes 3,883 of the area's 5,209 acres. 

The area is incapable of ccmnercial timber prOauction. 

Of the lands in this area, 61 percent are rated medim in mineral potential; 

30 percent are low. There are 10 active mining cl- in the area, of which 

norm are currently producing. Geologic features indicate subeconomic levels 

of gold and silver near the Great Sierra Mine. There is low to moderate 

potential for mlybaenum and tungsten in the eastem part of the area. 

Outstan- reserved mineral rights mer 100 acres: 4,000 acres have been 

withdrawn from mineral entry. 

Cultural resource values lnclude signs of prehistoric occupancy and historic 

mining. 

Research station facilities and access road are maintained under a 

cooperative agreement with the Camegie Institution. 

648 
D. NEED 

The area belongs to the southern Sierra Nevada physiographic province; 

current use of wildernesses in that pmince is extremely heavy. The area is 

typical of the province. This area adjoins the -sting H-r wilderness 

and Yosemite National Park backcountry; it is near the Ticga Lake and JLg 

Cabin-Saddlebag further planning areas. 

Public involvement for the RARE I1 study indicated no strong mterest in the 

outme for this area. However, Forest correspondence files indicate that in 

1971 the Sierra Club raised the question of designating the area as 

wilderness. The Camegie Institution has not expressed itself on the 

subject. 

E. E"MENTALC0Ns" 

Table C-15 rndicates which managment prescriptions were applied to (all or 

part) of the area under each alternative. The narratives following the table 

discuss the effects of each prescription on the area in terms of present 

uses, wilderness attributes, and nonwildemess developent opportunities. 

Resource and activity outputs for the area under each alternative are 

displayed in Table C-16. 

Local people see this area as wilderness already. 

Table C-15 

Managmk=nt Prescription Allocations 

by Alternative (M Acxes and Percent of Area) 

Hall Natural (5051) 

Alternatives 

Managemsl t Prescription PRF~RPACEEAMNAMBAMC 

2. Promsed Wildemess 5.2 5.2 5.2 - 100% 100% 100% 

5. Research Natural Area 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 

75% 75% 75% 75% 

17. Semi-Primitive Rec 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 

25% 25% 25% 25% 

Designation: Wilderness 

Prescription #: 2 

Altemative(s): CEE, AMN, AMC 

Effects on the Area: Wilderness designation would maintain the wildemess 

attributes of the area, a character similar to the contiquous wilderness area - and Yosemite National. Park. As the majoriw of the area would also be 

designated as a research natural area (RNA), management conflicts could 

easily develop. The purposes and uses of Wilderness and RNAs are not 

entirely ccsnpatible. Gvemight recreation use would continue to be 

prohibited, but day use would ncrease to approximately the same levels as 

neighbring wildernesses. Research activities would be mre costly and 

restricted. The inventory boundary would be d_lfficult and costly to 

abnster as wilderness. 

Use of the area would not change, except that recreation use of the 1,300 

acres outside the RNA would increase to levels similar to those ~II adjacent 

649 
wildernesses. Many of the potential wilderness recreation opportunities 

within the RNA could not be fully realized. 

Under wilderness designation, the Bennetville interpretive site would be 

eliminated, representing a lost opporhmi~ to interpret cultural values. 

The amount of fishing would not change markedly. 

Most of the area is presently withdrawn fm mineral en*. vp>n 

designation, the n”C3 ’ er of the area would be withdrawn. No new mining 

claims could be located, and activities on minhg claims with existing valid 

claims could be restricted. 

Existing research facilities (a road and buildings) under a cooperative 

apeemant with the Carnqie Institution would present a nonconformixg use 

within wilderness. Unless specifically exempt by a cangressional act, these 

facilities would be rermved. 

Only mimr econcmic benefits would occur, as mst of the potential to 

increase wilderness recreation would be lost due to the restriction on 

overnight camping within the RNA. The social benefit of wilderness 

designation would be gained. There would be mcreased costs associated with 

wilderness admimstration. .I 

Confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most conditions. 

No other foreseeable environmental changes or resource tradeoffs requiring 

mitigation would result. 

Designation: Nonwilderness 

prescription #: 5 and 17 

Altemative(s): PRF, WR, FPA, AM3 

Effects on the Area: Wilderness values would be little affected, as the area 

would either remain within the RNA or be manaued under limited vehicle 

access. The only activity that would be likely affect this area would be 

mini3-g. 

Research activities would not be subject to conflicting management 

direction. Nomtorized daytime recreation would not change frcm the current 

situation. The historical interpretation would continue, and options to 

actively manage cultural properties would remain available. While the visual 

‘ resource would receive considerable protection, the potential for activities, 

such as mining, that could affect it would remain on the 1,300 acres outside 

the RNA. 

me area outside the RNA would remain open to new mining claims; only 

applicable mining restrictions would affect activities. New mining roads 

would be closed to the public. 

Eooncsnic and social benefits would not change. A social cost would be a loss 

of potential wildemess designation. A benefit would be the continued 

scientific emphasis within the Hall RNA. 

650 
Confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most conditions. (All wildfires would be controlled 

under the CUR alternative.) 

No 0th- foreseeable environmental changes or resource trade-offs requirmg 

mitigation would result. 

651 
Table C-16 

Average Annual Outputs for IRcades 1 and 5 

Hall Natural (5051) 

Rescqnw= or Allmmatives 

Activity Decade PRFWFU’A CEEAMNAMBAMC 

Recarmended Wilderness -- 0 0 0 5.2 5.2 0 5.2 

(M acres) 

Nanwilderness 

(M acres) 

Total Developd 

Recreation (M RVDs) 

Dispersed Recreation 

( RVDs ) 

Wilderness Recreation 

( RVDs ) 

Total Wildlife and 

Fish User Days 

(WS) 

Grazing (AUMS) 

Suitable Timber Land 

(acres) 

Timber Volume 

(W) 

Gross Benefits(%) 

Costs (%) 

Net Benefits (%) 

-- 

1 

5 

1 

5 

1 

5 

1 

5 

1 

5 

1 

5 

1 

5 

1 

5 

1 

5 

1 

5 

1 

5 

5.2 

0 

0 

5000 

7500 

0 

0 

1100 

1650 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

112 

169 

25 

37 

87 

132 

5.2 

0 

0 

5000 

7500 

0 

0 

1100 

1650 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

112 

169 

25 

37 

87 

132 

5.2 

0 

0 

5000 

7500 

0 

0 

1100 

1650 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

112 

169 

25 

37 

87 

132 

0 0 5.2 0 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 5000 0 

0 0 7500 0 

7500 7500 0 7500 

10000 loo00 0 loo00 

1100 1100 1100 1100 

1650 1650 1650 1650 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

119 119 112 119 

173 173 169 173 

26 26 25 26 

11 11 37 11 

93 93 a7 93 

162 162 132 162 

652 
LOG CABIN-SADDLEBAG (#5052) Acres: 17,093 

A. DESCIUETION 

The Log Cabin-Saddlebag area lies in Mom County on the Mono Lake Ranger 

District. Highway 395 and the Ticga Pass, Saddlebag Lake, and Lundy Lake 

Roads lead to and parallel the boundary. Two constructed trails and a few 

user trails lead into the area; a minirg mad lntrudes to the center of the 

area. 

The boundary is defined by the Tiqa Pass Road on the south, the Hmer 

Wilderness on the west, the Lundy Lake Road on the ~rth, and Highway 395 on 

the east. 

The area lies on the east side of the Sierra Nevada, in the Mom Lake 

watershed. It is irregular in shape, appraximately 7 miles long and ranging 

from 0.25 to 4 miles wide. Elevations range fm 6,640 feet to 12,327 feet 

at Mt. Warren. 

Terrain €om a steep-sided plateau consisting of glacially-scoured 

metasedimentary rock. There are nine miles of perennial stream, of which two 

nules contain trout, and one lake. 

primary vegetation types are lodgepole pine forest, subalpme fir forest, 

mountam mahogany, low sagebrush, and barren areas. 

Scenic variety in the area falls into class A, 93 percent; class B, 7 

percent. Mono me, Lee Vining Peak, Mt. Warren, and Ticga Peak are all 

scenic lanfhnarks fm Highway 395 and the Ticga Road. The surrounding area 

is also extremely scenic. Lee Vining Canyon and the peaks of the Sierra 

crest can be seen to the east and south; Lw Canyon, Lundy Lake, and the 

Mono-Walker divide to the north; Mono Lake and the WXIO Craters to the east; 

and the White and Sweetwater Mountains on the eastem horizon. 

Current uses include recreation and grazmg. 

B. WABILITY 

The natural ecolcgical integrity of the area has been influenced to a low 

wee; its natural appear- to a moderate degree. Impacts include an 

underground water tank, a 6-inch pipeline, an abandoned telegraph line, 

inactive "ng sites including tailmgs and diggings, sheep grazmg on 

meadows in the center of the area, and many unimpruved roads near the eastern 

boundary. 

Opportunities for solitude are high. The area is large, especially in 

ccmbination with adjoining wildemess and National Park backcomky. 

Screening and visual intrusions are moderate. 

Opprtunities for primitive recreation are moderate. The axea is large, 

especially in mbmation with adjoining wildemess. There is a moderate 

amount of &versity and challenge. 

653 
The original inventory boundary would be manageable as wilderness only with 

major adJuStmentS. Adjustments could exclude impacts along the eastern and 

western edges. Approximately 3,000 acres would be lost, and mst unmpmved 

mads would be eliminated. Only mining impacts, grazing, and a waterline 

would remain. 

C. AVAILABILITY 

The Log Cabin-Saddlebag area represents a few trade-offs between wilderness 

designation and other resources and activities. If the boundary were not 

adjusted, the potential for few-wheel drive recreation on the area's 

unimprwed mads muld be foregone. Some aspects of Scenic Area management 

could conflict with wilderness management, but the details of the latter have 

yet to be developed. 

Dispersed nomtorized recreation presently accounts for 400 RVDs: fishing, 

200 ms. 

The eastern-most 4,806 acres of the area lie within the Mono Basin National 

Forest Scenic Area, designated by Congress in 1984. The Scenic Area was 

designated with the intention of emphasizing public enjoyment and 

interpretation of the outstanding scenic and scientific values of the Mono 

BaSin. 

Peregrine falcons have been inbmduced, and California bighorn sheep have 

been proposed for intmduction into Lee Vining Canyon: both species are 

likely to range into the area. Approximately 50 acres are suitable for 

wildlife habitat manipulation. 

Wst of the water fm the area is used locally for mining, irrigation, 

livestock, or danestic needs, then flaws into Mono Lake. Sane is diverted 

into the Owens River and exported for hydroelectric power generation and 

danestic use. 

Grazing represents 800 AUMS of use per year: "m potential is estimated 

at 985 AW. 

The area contains no land suitable for mercial timber managaent. 

Of the lands in this area not already withdrawn 3 percent are rated high in 

mineral potential; 31 percent are medim, and 56 percent are low. mre than 

100 claims were recorded for the entire area between 1895 and 1915; of these, 

7 claims are now active, but none are prcducing. Moderate levels of gold and 

silver are lrnown in the area of the Klondike, North Log Cabin, and Centipede 

Prospects and the Log Cabin and Lakeview Mines on the east side of the area 

and the Saddlebag Lake Prospect and Australian claim on the west. There is 

high potential for additional reserves near known deposits. There are also 

mimr a"ts of tungsten, copper, lead, and zinc. A mineral entry 

withdrawal covers 4,900 acres. 

(xlltural resource values include signs of prehistoric occupancy and historic 

mining. 

654 
D. NEEO 

The area belongs to the southem Sierra Nevada physicgraghx prwmce; 

current use of wildernesses in that prwince is extremely heavy. The area is 

typical of the province. This area adjoins the exlstirg Hmer wildemess 

and is near the Hall Natural and Tioga Lake further planning areas. 

public involvement for the RARE I1 study indicated some local mncem that 

the madless area boundary came too close to the town of Lee Vining. There 

was also local cnncem that wildemess designation might restrict the 

potential for mining developwnt in the area. 

E. -C3XiSTable C-17 indicates which mg-t prescriptions were applied to (all or 

part) of the area under each alternative. The narratives following the table 

discuss the effects of each prescription on the area in tem of present 

uses, wildemess attributes, and mwildemess developnent opprtumties. 

Resowce and activity outputs for the area under each alternative are 

displayed in Table C-18. 

Table C-17 

MaMganent prescription Allocations 

by Alternative (M Acxes and Percent of Area) 

% Cabin-Saddlebag (5052) 

Alternatives 

Manaq6En t prescriptian PRFCfJRRPACEEAMNAMBFWC 

2. Prow& - Wildemess 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.1 

100% 100% 100% 100% 

3. mnmtain Sheep Habitat 3.0 

18% 

6. MnnBasinNFScenic 4.8 4.8 4.8 (4.8) (4.8) (4.8) (4.8) 

Area* 28% 28% 28% 

11. Range 4.3 4.3 

25% 25% 

17. Semi-h-imitive Rec 9.3 8.0 8.0 

54% 47% 47% 

* Acres in parentheses indicate dual designation: Wild-ss MBNFSA. 

Designation: Wilderness 

Prescription #: 2 

Alternative(s): CEE, AMN, AMB, AMC 

Effects on the Area: Wildemess designation muld enhance the wildemess 

attributes of the area. The natural integrity, appearance and opprhnuties 

for finding solitude would be unproved with the exclusion of vehicles, roads, 

and various mimr inprw-ts. The type of use received would be similar to 

that in the contiguous Hoover Wildemess. The inventory boundary would be 

difficult and costly to administer as wildemess along the eastem edge, 

where there are many roads and influences of the town of Lee Vining. 

655 
ivbtorized recreation would be eliminated. The munt of recreation use would 

increase derately under wilderness designation. The wilderness experience 

would be scmewhat cmpranised by unnatural visual detractions associated with 

grazing, mining, old mads and off-site developnents. 

The level of grazjng would remain mnStant. 

vegetation or mtruct impmmts would be foregone. 

could not be used to facilitate use of the allotment. 

The area would be withdrawn frun mineral en* up designation as 

wilderness, resulting in a loss of mineral opprtunity. No new mining claims 

could be located, and activities on minirZg claims with existing valid claims 

could be restricted. 

Eoomnic depmdencies on the area include grazing, mining, and recreation 

(primarily vehicle-based). These activities would be adversely impacted by 

wilderness designation. The ecoMmic benefits asscciated with mre primitive 

recreation would not outweigh the losses of existing ecoMmic benefits. The 

greatest social benefit would be formal wilderness designation. 

Attrninistrative costs of managing the area would increase. There would also 

be costs associated with developing needed trails and a trailhead. 

Confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under mst conditions except within Prescription 6. 

No other foreseeable environmental changes or resource trade-offs requiring 

mitigation would result. 

Designation: Nonwildemess 

Prescription #: 3, 6, 17 

Altemative(s): PRF 

Effects on the Area: Wilderness attributes muld be essentially maintained 

for mst of the area. Approximately 18 percent of the area, primarily the 

slopes within Lee Vining Canyon, would he managed to pmide high quality 

bighom sheep habitat. hther 54 percent of the area would be managed under 

limited vehicle access. ?fYenty-eight percent would be managed for scenic and 

interpretive values as part of the Scenic Area. 

This cnnbination of managanent prescriptions would provide considerable 

protection for the natural integrity and appearance of the area. Recreation 

use would be little affected: however, mre strmgent vehicle access 

restrictions would be imposed to protect the scenic resource and bighom 

sheep habitat. I%torized recreation opportunities would be limited to 

existing routes. Opportunities for “mtorized recreation would remain 

high. 

Bigham sheep habitat would receive maximum protection. 

Danestic livestock grazing wuld probably be reduced in response to bighorn 

sheep habitat needs. 

The area would remain open to new mining claims, except for the 4,900 acres 

no.? under mineral withdrawal. New roads constructed for mining access would 

be closed to the public. 

Gpprhmities to manipulate the 

mtorized esUipnent 

656 
Direct ecornnic dependencies would be little affected. Opportunities to 

realize econcmic grauth, however, would be limited for certain activities. A 

social implication would be the loss of potential wildemess designation. 

Cbnfinenent or co"ent would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under mst wnditions except within prescription 6. 

No other foreseeable environmntal changes or resource txade-offs requiring 

mitigation Would result. 

Designation: Nonwildemess 

Prescription #: 6, 11, 17 

Altemative(s): RPA, CUR 

Effects on the Area: The effects would be similar to those for the 

canbination of Rescriptiom 3, 6, and 17 discussed abave. The primary 

difference would be the lack of emphasis on bigbm sheep habitat; under this 

ccmbination, bighorn sheep would probably not be reintrduced intn Lee Vining 

Canyon; dmsstic livestock grazing would increase. The 25% of the area 

managed under Prescription 17 would be available for new public roads 

CoIlStructed for mining or range management purposes. 

Confinwent or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under mst conditions except withn Prescription 6. (All 

wildfires would be wntmlled under the OUR alternative. ) 

657 
Table C-18 

Amage AMual Outputs for Decades 1 and 5 

Log Cabin-Saddlebag (5052) 

Resource or Alternatives 

Activity Decade PRFCURRPA CEEAMNFWBAMC 

Recarmended Wilderness -- 0 0 0 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.1 

(I4 acres) 

hbnwildemess -- 17.1 17.1 17.1 0 0 0 0 

(M acres) 

Total Developed 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Recreation (M RVDs) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dispersed Recreation 1 400 400 400 0 0 0 0 

(RVDs) 5 600 600 600 0 0 0 0 

( Rws ) 5 0 0 0 1200 1200 1200 1200 

Fish User Days 1 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 

Wilderness Recreation 1 0 0 0 800 800 800 800 

Total Wildlife and 

(ms) 5 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 

Grazing (AUMS) 1 800 840 840 800 800 800 800 

5 600 985 985 800 800 800 800 

Suitable Timber Land 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

(acres) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Timber Volume 

(-) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Gross Benefits(N$) 1 

5 

20 21 21 25 25 25 25 

20 23 23 32 32 32 32 

costs (Ms) 1 9 9 9 23 23 23 23 

5 9 9 10 18 18 18 18 

Net Benefits (M$) 1 11 12 12 2 2 2 2 

5 11 14 14 14 14 14 14 

658 
BENTON RANGE (#5056) Aaes: 10,451 (+4,052 BLM) 

A. DESCRIPTION 

The Benton Range roadless area lies in Mono County on the bhm Lake and the 

White Wuntain Ranger Districts. It.n adjoining parcels camprise BLM 

wilderness study area (WSA) No. CA-010-077. The Inyo National Forest has the 

lead role in joint study of the National Forest and BLM roadless lands m 

this area. Maintamed roads lead to and parallel the boundaries of the lands 

being studied. 

The further plannmg area boundary is defmed on the west by the road between 

Chidago Flat and Watterson Meadow, on the south by the Red Rock Canyon Road, 

and on the north and east by the Forest boundary. The adjoining BLM WSA 

parcels are adjaCent to the northern and eastem edges of the further 

planrung area. 

The entire area lies in the Benton Range, in the North Owens River and Hdl 

Valley watersheds. It is roughly rectangular, measuring 9.5 miles long by an 

average of 4.5 miles wide. Elevations range from 5,800 to 8,252 feet. 

i%st of the terrain is steep and rugged, with some gentler slopes and flats 

on the northem end. Rock is volcanic and granitic, with a ridge of eroded 

granitic dcsnes along the northeastern boundary. There are no perennial 

streams or lakes. 

The pre-t vegetation type is pine-juniper wwdland. 

Scenic variety in the area falls into class A, 4 percent; class B, 94 

percent: class C, 2 percent. The mediate surroundings, including the BLM 

land, are similar in appearance to the area itself. The White and Glass 

i%untam.s are visible fm high points in the area. 

Current uses include mzdcutting, recreakon, prospecting, and grazing. 

B. CXPAEIILITY 

The natural ecological intqrity and natural appearance of the area have been 

influenced to a low degree. There are small and scattered mineral 

developents, scattered grazing, and a short, narrow mining road. 

Gpporhmities for solitude are moderate to low. Although there is the me 

toposraphic and vegetative screening, the area is small, even m canbination 

with the BLM land. Buildings and roads in the Hamil Valley, though distant, 

are visible. 

Opportunities for primitive recreation are low. There 1s very little 

challenge or diversity; there is no reliable surface water. 

The inventory boundary would be manageable as wilderness only with major 

boundary adjustments to exclude a mining road and the lcwer elevations of the 

BLM land. A revised boundary could be manageable, as toposraphy would 

prevent vehicle access. 

659 
C. AVWABILITY 

The Bentcol Range area and the adjoining BEY WSA represent scrne trade-offs 

between wilderness designakon and other activities. The snall munt of 

vehicle-based recreation and public wood cuttirig would be excluded by 

wilderness managmmt, mineral exploration and developrent would be 

restricted, and the option of increasing grazing would be precluded. 

Dispersed mrumtorized recreation on National Forest land accounts for 100 

IIvDs: motorized recreation, 200 RVDs and big game huntiq, 300 WFUDS; use on 

BIN land is estimated at 30 RVDs and 30 W6UD.s. 

Cattle grazing on NF land accounts for 1,130 AW per year; "I potential 

is estimated at 1,300 AUMs; the BLM parcels support 118 AUMS, with no 

potential for increase. 

The area is incapable of producing COrmerCial timber. 

Of the National Forest and BIN lands ma?&-g up this area, 65 percent are 

rated high in mjneral potential; 7 percent are medim, and 28 percent are 

low. Since 1865, at least 685 unpatented claims have been filed on lands 

within this area; of these, 28 were current in 1980. Subeoonanic levels of 

gold and silver have been identified. There is potential for tungsten 

outside, and perhaps extending into the area. None of the mines are 

currently in production. 

Cultural resource values include scme prehistoric features. 

D. NEED 

There appears to be little wilderness-type recreation use in the Basin and 

Range physiographic province. The Benton Range area is typical of the 

province. 

Public involvement for the RARE I1 study indicated little interest in the 

area by wilderness proponents. The residents of the Benton un"ity 

StXorgly oppose wilderness designation for any neighboring National Forest 

laIUlS. 

E. E"MENTALc0NSEWENCJB 

Table C-19 indicates which management prescriptions were applied to (ail or 

part) of the area under each alternative. The narratives follaving the table 

discuss the effects of each prescription on the area in terms of present 

uses, wilderness attributes, and mwildemess developrent opportunities. 

Resource and activity outputs for the area under each alternative are 

displayed in Table C-20. 

There are no neighboring wildernesses or further planning areas. 

660 
Table C-19 

Mana-t Prescription Allocations 

by Alternative (M Acres and Percent of Area) 

Benton Ffange (5056) 

Alternatives 

Managenen t Prescripticm PRF (XIR FPA CEE AMN AM8 AMC 

2. prop3sed Wildemess 10.5 

"(4.1) 

4. Mule Deer Habitat 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 

86% 86% 86% 86% 

11. Range 1.5 10.5 10.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 

14% 1W 100% 14% 14% 14% 

%LM acres are in parentheses; percentage figure applies to total 

acres--National Forest and BLM taken together. 

Designation: Wilderness 

Prescription #: 2 

Altemative(s): AMC 

Effects on the Area: Wildemess attributes would be retained or even 

imoroved. as anv activities affect- those attributes would be orohibited. 

Th; area' represents an ecological &e not yet represented in wiidemess on 

the Forest. ?4&ninistration of the area as wildemess would be difficult 

without a major boundary adjustment, as the terrain does not present a 

natural barrier to vehicles at many locations. 

The character of recreation use would change dramakcally. Traditional 

motorized fecreation would be prohibited, and various 4-wheel drive velncle 

routes would be closed. Big-game hunting would be restricted to foot 

travel. Recreation use would decrease, as few people would find the area 

attractive for a wildemess experience. The mall size of the area, the lack 

of water, and the lack of challenge would maintain use at a low level. 

Since considerable impacts on cultural resoucces have already resulted frcm 

artifact-hunters accessing the area with 4-wheel drive vehicles, closing the 

area to all motorized use would add protection for those values. 

SQne mule deer winter range would be affected, as the option of manipulating 

wildlife habitat would be foregone. 

Cattle grazmg would remain unchanged, though any opportunities to manipulate 

the range for mreased forage prcduction would be foregone. 

661 
Fuelwood gathering would be prohibited. 

The area would be withdrawn fran mineral en* um designation as 

wilderness, resulting in a loss of mineral opportuni+q. No new mining claims 

could be located, and activities on mining claims with existing valid claims 

could be restricted. 

There would be an overall loss of potential revenue fran the area, as cattle 

grazing, motorized vehicle use, and new mining clams would be eliminated. A 

benefit would be a fonnal Wilderness designation, adding small acreage in an 

underrepresented ecological 

confinement or mntainment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under mt ccolditions. 

No other foreseeable environmental changes cr resource trade-offs requiring 

mitigation would result. 

to the wildmess preservation system. 

Designation: Nonwildemess 

Prescription #: 4, 11 

Alternative(s): PFF, AMN, AMB, CEE 

Effects on the Area: Under the canbination, wilderness values in the area 

would erode over time. Four-wheel drive and ORV recreation, range and 

wildlife habitat manipulation, and "g activities would incrementally 

degrade the area of its natural values. The acres under prescription 11 (14 

percent) would be the mst affected. 

Historical recreation uses (big-game hunting, four-wheel drive recreation, 

wood and pine-nut collectirg) would be unchanged. On 86 percent of the area, 

new public roads muld not be allowed and mining roads would be closed to 

public use; the re"rg 14 percent would not be subject to that 

restriction. 

cultwal resources would be exposed to continuing vandalism and theft. 

On 86 percent of the area, cattle grazing would be held at current levels: 

any increase in forage would go to mule deer. Prescribed fire would be used 

to rejwenate vegetation for deer. Big game hunt- would be expected to 

increase with an increase in the mule deer population. On the re"mg 14 

percent of the area, cattle grazing would continue at current levels or 

increase; any vegetation treabnent would. 

The area would remain open to new mining claims; only applicable mining 

restrictions would affect activities. 

Fuelwood gather- would continue where canpatible with other resources. 

Social and ecor"ic impacts would be represented by the lost opportunity to 

increase grazing on 80 percent of the area; increased hunting and associated 

benefits would offset that loss. Local residents favoring easy access and a 

nonwildemess designation would henefit. There would be a social cost of a 

loss of potential wilderness designation for an ecological type not yet 

represented on the Inyo National Forest. 

.. 

.. 

662 
confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most wnditions. 

No other foreseeable envirumental changes or resource trade-offs requirmg 

mitigation would result. 

Designation: Nonwilderness 

Prescription #: 11 

Altemative(s): CUR, RPA 

Effects on the Area: The effects of this prescription would be shlar to 

the effects of Prescription 4 with a few key exceptions. A primary range 

emphasis on the entire area would entail vegetation treatment to benefit 

livestock and an increase in animal numbers. 

New road construction for range management would be allowed, and new mining 

mads could be open for public use. Improved access would result in overall 

increases in habitat disturbance for deer. 

If access were improved, the use of the area for fuelwood gathering would 

increase, until and unless pinyon pine stands had been replaced by shrub and 

grass types. 

confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most conditions. (All wildfires would be controlled 

under the CUR altemative.) 

Mining opprhmities would be enhanced as access throughout the area would be 

increased. Any mining roads wnstmcted in the area could rmam open for 

public use. 

663 
Table C-20 

Average Annual Cutputs for Decades 1 and 5 

Bentan Range (5056) 

(M acres) 

Ncolwilderness 

(M acres) 

Total Developed 

Recreation (M RVDs) 

Dispersed Recreation 

( RvDs ) 

Wilderness Recreation 

( RVDs 1 

Total Wildlife and 

Fish User Days 

(ms) 

Grazing (Am) 

Suitable Timber Land 

(acres) 

Timber Volume 

(-1 

costs (Ms) 

-- 

-- 

1 

5 

1 

5 

1 

5 

1 

5 

1 

5 

1 

5 

1 

5 

1 

5 

1 

5 

1 

5 

1 

5 

Rescxncear AlternativeS 

Activity Decade PRF(I1RRPA CEEAMNAMBAM: 

Rem"&& Wilderness 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.5 

10.5 10.5 10.5 

0 0 0 

0 

30(3 

450 

0 

0 

500 

750 

1165 

1300 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

39 

48 

20 

22 

19 

26 

- 

0 0 

300 300 

450 450 

0 0 

0 0 

300 300 

450 450 

1165 1165 

1300 1300 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

38 

40 

20 

18 

18 

22 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

38 

40 

20 

18 

18 

22 

10.5 

0 

0 

300 

450 

0 

0 

500 

750 

1165 

1300 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

39 

48 

20 

22 

19 

26 

10.5 10.5 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

300 300 0 

450 450 0 

0 0 150 

0 0 300 

500 500 100 

750 750 150 

1130 1130 1130 

1130 1130 1130 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

39 39 6 

48 48 9 

20 20 6 

22 22 4 

19 19 0 

26 26 5 

664 
WIlX M0u"Ws (#5058 A&B) Acxes: 251,868 

A. DESCRIPTION 

The White Mnmtains area lies in California's Inyo and Mono Counties, and 

Nevada's Mineral and Esneralda Counties. This area has such a ocmplex and 

potentially anfusing histoxy of names and nmkers that it might be useful to 

Sumnarize that history here. 

The RARE I1 study identified subparts A and B, naming "A" White Mountains and 

"B" Pellesier-Bristlecone. Pellesier-Bristlecone represented the higher 

elevations of the area, constituting an island within the larger White 

Mnmtains area. Both subparts were placed in further planning by the RARE I1 

Final EIS in January 1979. 

The Resident, in hls April 1979 wildemess recamendations to Congress, 

reoormended most of 5058B and scsne of 5058A for wilderness. Since the 

boundary of the recarmended wildemess differetl from the RARE I1 boundaries, 

the subparts were now given different names and nmkers: the recamended 

wildemess subpart was named Boundary Peak (5058W); the remainder was kept in 

further planning under the name White Mountains (5058F). Wildemess bills 

fran 1980 to 1983 included 5058W as wilderness. 

In March 1983 the Forest Service was directed to reevaluate all roadless 

areas as part of the Forest plw process, regardless of RARE I1 

"endations. The entire 5058 area was, therefore, included in the 

reevaluation. The interior boundaries between subparts were dissolved for 

analysis purposes. 

The California Wilderness Act of 1984 listed White Pbuntains A and B 

(California only) for further planning; the Nevada portion of the area is 

still subject to the reevaluation process, as m wildemess legislation for 

Nevada has yet been passed. The follmiq discussion deals with the entire 

White Mountains area; where one subpart is recamended for wildemess and 

another for mnwildemess, the boundary was drawn with concern for 

manageability and elimination of conflicts and does not coincide with any 

earlier subpart boundaries. 

The White Mountains area is on the White Mountam Ranger District. The lower 

reaches of mst of its many canyons are accessible by mg roads. Sane 

jeep tracks lead further toward the interior. The southem half of the area 

is bisected by the White Mountain Road, which follows the crest of the range 

fran Westgard Pass to White Mountain Peak. ~ss-country access on foot from 

the White Mountain road is fairly easy. Access to the mrthem half of the 

area (mrth of White Mountain Peak) is qute drfficult. 

The boundary is defined on the north by the Forest boundary and the Queen 

Canyon-Trail Canyon road; on the south by the Silver Canyon and Crooked Creek 

roads; and on the east and west by the Forest boundary, except where mining 

road corridors intrude the area. Most of the adjoining land is administered 

by the BLM; me parcels are in private ownershp. 

665 
The area lies in the White Mmntains and in the watersheds of the Southeast 

and Northeast White Mmntains: the Owens Ever; and the Chalfant, Hdl, 

Benton, Queen, Fish Creek, and Deep Springs Valleys. 

The area is elongated, irregular in shape, and mtmded by minirg road 

corridors. The 

wider southern half is bisected by the White Mountain Road corridor. 

Elevations range from 4,560 feet to 14,242 feet at White Mountain Peak. 

Terrain wnsists mainly of extremely steep slops dissected by steep, narrow 

canyons, leading to a narrow sunnnit rimeline. There is some rolling plateau 

on the crest, and a few small benches in the canyons. There are 128 miles of 

p?"ial stream, of which 38 miles contain trout, and many intermittent 

streams and springs, but m lakes. The rock is mtasedimentary, much of it 

dolanite, with large granitic intmsions. Geologic points of interest 

include evidence of glaciatim unusual for desert rmuntains, and the highest 

waterfalls in the desert ranges. 

primary vegetation types are 'pine-juniper woodland, alpine shrub, and big 

sagebrush. 

Scenic variety in the area falls into class A, 62 percent: class B, 38 

percent. The entire White Mountain range, most of which is in the roadless 

area, is a scenic lamhark from Bishop, mghway 6, and Fish Lake Valley. 

White Wmntain, Mcoltganery, and Boundary Peaks are identifiable features. 

The imediately . area is scmewhat less varied, ccmposed primarily 

of arid desert valleys with little topograpkic relief. However, the middle 

and far distances provide spectacular views of the Glass Mountains, Benton 

Range, and Sierra Nevada on the west, and the desert ranges of Nevada on the 

east. 

Other attractions include ancient bristlemne pines; Boundary Peak, which is 

the highest point in Nevada; wild horses, desert bighom sheep, and beavers: 

and Pellisier Flat, which contains classic examples of active, polar-type 

frost features including large solifluction terraces. 

Current uses include recreation, grazing, scientific research, and mineral 

exploration. 

It is 39 miles long and ranges in width from 7 to 18 miles. 

The natural ecological integrity of the area is essentially unmodified; its 

natural appearance has been influenced to a low degree. Impacts include 

scattered fences, trails, and mining sites (including structures, diggings, 

and machinery): widely scattered grazing; and unimproved roads. Impacts are 

localized, and the area is so large that most are easily absorbed. 

Opportunities for solitude are high. The large size of the area offsets its 

low to moderate amount of screening and the visual intzusions of neighboring 

mines, roads, and the Barcroft Labrato-. 

Oppxhmities for primitive recreation are msderate. Size, challenge, and 

diversity are the main contributors to this rating; there is, however, little 

water. 

666 
Special features include two species of sensitive plants (Arabis pinzlae and 

Hackelia brevicula), the threatened Paiute cutthroat trout, and extensive 

ecological and archaeological research. 

The inventory boundary would be very difficult to manage as wilderness, due 

to the many intxuding road corridors and vehxle routes. A manageable 

boundary could, however, be developed by managing only the steeper upper 

elevations as wildmess. This boundary is applied where part of the area is 

recamended for wildemess in the alternatives discussed below. 

Eleven parcels of roadless BLM land, enccmpassing 5,419 acres, adjoin the 

area. 

C. AVWABILITY 

The area represents some trade-offs between wildemess designation and other 

resources and activities. Wildemess management would restrict mineral 

exploration and developnent, mall hydro develoment, vegetation manipulation 

to benefit range or wildlife, and (possibly) some kinds of scientific 

research that would conflict with wildemess values. 

Dispersed mtorized recreation, accounts for 7,000 RVDs; big game hunting 

for 2,000 WRIDs. 

Approximately 500 acres are suitable for wildlife habitat manipulation. The 

Cottonwood Creek basin is propsed for fish habitat enhancement (including 

spawning bed treaiment and instream flow control structures) and expansion of 

the range for threatened Paiute cutthroat trout. 

Water from the area is used for irrigation, dmestic, and livestock needs in 

Hamnil, Chalfant, Oasis, and Fish Lake Valleys. A mall amount flows into 

the Owens River and is exported. Small hydroelectric proJects have been 

proposed for Cottonwood, Lone Tree, Coldwater, Upper Piute, Pellisier and 

Rock Creeks along the area’s westem edge. There are presently two one-acre 

impounchents in the area. 

Watershed restoration projects have been propsed for meadows on Chiatovich 

Flat and the drainage of Cotton& Creek. Cost-effectiveness would reqLure 

helicopter use and vdcle access over existing roads. 

Cattle gmzing represents 680 AUMS; maxv” potential is estimated at 900 

AUMs. 

Existing and propsed special areas withn the roadless area boundary 

reccgmze points of ecological significance. The Ancient Bristlecone Pine 

Forest is a botanical special interest area which highlights the world’s 

oldest living trees. The White Mountain Research Natural area (RNA) affords 

additional protection to a unique stand of bristlecone pines. The &%%fee 

Meadow recollPnended RNA would represent the Great Basin alpine fellfield plant CxY”iw. The entire White Mountain range has been nominated by the 

Department of Interior for listing as a national natural lanbark (“L). 

The area is incapable of prducing canercia1 tmber. 

Existing impmements are valued at $23,000. 

667 
Of the lands in this area, 8 percent are rated high in mineral potential: 27 

percent are medium, and 65 percent are low. There are 133 active mining 

claim in the area, of which mne are currently pnxlucing. Withdrawal fmn 

entry affeds 8,400 acres; cuts- reserved mineral rights, 400 

acres. 

There is a large number of prehistoric and historic cultural resource sites. 

Recent research into prehistoric high-elevatim encanpwnts has unwvered 

sites above 12,000 feet in the white Mountains, and pranpted plans for 

additional research in the area. Historic sites include sheep and cattle 

camps, mines, a ranger statim site, a powerline shack, and a toll road. 

A pawer line in the area is operated under special-use permit; a helicopter 

test site is operated under a me" of understanding. T" mining access 

mads have been permitted, but mt yet corstmcted. There is one included 

patented mining claim which is not currently active but has many signs of 

past disturbance. 

D. NEED 

"here appears to be little wildemess-type recreation use in the Basin and 

Range physiographic province. The white Mountains area differs fmn many 

areas in that province by having outstanding scenic attractions and 

recreational challerges. However, lack of water and difficulty of access 

would probably limit the munt of use in this particular area. Neighboring 

further planning areas include Sugarloaf, Blanco Mmntain, and Black 

r4nmtxin. 

Public involvement for the RARE I1 study indicated strong advocacy of 

wilderness in the white Mountains by State and national environmental groups 

"hey value the white and Inyo Mountains for unique plants, animals, and 

ecosystems and for the solitude they offer. 

Local residents, in contrast, see the Whites as an escape area, and value 

their remteness and lack of restrictions. 

E. ~COhE9111ENcEs 

Table C-21 indicates which management prescriptions were applied to (all or 

part) of the area under each alternative. The narratives following the table 

discuss the effects of each prescription on the area in tenw of present 

uses, wilderness attributes, and mnwildemess developent opportunities. 

Resource and activity outputs for the area under each alternative are 

displayed in Table C-22. 

668 
Table C-21 

Management Prescription Allocations 

by Alternative (M Acres and Percent of Area) 

White Mountains (5058 Am) 

~ ~ ~ 

Alternatives 

Management Prescription PRF CUR RPA CEE AMN AMB AMC 

2. Proposed Wilderness 120.0 53.2 251.9 251.9 53.2 251.9 

47% 21% 21% 100% 21% 100% 

3. Mountain Sheep Habitat 19.4 19.4 19.4 

5. Research Natural Area* 4.6 4.6 4.6 (4.6) (4.6) 4.6 (4.6) 

8% 8% 8% 

2% 2% 2% 2% 

7. Ancient Bristlecone 6.0 6.0 6.0 (6.0) (6.0) 6.0 (6.0) 

17. Semi-primitive Rec 101.9 90.5 53.2 168.9 

18. Multiple Resource Area 78.2 188.0 

3% 3% 3% 3% 

40% 36% 21% 66% 

30% 74% 

'Acres with dual designation (proposed wilderness RNA, Scenic Area, etc.) 

are displayed in the acreage total for Prescription 2 and indicated in 

parentheses under the other applicable prescription. 

Designation: Wilderness 

Prescription#: 2 

Alternative(s): CEE, AMN, AMC 

Effects on the Area: Wilderness designation would maintain the exceptionally 

high quality wilderness attributes of the area. Within subparts of the area 

containing vehicle use and other signs of human influence, this prescription 

would actually enhance wilderness attributes, as vehicles and various 

conflicting uses would be prohibited. Management of the area as wilderness 

would be difficult in certain area subparts, as vehicle intrusion and various 

nonconforming uses would be difficult to eliminate. Certain existing and 

potential research activities could conflict with wilderness management. 

That part of the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest within the area would 

receive maximum protection, but visitors to that area would be subject to 

additional regulation associated with wilderness. 

Vehicle-based recreation would be prohibited. Nonmotorized recreation would 

increase considerably wilderness designation. Opportunities for a high 

quality wilderness experience would be exceptional. One of the highest 

valued scenic mountain ranges in California would receive maximum visual 

protection. 

Cultural resources in the area, known to be regionally significant, would 

receive maximum protection. Archaeological research would become slightly 

more costly, and perhaps limited. 

Options to manipulate wildlife or fish habitat would be foregone. Bighorn 

sheep habitat would receive adequate protection, as wilderness management 

would acknowledge bighorn habitat needs. Proposed projects involving the 

expansion of Paiute cutthroat trout (a threatened species) range would 
probably not be implemented. The presence and use of the area by wild horses 

would pose a conflict for wilderness managemment, as these animals are not 

native to the area. 

The current light grazing would continue. However, use and management of the 

range resource would be mre difficult and limted. Opprhuties to 

increase outputs would be foregone. 

Watershed restoration projects, if unplemented, could not make use of 

motorized &pent. Small hydroelectric development opprtunities would be 

foregone. 

The area would be withdrawn fran mineral entry upon designation as 

wilderness, resulting in a loss of mineral opportunity. No new mining claims 

could be located, and activities on mining claims with existing valid claims 

could be restricted. 

Unique geological features would be protected from damage or destruction. 

mnconfomLng uses (power line, helicopter test site, mining access 

roads and sites, and a patented minirg claim) would be &fficult to manage 

and mld detract fm wildemess values if retained. 

Wilderness designation mld protect sensitive plant, wildlife, and fish 

species. 

Mining, wildlife and fish, grazing, research, and water extracted fran the 

area constitute the direct econanic dependencies associated with the area. 

There would be increased costs associated with these activities and, in scme 

cases, a reduction in development opprtunities. This would be particularly 

true for mineral exploration and anall hydroelectric developrent. 

Significant long-term econcmic benefits related to wilderness recreation 

would result. The greatest social implication would be the preservation of a 

unique and significant wildemess resource of national stature. Sane adverse 

research consequences would be a social concem. 

Necessary costs of implementation would be construction of approxirately 40 

miles of trails and 5 to 7 trailheads. Adlministrative costs muld increase 

dramatically. 

confinement or mtainment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most conditions. 

No other foreseeable environmental changes or resource trade-offs requirirq 

mitigation would result. 

670 
Designation: Wilderness (revised boundary)/nonwilderness 

Prescription #: 2, 3, 5, 7, 17 

Alternative(s): PRF, AMB 

Effects on the Area: This combination of prescriptions includes both 

wilderness designation for the higher elevations (47 percent in the PRF and 

21 percent in the Am) of the area and an emphasis on amenity values on the 

remamder of the area. Wilderness attributes in the wilderness part of the 

area would receive maximum protection and enhancement, as described for the 

entire area under Prescription 2, above. The wilderness recommendation would 

encompass approximately 120,000 acres under the PRF Alternative and 53,200 

acres under the AMJ3. 

The wilderness boundary proposed under this combination would greatly improve 

the chances of eventual wilderness designation. The boundary would be 

manageable, as topography would reinforce statutory closures to prevent 

vehicle entry. The wilderness characteristics of the area proposed for 

wilderness are much higher, and primitive recreation opportunities greater in 

the area recommended for wilderness under this combination than in the 

remainder of the White Mountains area. 

The revised area clearly separates the recommended wilderness from the 

majority of existing conflicting uses and potential development 

opportunities. The lands outside the recommended wilderness are rated higher 

in mineral potential than those inside. The two RNAs and the botanical area 

would lie outside the recommended wilderness, thus avoiding potential 

conflicts in management. The majority of watershed improvement needs and 

fish habitat expansion potential lie outside recommended wilderness. And, 

finally, all identified potential hydroelectric projects lie outside 

recommended wilderness. 

Nonwilderness amenity values, such as scenic quality, fish and wildlife 

habitat management, scientific research, and dispersed recreation would be 

maintained at high levels on all nonwilderness lands: the wilderness 

attributes on those lands would also be expected to remain at high levels. 

Watershed improvement projects could be accomplished using vehicle access and 

motorized equipment. Cultural resources would be protected to a moderate 

degree while opportunites for research and interpretation were retained. 

Commodity production and off-road vehicle travel would be restricted under 

these prescriptions. There would be no open ORV areas: all vehicle travel 

would be restricted to existing routes. Mining roads in nonwilderness areas 

would be closed to public use. Grazing would continue at current low levels 

of intensity: although vehicles could be used for range management, the 

amount of vegetation treatment and structural improvement would be small. 

Confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most conditions. 

Wild horses would not represent a conflict. 
Designation: Wilderness (revised bmdary)/mildemess 

Prescription #: 2, 3, 5, 7, 17, 18 

Alternative(s): OUR 

Effects on the Area: This canbinaticol of prescrip'kions would have virtually 

the - - same _- - effects _~~_ as those of the wi1dernesdmwild.s ccmbination 

discussed above. The difference is that the 30 @rcent of the area managed 

under Prescriptions 18 would be available for minirig roads open to public use 

and for open ORV areas. On those lands, natural appearance and natural 

integrity mld be expected to decline as access and vehicle use increased. 

Mining opportunities would be enhanced as access thmugkut the area 

inpruved. 

Designation: N0nWildemes.s 

Prescription #: 5, 7, 17, 18 

Alternative(s): RPA 

Effects on the Area: "wilderness management could have negative lag-term 

effects on the wilderness attributes of the area. Those effects would be 

greatest in the parts of the area with the lawest level of wildemess 

quality, i.e., lands belaw 9,ooO to 10,ooO feet elevation. On tbose laver 

slopes, vehicle use and other signs of human influence would continue and, 

probably, increase. Mineral exploration and developrent could have major 

impacts if the ecOnanic situation made currently unewncmic deposits valuable 

emugh for extraction. The higher elevations muld be subject to fewer 

impacts, primarily because vehicle access would be difficult-to-inpssible 

and because of the lower level of estimated mineral potential associated with 

the geolqy of tbose areas. 

Existing and potential research activities could take place with "a1 

restriction, but the natural features subject to scientific study could be 

damaged by increased impacts. That part of the Ancient Bristlecone Pine 

Forest within the area would receive the level of protection and type of use 

it currently receives. 

Vehicle-based reqreation would be confined to existing roads and trails, and 

m new public roads could be constructed under Prescriptions 5, 7, or 17. 

Open ORV areas could, however, be established, new roads could be 

constmcted, and mining roads could be left open for public use on lands 

managed under Prescription 18. h-imitive recreation would be wnfined to the 

higher elevations inaccessible by vehicle. 

The scenic values of the rmuntain range would be mst subject to impacts 

where Prescription 18 was applied; the major potential for visual impacts 

would be associated with mining. 

Cultural resources in the area, Iw>wn to be regionally significant, would 

receive Merate protection. Archaeological research would be less costly 

and limited than under wildemess designation. 

Options to manipulate wildlife or fish habitat would be retained. Bighorn 

sheep habitat would be managed for population viability, but would mt be 

miphized. Proposed projects involvhg the expansion of Paiute cutthroat 

trout (a threatened species) range could be implemented. The presence and 

use of the area by wild horses would not represent a conflict. 

(All wildfires would be Controlled under the OUR alternative.) 

672 
Livestcck grazing would increase where there was an opportunitY to do so. 

Vegetation trea-t and structural improvements would increase. Management 

of the range resource would be acccmplished using traditional means, 

including unrestricted vehicle access. 

Watershed restoratiun projects could be implemented with full use of 

motorized equipwnt and vehicle access. Small hydroelectric developent 

opp>rtunities would be retained. 

Wt of the area would remain open to new mining claims, subject only to 

applicable mining laws and regulatims. The existing minexal withdrawal 

would mtinue to apply, and the "m&d RNAs would be withdrawn frcm 

mineral entry: those withdrawals would, kwever, affect only five percent of 

the area. Mining opportunities would be enhance3 on lands managed under 

Prescription 18, as access throughout the area would be increased. Wer the 

other prescriptims, only mining mads would be constructed, and they would 

be closed to public use. While the extent of the mineral reserve is 

undetermined , the opportunities for minirg could be significant in sene parts 

of the area. 

The numerous special uses (per line, helicopter test site, mining access 

roads and sites, and a patented mining claim) could continue. 

Sensitive plants, wildlife, fish, and mque geologic features would have 

moderate to high levels of protection based on the Forest-wide standards and 

guidelines and the direction contained in prescriptions 5, 7, and 17. 

Mirhg, wildlife and fish, grazing, research, and mtorized recreation 

constitute the direct e"ic dependencies associated with the area. Those 

activities and associated developnent opportunities would be retained. 

Long-term ecoM3rm 'c benefits related to wildemess recreation and the social 

benefits of wildemess designation would be foregone. 

Cnnfinement or "nt would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most conditions. 

No other foreseeable environmental changes or resource trade-offs requiring 

mitigation would result. 

673 
Table C-22 

Average Annd Outputs for Decades 1 and 5 

White Fknmtains (5058 A&B) 

ResolD2x?or 

Recarmended Wildemess -- (M acres) 

Mnwilderness -- 

(M acres) 

Activity Decade 

Total Develop3 1 

Recreation (M RVDs) 5 

Dispersed Recreation 1 

( RVDs ) 5 

Wildemess Recreation 1 

(ms) 5 

Total Wildlife and 

1 

5 

Grazing (AUMS) 1 

5 

Suitable Timber Land 1 

(acres ) 5 

Timber Volume 

(W) 1 

5 

1 

5 

~ross Benefits(@) 1 

costs (a) 1 

Net Benefits (a) 1 

5 

5 

5 

Alternatives 

PRJ?alRFPACEE AMNAMBAMC 

120.6 53.2 0 251.9 251.9 53.2 251.9 

131.3 198.7 251.9 0 0 198.7 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1000 1000 7000 0 0 1000 0 

1500 1500 10500 0 0 1500 0 

8200 8200 0 16000 16000 8200 16000 

12710 12710 0 24800 24800 12710 24800 

2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 

3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 

725 725 725 680 680 725 680 

900 900 900 680 680 900 680 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

233 233 302 279 279 233 279 

334 334 402 427 427 334 427 

462 462 257 572 572 462 572 

174 174 142 294 294 174 294 

-229 -229 45 293 293 -229 -293 

160 160 260 133 133 160 133 

674 
BLANC0 MOUNTAIN (#5059) Acres: 16,348 (100) 

A. DESCFUPTION 

The Blanc0 Pkuntain area lies in Mono and Inyo Counties, on the White 

I%untain Ranger District. Constructed dirt roads lead to and parallel the 

boundary; jeep trails and foot trails pnetrate the area. 

The boundary is defined by the Craoked Creek road on the north, the Wyman 

Canyon road on the south, the Dead Horse Meadow road on the east, and the 

Sage Hen Flat road on the west. 

The area lies in the White Mountains, m the Deep Springs Valley and 

Northeast and Southeast white "ntains watersheds. It is rectangular, 7 

miles lang by 4 miles wide. Elevations range from 8,200 feet to 11,278 feet 

at Blm Mount-. 

Terrain is mstly rugged, with me gently sloping plateau. canycols are 

deeply incised. There are 5 miles of perennial stream, of which 2 miles 

contain trout, and many intermittent streams, but no lakes. Wst of the rock 

is metasedimentary, with some granite outcrops. 

Primary vegetation types are big sagebrush and pine-juniper woodland. 

Smaller munts of mountain mahogany and subalpine fir forest are also 

present. Other botanical attractions include the ancient bristlecone pine 

bees. 

Scenic variety in the area falls into class A, 56 percent; class B, 44 

percent. The surroundings are similar in appearance to the area itself; 

views fmm high points include the Sierra Nevada in the distance to the west, 

and rows of desert mountains to the east. 

Current uses include grazing and recreation. 

B. CAPABILITY 

The natural ecological integrity of the area has been influenced to a very 

low degree; its natural appearance to a moderate degree. Impacts include a 

telephone line with associated service roads, a few fences, scattered 

grazing, vegetation mampulation, and unimproved roads. 

Gpporhmities for solitude are moderate. The area is small, and screening is 

low to moderate. Surrounding roads, Camp Bristlecone, and powerlines are 

somewhat intrusive. 

Gpprtunities for primitive recreation are low. 

rare opprhmities for challenge. 

There is some diversity, but 

Special features include a sensitive plant species, Trifolium dedeckerae. 

The original inventory boundary would not be manageable as wilderness. None 

of the lmpacts listed above would be separable by boundary adjustments, as 

they are scattered and penetrate to the interior of the area. 

675 
C. AVAILABILITY 

The Blanw lulountain area represents some trade-offs between wildemess 

designation and other resources and activities. Wilderness manag-t would 

exclude vehicle-based big game hunting, wildlife habitat or range 

inpmvmmts involving vegetation manipulation, and watershed restoration 

us- earth-mirg equipnent. 

The major recreational use of the area is big game huntixq, which represents 

600 WFUDs; other dispersed motorized recreation mounts to 400 RVDs. 

Appmximtely 930 acres are suitable forwildlife habitat manipulation. 

Water fm the area is used lccally for dawsb 'c needs, livestock, and 

agriculture in Deep Springs Valley. 

Major watershed restoration projects have teen proposed for meadows on the 

cave 

Fork and South Fork of croaked Creek. Propose3 methods, including the use of 

bulldozers, would not be ccmpatible with wilderness managmt. 

Cattle grazing armmts to 135 AUMS a year; maximum potential is estimated at 

150 AW. 

The Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, a botanical special interest area, 

encanpasses about one-third of the roadless area. 

The area is incapable of prcducing "ercial timber. 

Of the lands in this area, 9 percent are rated high in mineral potential; 67 

percent are medium, and 24 percent are low. There are 49 active mcning 

claims in the area, of which me is currently producing. Lead, silver, and 

gold depsits are sparse and scattered. A mineral en- withdrawal affects 

4,900 acres. 

The included private land (100 acres) is undevelopea. 

Existing improvemnts are valued at $23,ooO. 

D. NEED 

There appears to be little wilderness-type recreation use in the Basin and 

Range physiographic province. "he Blanco i%untain area is typical of the 

P- . This area is near the Birch creek and White Mxntains further 

plannirg areas. 

Public involvement for the RARE I1 study indicates strong support for 

wildemess in the White and Inyo kbuntains on the part of national, state, 

and local environmental organizations. This area was mt singled out for 

specific treatment. 

E. -CDNSTable C-23 indicates which management prescriptions were applied to (all or 

part) of the area under each alternative. The narratives follmiq the table 

discuss the effects of each prescription on the area in terms of present 

676 
uses, wilderness attributes, and “wilderness developnent opp0rt;Unities. 

~esource and activity outputs for the area under each alternative are 

displayed in Table C-24. 

Table C-23 

Manawt Prescriptim Allocaticms 

by Alte?mative (M Acres and Percent of Area) 

Alternatives 

Blanc0 Mmmtain (5059) 

MaMgemen t Prescxiptim PRF (XIRRPACEEAMNAMBAM: 

2. Pro- Wildmess 16.3 

100%. 

7. Ancient Bristlecane 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 (7.3) 

45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 

17. Semi-PrimitiVe RE 9.0 9.0 9.0 

55% 55% 55% 

18. Multiple Resource Area 9.0 9.0 9.0 

55% 55% 55% 

*Acres with dual designation (proposed wilderness and RNA, Scauc Area, etc. ) 

are displayed in the acreage total for prescription 2 and indicated in 

parentheses under the other applicable prescription. 

Designation: Wilderness 

Prescription #: 2 

Alternative( s) : AMC 

Effects on the Area: Wilderness designation mld maintain, or even enhance, 

the present wilderness attributes of the area, as motorized mcle use and 

various hpuvemmts would be eliminated. As the qualiw of the wildemess 

experience offered mld be relatively low, recreation use would also remain 

low. Management of the area as wilderness would be difficult, considering 

the existing non-wnfomrhg uses and opportunity for illegal ORV use. The 

Ancient Bristlecane Pine Forest would receive “rm protection under 

wilderness designation, but public use of the area would be more restricted 

than at p-t. On-site inteqxetation of the area would not be 

appropriate. 

The na’aral appearance of the area would improve, as 4-wheel drive trails and 

other visual impacts warld be eliminated to restore to a natural condition. 

Gppxhmities to manipulate wildlife habitat would be foregone. 

Cattle grazing would continue essentiallyrun&anged, except that motorized 

vehicles could not be used to monitor cattle, mr muld structural 

inprov-ts be allmed. Maintenance of existug range mpmments would be 

mre difficult and costly. Opportunities to increase grazirg outputs would 

be foregone. 

Watershed restoration projects propsed for the area would be more costly 

witbout the option of using motorized equipnent. 

677 
The part of the area not yet withdrawn fran mineral entry would be withdrawn 

up designation as wilderness, resulting in a loss of mineral oppcrhmity. 

No new mining claims could be located, and activities on existing valid 

claims could be restricted. 

Thm would be a negligible econanic effect. Mining and grazing activities 

would continue, but under more costly restrictions. The change in recreation 

use fran mtorized to nomtorized would not contribute a noticeable econaRic 

change. However, a sccial cost would be the loss of more motorized 

recreation in the future. A social benefit of a formal wildemess 

designation would result. There would be no costs associated with 

constructing trails or trailheads, as there are not opportunities for those 

facilities. Administrative costs would be high due to the difficulty of 

managing the boundary. 

Confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under mst conditions. 

No other foreseeable envi-tal charges or resoucce trade-offs requiring 

mitigation would result. 

Designation: Nonwildemess 

Prescription #: 7, 17 

Alternative(s): PRF, AMN, AMB 

Effects on the Area: Wilderness attributes of the area would be essentially 

maintained. The Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest would be manaaed in 

near-mama1 condition, while management of the remainder of the area mld 

limit vehicle access and public road cons.truction. Four-wheel drive 

recreation would be wnfined to existing roads and trails. 

Recreation use would not be affected; the lcw level of historical use would 

continue. btorized vehicle access would be similar to the existing access 

situation. 

opportunities would exist to implement wildlife habitat imprwement 

projects. Csazing use and managenent would not change as opportunities to 

increase Outputs are limited. Watershed improvement projects could be 

acccmplished efficiently with motorized equipllent. 

The area outside the existing mineral withdrawal would remain open for new 

mineral claims. Mjning claims would be affected only by applicable mining 

restrictims. New mining roads would be closed to public use. 

The present socioeconanic situation would be maintained. The few grazing, 

wildlife, recreation, and mining benefits would be maintained with 

opportunities for some further developnent. A social cost would be the loss 

of potential wilderness designation. 

Confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under mt conditions. 

No other foreseeable environmental charges or resource trade-offs wing 

mitigation would result. 

678 
Designation: "dlderness 

prescription #: 7 and 18 

Alternative(s): CUR, RPA, GEE 

Effects on the Area: For the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, the 

consequences of applying this prescription would be the same as the previous 

I-rmwildemess occnbination, as the special management direction for that area 

would prevail. However, the remainder of the area would be managed to allow 

motor vehicles to travel anywhere, pr0vidi.q opportunities for challenge and 

freedm of nwvement. The wilderness attributes of natural appearance, 

integrity, and solitude could be significantly lost through the enhancement 

of ORV, grazing, wildlife, and mining opportunities. 

Pbtorized recreation use would increase as the area became more accessible. 

Visual impads would result fm resource management activi-hes, OW use, and 

Vegetation treatments for wildlife habitat and livestock grazing would 

probably ocur. 

Watershed restoration projects could be accanplished efficiently using 

motorized equiptwit. 

-OE, ' 

increased. 

F"ic benefits would OCCUT fran increased motorized recreation, hunting, 

grazing, and mining oprtunities. FCOXXN 'c costs would be those necessary 

to hplement resource and use opportunities. A social consequence would be 

the loss of potential wilderness designation. 

confinement or containment wxld be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under mt conditions. (All wildfires would be controlled 

under the OUR alternative. ) 

No ather foreseeable environmental changes or resource trade-offs requiring 

mitigation would result. 

mining. 

'ties would be enhanced as access throughout the area would be 

679 
Table C-24 

Av~=~age Annual Outplts fca: Decades 1 and 5 

Blanc0 Ehmtain (5059) 

Resmlrceac Alternatives 

Activity Decade PRF(xIRRPACEE AMNAMBAM: 

Reccmnended Wildemess -- 0 0 0 16.3 

(M acres) 

Ncolwildemess -- 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 0 

(M acres) 

Total Darelapea 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Recreatian (M PJJDs) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dispefied Recreatim 1 200 300 300 300 200 200 0 

(RVDS) 5 300 450 450 450 300 300 0 

Wilderness Recreation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 

( RVDs ) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 233 

Total Wildlife and 

(WFUDS) 5 450 600 600 600 450 450 150 

Fish User Days 1 300 400 400 400 300 300 100 

(Am) 1 140 140 140 140 140 140 135 

5 150 150 150 150 150 150 135 

Suitable Timber Land 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

(acres) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

(-1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tinke Volume 

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Gross Benefits(M$) 1 19 25 25 25 19 19 9 

5 29 38 38 38 29 29 io 

1 9 11 11 11 9 9 5 

5 16 19 19 19 16 16 4 

Net Benefits (M$) 1 10 14 14 14 10 10 4 

5 13 19 19 19 13 13 6 
BDKX CReX (#5060) Acres: 32,705 (600) 

A. DESCF3ITJ.m 

The Birch (seek area lies in Inyo county on the White Mountain Ranger 

District. Cmstzucted dirt roads lead to and parallel the boundary; 

mads penetrate the area. 

The bmdary is defined by the &man Canyon mad on the north, the Forest 

bollndary on the south and east, and the White "ntain Road and same if its 

side roads on the west. 

The area lies in the White Mountains in the Deep Springs Valley, North Owens: 

River, and Southeast White Mountains watersheds. It is roughly triangular, 

9 miles long by 2 to 9 miles wide; two road mmidors deeply intzude the 

area. 

Terrain is rugged and slopes steep, with same rolling, high plateau. The 

steep canyons channel intennittent streams; there are 2 miles of perennial 

stream, but m fisheries, and no lakes. Rock IS mstly metasedimentary, 

with granite outcrops. 

The primary vegetation type is pine-juniper woodland, with smaller amounts of 

big sagebrush, saltbush-grease, muntain makgany, and subalpine fir 

forest. Another botanical attraction is the Mathuseleh Wee, a bristlecone 

pine that is the world's oldest k" living thq. 

Scenic variety in the area falls into class A, 23 percent; class B, 77 

percent. The sucm~s are similar m appearance to the area itself. 

Views fran high points include the desert ranges to the east and the Sierra 

Nevada far to the west. 

Current uses include cattle grazing and recreation. 

B. CAPABILITY 

The natural ecological integrity and natural appearance of the area have been 

influenced to a very low degree. There are many small mining prospects with 

localized -acts, scattered grazing, a trail, and a few Unimpraved roads. 

Opportunities for solitude are moclerate. Size and screening are moderate, 

and there are no vlsual intrusions. 

Opportunities for primitive recreation are low, as there is little diversity 

or challenge. 

Special features include the research m dendrochronology and species ecology 

asscciated with the Schulman Grove of bristlecone pmes. 

The original inventoq boundary muld not be manageable as wildemess; the 

impacts are widely scattered and could not be separated by bouiiq 

adjustments. 

One parcel of roadless BIN land, encanpassing 851 acres, adjoins the area. 

Adjoining lands are administered by the BIN. 

681 
C. AVZCCIJBILITY 

The Birch creelc area represents few trade-offs between wildemess designation 

and other ~es(~ces and activities. Wilderness management wwld exclude 

vehicle access for big game hunters and prospectors, preclude vegetation 

manipulation to benefit wildlife or range, and restrict mineral exploration 

and developnent. 

Big game huntiq amounts to 200 WFUDs of recreation use a year; dispersed 

motorized recreation, 100 RVDs. 

Appraximately 70 acres are suitable for wildlife habitat manipulation. 

Water in the area is used locally for livestock. 

Cattle grazing represents 115 AW; "I potential is estimated at 160 

AW. 

The Ancient Bristlecane Pine Forest, a botanical Special interest area, 

includes about one-fifth of the area. 

The area is incapable of prcducing carmercial timber. 

Of the lands in this area, 44 percent are rated high in mineral potential: 39 

percent are msdium, and 17 percent are low. There are 245 active "J 

claims: in the area, of which none is currently prcducing. SubeconcMLc 

depits of silver, lead, zinc, and gold are inferred to contain 31,000 

tcols. There is moderate to high potential that more will be found. 

Withdrawal fm mineral entry affects 5,900 acres. 

(Xlltural reSOurce values include signs of prehistoric occupancy and historic 

mining. 

The 600 acres of included private and county land is undeveloped. 

D. NEED 

There appears to be little wilderness-type recreation use in the Basin and 

Range physiwaphic prwince. The Birch Creek area is typical of the 

provine. This area is near the Blanco Wnmtain and Black Canyon further 

nCistingi"en ts are valued at $3,000. 

Planlling areas. 

Public involvement for the RARE I1 stuciy indicate that wildemess proponents 

skoqly favor wildemess designation for all of the White and Irryo 

Mountains. The Birch Creek area has not been singled out for special 

treatment. 

Local people in general prefer mnwildemess managemat for "ining 

roadless areas. 

E. -CONSTable 025 indicates which management prescriptions were applied to (all or 

part) of the area under each alternative. The narratives following the table 

Local Paiute Indians collect pine nuts in the area. 

602 
discuss the effects of each prescription on the area in tem of present 

uses, wild-ss attributes, and mildemess developnent opprtuxuties. 

~esource and activity outputs for the area under each alternative are 

display& in Table C-26. 

Table C-25 

Managanent Prescxiption Allocations 

by Alternative (M Acxes and Percent of Area) 

Birch Creek (5060) 

Alternatives 

MaIlagmsn t presnipticm PRF OURRPACEEAMNAMBAMC 

2. proposed Wilderness 32.7 

100% 

7. Ancient Bristlecone 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 (9.1) 

Pine Forest* 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 

17. Semi-Primitive Rec 23.6 23.6 23.6 

72% 72% 72% 

18. Multiple Resource Area 23.6 23.6 23.6 

72% 72% 72% 

*Acres with dual designation (proposed wilderness ana RNA, Scenic Area, etc.) 

are displayed in the acreage total for Prescription 2 and indicated in 

parentheses under the other applicable prescription. 

Designation: Wilderness 

Prescription #: 2 

Alternative(s): AMC 

Effects on the Area: Wilderness designation would maintain or enhance the 

wilderness attributes of the area, as mtorized vehicle use would be 

pruhibited. As the quality of the wilderness experience offered would be low 

use would also be low. Managanent of the area as wildemess would be 

difficult due to the various mn-wnfonnbg uses. The Ancient Bristlecone 

Pine Forest would receive "rm protection under wildemess designation, 

but public use of the area would be more restricted than at present. On-site 

interpretation of the area would not be appropriate. 

The natmal appearance of the area would iniprove as 4-wheel drive trails and 

many other visual impacts would be eliminated or restored to a natural 

condition. 

Wildlife habitat would not be manipulated: however, little opportunity for 

this activity is found in the area. 

Grazing would not be affected, except that monitoring of livestock and 

stzuctmal or vegetative hprovemnts would be mre restricted. 

Opprhmities to increase grazing outputs would be foregone. 

The area not already withdrawn frcm mineral entry would be withdrawn upon 

designation as wilderness, resulting in a loss of mineral opportunity. No 

new mining claims could be located, and activities on minicg claims with 

existirig valid claims could be restricted. 

683 
Socioeccarmic effects would be few. Miniq and grazirg activities would 

ccsltinue, but under mxe mtly restrictions. Recreation use, changirg fran 

mtorized to rraynotorized &d not prcduce a noticeable ecorrmic effect. 

trrxtJever, a social cost would be the loss of rrrrrtOrized recreation 

cpprturdties. A 

trailhead and approximately eight miles of new trail mld be a cost of 

3nplemntatim. 

confinement or contaiment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

stcategies applied under mt conditions. 

No other foreseeable envirorrmental changes or resource trade-offs requiring 

mitigation would result. 

A social benefit would be a formal wildt??mess designation. 

Designation: Rmwilderness 

Prescsiption #: 7 and 17 

Alternative(s): PRF, AMN, AMB 

Effects on the Area: The 

Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest would he "aged in its near-natural 

condition with adequate protection. The re"d ' er of the area would be 

inanaged to limit vehicle access and public road construction. Recreation use 

would continue at the present low level. Motorized recreation would be 

reskicted to existing roads and trails. Natural appearance would be 

expected to change little from the present. 

Wilderness values would be essentially maintained. 

The options of making wildlife or rqe habitat improvements mld be 

maintained: however the opprtunities are limited. only marginal outputs 

mld be received frun these investnmts. Grazing and hunting would increase 

slightly. 

The entire area outside the existing mineral withdrawal would remain 

available for new mineral claims. Mining activities would be affected only 

by applicable mining restrictions. New mining roads would be closed to 

public use. 

The current ecoMmic situation would be maintained. A scc-1 cost would be 

the loss of potential wildexness designation. 

confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most conditions. 

No other foreseeable environmental changes or resource trade-off rqyiJ3.q 

mitigation mld result. 

Designation: Nonwildemess 

PrescriDtion - #: 7 and 18 

Alternative(s): CUR, CEE, RPA 

Effects on the Area: For the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, the 

CCas~~~s of applying this prescription muld be the same as for the 

nonwilderness canbination described above, as the established special 

management direction for that area would prevail. The repnainder of the 

roadless area would be managed to allow mtor vehicle use with "a1 

restrictions, providing opportunities for challenge and freedan of "ent. 

The wilderness attributes of natural appearance, integrity, and solitude 

684 
would be lost for mch of the area if OW use and mining activities increased 

in response to this lack of restriction. bbtorized recreaticm use would 

increase if the area became mre accessible. 

Sane wildlife and grazirg enhancement -&.mities ad exist, but only 

mjrnr benefits could be realized. 

Ecananic benefits would occur fran mtorized recreation, hunting, grazing, 

and “J. Econanic costs would be associated with inpltmmting resource 

inprwtmmts. The loss of potential wilderness designation would be a social 

cost. 

ccolfinement or containment wuld be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under mst conditions. (All wildfires would be controlled 

under the UJR alternative.) 

No other foreseeable -tal changes or remwxe trade-offs rquiring 

mitigation muld result. 

685 
Table C-26 

Average A"al Outputs for Decades 1 and 5 

Birch Creek (5060) 

Resaurcear Alt€ZEktiVeS 

Activity Decade PRFaJRRPAcEE AMNAMBAMC 

Recamwaded Wilderness -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 32.7 

(M acres) 

NQI-lWilderneSS -- 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7 0 

(M acres) 

Total Develop4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Recreation (M RVDS) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dispersed Recreation 1 600 600 600 600 400 400 0 

( RVDS ) 5 900 900 900 900 600 600 0 

(RVDs) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 

Total Wildlife and 

Fish User Days 1 800 800 800 800 600 600 150 

(ms) 5 1200 1200 1200 1250 900 900 200 

(-1 1 120 120 120 120 120 120 115 

5 145 145 145 145 145 145 115 

Suitable Timber Land 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

( acres ) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

(-) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Wilderness Recreation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 

Timber Volume 

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Gross Benefits(Ms) 1 50 50 50 50 38 3% 13 

5 76 76 76 76 58 58 19 

1 22 22 22 22 18 18 26 

5 38 38 3% 38 32 32 9 

Net Benefits (I$) 1 

5 

28 28 28 28 20 20 -13 

36 36 36 36 26 26 10 

686 
BLA(x ell" (#5061) Acres: 34,804 

A. DESCIUPI'ION 

Tl-e Black Canyon area lies in Inyo County on the Wte Mountain Ranger 

District. State Route 168 (Westgard Pass), the Bristlecone Road, and Several 

dirt roads lead to and parallel the boundary; me unimproved roads penetrate 

the area. 

The boundary is defined by the Forest boundary on the west, the White 

Mountain Road and associated side roads on the east, Highway 168 on the 

south, and Silver Canyon Road on the north. Most of the adjoining land is 

acaninistered by the BIN; me parcels are privately owned. 

The area lies on west slope of the White Pbuntains in the North Owens River 

and Southeast White Mountains watersheds. It fom a rectangle with 

inlzuding mad corridors, measuring 11.5 miles long by 6 miles wide. 

Elevations range fm 4,200 to 10,454 feet. 

Terrain is mstly steep, with me rolling high plateau. There are springs 

and internuttent streams; 2 miles of perdal stream, but no fisheries; and 

no lakes. Rock is metasedimentary with granite outcrops. 

primary vegetation types are pine-juniper woodland and big sagebrush. 

Saltbush-greasewood and shadscale scrub are also present in smaller amounts. 

Scenic variety m the area falls into class A, 34 percent; class B, 66 

percent. Tl-e west face of the White Mountains is a scenic landmark fm 

Bishop, Big Pine, and Highway 395. The mundings are also scenic; the 

open plateau couniry of the Wte Mountain crest lies to the east; the 

dramatic Owens Valley with its Sierra Nevada backdrop are seen to the west. 

Current uses include recreation and dcutting. 

B. CAeABILITY 

The natural ecological integrity and natural appearance of the area have been 

influenced to a very low degree. The unimproved road which leads up Black 

Canyon to Schulman Grove is the only impact. 

Gpprknities for solitude are derate. The area is fairly large, and 

affords a derate amount of screening. Visual intrusions frau the Owens 

Valley and noise fran ORV use in Poleta Canyon are only siwficant at lower 

elevations. 

opportunities for primitive recreation are low, as there is little diversity 

or challenge. 

A sensitive plant species, Dedeckera eurekensis, gnxys on the area's westem 

boundary. 

The original inventory boundary would only be manageable as wildemess if the 

Black Canyon Road could be closed. That road bisects the area, and is 

therefore not separable by a boundary adjustment. 

687 
'phree parcels of roadless BLN land, encanpassirag 6,518 acres, adjoin the 

area. 

C. A-TY 

The Black CanyOXl area IT3melltS tW0 llBjOr tradeQffS be- d1-S 

designation and other activities. If the Black Canyon road were closed, the 

associated 4-Wfieel drive recreation would be last, and under wilderness 

designation the area would be withdram fran mjneral en-. 

Big gam htiq accounts for 600 WFtps of use a year: other motorized 

recreation anmmts to 400 m. 

lmq gliders traveling to their take-off point. 

The lower elevatims fall into Tule elk range. 

Appmxhately 60 acres are suitable for wildlife habitat manipulation. 

The area is incapable of prcduciq wmnercial timber, but there is some 

public wcod gathering at the higher elevations. 

Of the lands in this area, 20 percent are rated high in mineral potential: 68 

percent are medium, and 12 percent are low. There are 15 active "J 

claims in the area, of which mne are currently prcduciq. Mineral resources 

include gold, silver, lead, zinc, and tuqsten. Eight mines have produced 

ore. lbm other praperties have 40,000 tons of identified subeconaru 'c gold 

and silver deposits. Five additional Properties have gold, silver, and lead 

The canyml has been used in reoent years by 

potential. 

mining and vicdcutting. 

cultural resource values include prehistoric features and signs of historic 

D. NEED 

There appears to be little wilderness-type recreation use in the Basin and 

Range physiographic prwince. The Black Canyon area is typical of the 

prwince. This area is near the White Mountains, Blanco Mountain, and ~irch 

Public involvement for the RARE I1 study indicated strong supprt on the part 

of wilderness prupments for wilderness in the White and Inyo Mountains; that 

interest was not focused on this area in particular. 

Local people favor nonwildemess. 

nut gathering. 

E. ~OIiSEQWNCJS 

Table C-27 indicates which managenat prescriptions were applied to (all or 

part) of the area under each alternative. The narratives following the table 

discuss the effects of each prescription on the area in terms of present 

uses, wildemess attributes, and nonwildemess developnent opp3rtunities. 

creek further Planrling areas. 

Local Paiute Indians use the area for pine 

688 
Resource and activity outputs for the area under each alternative are 

displayed in Table C-28. 

Table C-27 

Manawt Prexxipticn Allocaticms 

by Alternative (M Acres ad Percent of Area) 

Black Canycn (5061) 

Alternatives 

MalMw t Prescription PFlF (IIRRPACEXAMNAMBAMC 

2. l?coposed Wildemess 34.8 

100% 

17. Semi-F'rimitive Rec 34.8 34.8 34.8 

100% 100% 100% 

18. Wtiple Resource Area 34.8 34.8 34.8 

100% 100% 100% 

Designation: Wilderness 

Prescription #: 2 

Altemative(s): AMC 

Effects on the area: Wildmess desiqnation vnxlld sliqhtly enhance 

wilderness attributes of the area, as v&cle access over th;? Black Canyon 

Road would be e1i"ted. The type of recreation mld change fm mtorized 

to "mtorized, with an overall decline in the intensity of use. other 

mechanized activities, such as hang glidirg and all-terrain bicycl-, muld 

also be pmhibited. 

Fuel& gathering would be eliminated. Pme-nut gather- would pose a 

source of potential conflict with wilderness a&mistration. 

The area would be withdrawn fm mineral entry upon designation as 

wilderness, resulting in a loss of mineral oppzhmity. No new mining claims 

could be located, and activities on mining claims with existing valid claims 

could be restricted. 

The only existing or potential ecoMmic depndencies on the area are 

motorized recreation and mining, which would be lost or restricted under 

wildmess. The greatest social benefit would be a formal wilderness 

designation. Administrative costs would increase slightly. There would be a 

cost associated with constructing trailheads to facilitate use of the area. 

confinemen t or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most conditions. 

No other foreseeable enviromtal changes or resource trade-offs requiring mitigation would result. 

689 
Designation: "ilderness 

Prescription #: 17 

Alternative(s): PRF, AMN, AMB 

Effects on the Area: The 

area would be managed to limit vehicle access and public road o"ction. 

The present motorized recreation would continue at a low level. Vehicles 

would be limited to existing mads and trails. 

Natural appearance would be maintained, with the exception of a few isolated 

road, ORV, and mining impacts; the visual quality of the area as seen fran 

U.S. Highway 395 (a State designated sdc highway) would be maintained at a 

mderately high level. 

The option to allow fuelwood and pine-nut gathering would not change. 

The area would remain available for new mineral claims. Mining activities 

would be affected only by applicable mining restricticns. New mining mads 

would be closed to the public. 

There would be no direct econaRic effect. 

would wntinue without change. 

potential wildenxss designation and the loss of an open ORV area. 

Confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under mst conditions. 

No other foreseeable environmental changes or major resource trade-offs 

Whg mitigation mld result. 

Wildezness values would be essentially maintained. 

The limited recreation and minirg 

Mal losses mld result fm the loss of 

Designation: "wilderness 

Prescription#: 18 

Alternative(s): CUR, RPA, CEE 

Effects on the Area: Wilderness values would decline, and eventually be lost 

as the area would be "sed to allow mtor vehicle use to travel essentiallv .. unacoltrolled, providing &rhmities for challenge and fm of "ent. 

PZbrized recreation use would increase as the area became roaded and more 

accessible. Natural appear- would be affected by increased, unccoltrolled 

mtorized recreation. 

The option to allow fuelwood and pine-nut gathering would not change. 

"he area would remain available for new mineral claims. Mining opp3rtunities 

would be enhanced as access throughout. the area inproved. 

Eccaa3mic consequences would be few. Increased minirig and recreation 

-ties would create minor benefits. The greatest social cost would be 

the losses of potential wildemess designation and a natural envimment. 

confinement or containment muld be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most wnditions. (All wildfires would be mtmlled 

under the ClJFi altmtive. ) 

No other foreseeable environmental changes or major trade-offs requiring 

mitigation would result. 

690 
Table C-28 

Average Arm& Outputs for Decades 1 and 5 

Black Canyon (5061) 

Resource or Alternatives 

Activity Decade PRFauRRpACXE AMNAMBAMC 

Recarmended Wildemess -- 0 0 0 34.8 

(M acres) 

Nonwildemess -- 34.8 34.8 34.8 34.8 34.8 34.8 0 

(M acres) 

Total Developxi 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Recreation (M RVDs) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dispersed Recreation 1 400 600 600 600 400 400 0 

( RvDs 1 5 600 900 900 900 600 600 0 

Wildemess Recreation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 

(RVDS) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 

Total Wildlife and 

Fish User Days 1 600 800 800 800 600 600 150 

5 900 1200 1200 1200 900 900 200 

Grazing (AUMs) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Suitable Timber Land 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

( acres 1 i" 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Timber Volume 

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Gross Benefits(Ms) 1 38 50 50 50 38 38 9 

5 58 76 76 76 58 58 14 

(Ms) 1 18 22 22 22 18 18 15 

5 32 38 38 38 32 32 5 

Net Benefits (I$) 1 20 28 28 28 20 20 -6 

5 26 36 36 36 26 26 9 

691 
A"s hs" (#5063) Acres: 13.619 

A. D-CN 

The Andr0ws mxntain area lies in Inyo oounty 081 the Mt. whitney Ranger 

District. A "nber of roads and vehicle tracks penetrate the 

area. 

The bundaq is defined by a loop jeep road that leads from the Wauwb rcad 

to Papaxe Flat and Squaw Flat and returns. 

dianmd-shaped, 8 miles lcolg by 4 miles wide. 

The area lies in the Inyo muntahs in* the Owens River watershed. It is 

E1evaticx-1~ range fm 7,000 to 

9,460 feat. 

intmnittent streams pruvide the only water. Rock is metasedunen . tarywith 

granite outcsops. 

The prm vegetatiun type in the area is pine-juniper woodland. 

Scenic variety in the area falls into class B, 97 percent; class C, 3 

percent. The su"&q ' s are similar in appearance to the area itself. The 

Sierra Nevada on the west and desert ranges to the east can be seen in the 

far distanc0 from the highest points. scenery is Similar to 

sm within the area. 

Terrain is mostly rolling, With Sane flats and Steep Slopes. A feW 

The 

Current uses include -ation, wood gathering, and pmsp&hg. 

B. C2PABILITY 

The natural ecological integrity of the area has been Mluenced to a low 

degree; its natural appearance to a very low degree. There are several 

cat-canstruded mining roads, which though limited in area are visible for 2 

to 3 miles. Minirig claims and diggings are also visible, Wgh they are 

scattered and their *act localized. Many scattered uninipd roads: are 

also apparent. 

-ties for solitude are low. 

to moderate; however there are ro intrusions. 

Gpporhmities for prhitive recreation are also low. 

or challeqe. 

The original inventory boundary muld not be manageable as wilderness. Minor 

adjushwnts could exclude the constructed roads mtioned above; the 

remahhg impacts are scattered thmugbut the area. 

The area is snall, and screening is low 

There is no dimity 

C. AVAILABILITY 

The Andrews Mountain area represents trade-offs between wilderness 

designation and vehicle-based recreation, wood gathering, and mining. 

692 
Existing recreation use includes dispersed mtorized recreation (100 RVDs), 

rram>torized recreatim (100 WFUDs), and big game hunting (100 RVDs). 

The area is incapable of prw3~1cj.g armwcial timber. The public gathers 

pirqm-jmipr fuelwood in the area. 

Of the lands in Ms area, 69 percent are rated high h mineral potential: 31 

percent are rated low. There are 3 active mining claims in the area, of 

which IlDne are currently pmcing. 

Cultural resowxe values include prehisbrie features and historic mFning 

sites. 

D. NEED 

There is apparently little wildeznffis-type recreation use in the Basin and 

Range physiographic pravince. The AndraJs Mountain area is typical of the 

provine. 

Public irnrOlvement for the RARE I1 study indicates that State and National 

e”mental organizations favored the designation of wildemess in the 

White and Inyo P4x”a.i.m. The Andrew Mountain area was not sirgled out for 

special treatmnt. 

Lccal people favor mwildemess options. 

E. -mBXJEXlB 

Table C-29 indicates which management prescriptions were applied to (all or 

part) of the area under each alternative. The narratives follwirg the table 

discuss the effects of each prescription on the area in tenns of present 

uses, wilderness attributes, and ncolwildemess developcent opprhmities. 

Resource and activity Outputs for the area under each alternative are 

displayed in Table C-30. 

This area is near the Paiute further planning area. 

Table C-29 

MaMgement prescription Allocations 

by At-tive (M Anes and Percent of Area) 

Andrews Mnmtain (5063) 

Alternatives 

Managenen t Prescription PRFCUliFPACEEAMNAMBAW 

2. F“sed - Wildemess 13.6 13.6 

100% 100% 

17. Semi-primitive Rec 13.6 

100% 

18. MultiDle - Resource Area 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 

100% 100% 100% 100% 

693 
- wi1deme.k experience offerred would 6e low, use would al& remain low. 

Management of the area as wilderness muld be difficult, as the terrain does 

not provide a natural barrier to vehicle entry. The natural appearance of 

the area would gradually improve, as 4-wheel drive trails would be allowed to 

restore, and prospcting for new mineral claims would be prohibited. 

Fuelwood gathering would be prohibited. 

The area would be withfirawn fran mineral entry upn designation as 

wilderness, resulting in a loss of mineral opportunity. No new mining claims 

could be located, and activities on mining claims with existing valid claims 

could be restricted. 

There are only minor potential econanic depndencies on the area: they are 

associated with motorized recreation and mining. A social benefit would be a 

formal wilderness designation of an ecological type underrepresented in 

wilderness on the Forest. AdhnMstrative costs would increase. 

Appmximtely six miles of trial would be coI1stLucted. 

Confhawnt or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under mst conditions. 

No other foreseeable enviromental changes or resource trade-offs requiring 

mitigation would result. 

Designation: Nanwildemess 

prescription( s) : 17 

Alternative(s): AMB 

Effects on the Area: Wildemess attributes would be maintained, as motorized 

use would be confined to existing mutes and would not be expected to 

increase. Gnly a major mining operation could noticeably affect natural 

appearance and integri* and opp0r;Unities for solitude and primitive 

recreation. 

Fuelwood gathering would continue to be allowed. 

The area would be open to new mining claims: activities would be 

subject only to applicable mining laws. Any new mhirg roads would be closed 

to public use. 

There are only minor potential econanic depndencies associated with 

.motorized recreation and mining in the area; they would be retained at 

bt or increased levels. A social cost would be the lack of formal 

wilderness designation. 

Confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most conditions. 

694 
No other foreseeable enviromtal changes or resource trade-offs requiring 

mitigation would result. 

Wignation: Nonwildemess 

prescription #: 18 

Alt-tive(s): PRF, a, RPA, (3EE 

Effects on the Area: Wilderness values would be lost over time as the area 

would be managed to allow mtor vehicle use to travel essentially 

unccoltrol~ed, p;oViding opportunities for challange and freedan of "ent. 

bbtorized recreation use would increase as the area became roaded and mre 

easily accessible. 

Natural appearance would be affected by increased motorized recreation 

travelling uncontrolled. 

The option to allow fuel- and pine-nut gathering would not change. 

The area would remain open to new minirg claims. 

be enhanced as access throughout the area increased. 

EcoM3Ric consquences would be few. Increased mining and recreation 

opportunities and activites would contribute minor benefits. The greatest 

smial cost would be the loss of potential wilderness designation in an 

underrepresented ecolccial type. 

Confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most conditions. (All wildfires would be controlled 

under the alternative. ) 

No other foreseeable environmental changes or resource trade-offs requiring 

mitigation would result. 

Mining opportunities would 

695 
Table C-30 

Average Annual Outputs for Decades 1 and 5 

Andrews kxIrltain (5063) 

ResanXstn? AlternativeS 

Activity Decade PRFCURRE'A CEEAUNAMBAMC 

Recamnended Wilderness -- 0 0 0 0 13.6 0 13.6 

Suitable Timber Land 

(acres) 

Timber Volume 

(-) 

Net Benefits (a) 

-- 13.6 

1 0 

5 0 

1 200 

5 300 

1 0 

5 0 

1 150 

5 225 

1 0 

5 0 

1 0 

5 0 

1 0 

5 0 

1 0 

5 0 

1 12 

5 19 

1 6 

5 10 

1 6 

5 9 

13.6 

0 

0 

200 

300 

0 

0 

150 

225 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

12 

19 

6 

10 

6 

9 

13.6 

0 

0 

200 

300 

0 

0 

150 

225 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

12 

19 

6 

10 

6 

9 

13.6 

0 

0 

200 

300 

0 

0 

150 

225 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

12 

19 

6 

10 

6 

9 

0 13.6 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 100 0 

0 150 0 

100 0 100 

150 0 150 

150 100 100 

225 150 150 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

12 10 7 

19 15 11 

6 5 22 

10 a 6 

6 5 -15 

9 7 5 

696 
PA" (#5064 AW) Acres: 130,563 

A. DESCRIFTICN 

The Paiute area lies in Inyo County on the Mt. Whitney Ranger District. It 

is accessible fran the Waucoba and Saline Valley mads, which parallel the 

bundary; and frun the Papxse-Scpaw Flat, Harkless Flat, and Mazourka canycol 

jeep ma& which intrude the area. Many additional unimproved mads and 

trails penetrate the interior. 

Subparts A and B were assigned by the RARE 11-study; the boundary between the 

two was a mrth-south line that roughly bisected the area. The subparts have 

been reaggregated for purposes of this analysis; where only part of the area 

is recormended for wilderness, the revised kxnmdaq was drawn to improve 

manageability and reduce wnflicts and does not coincide with the internal 

subpart boundary fran RARE 11. 

The boundary of the entire are is defined by the Wauwba and Saline Valley 

roads an the north, and the Forest lmmckuy on the east, west, and south. 

The road corridxs mentioned above intrude the area. ACj0inir-g lands are 

administered by the BW or the City of Los Angeles. 

The area encanpasses a large part of the Inyo Mountaim, in the North and 

South c" River, Southeast white Mountains, and Saline Valley watersheds. 

Its irregular shape is due primarily to the abundance of road corridor 

intrusions. The perimeter is mughly rectangular, 11 miles wide and 24 miles 

long. 

Terrain oarrprises a steep-sided ridge with high, rolling sunnit plateaus and 

flat benches. Intermittent streams follow steep, narrow canyons down both 

sides of the crest; there are 3 miles of perennial stream, but m fisheries. 

Swal major springs murish pockets of riparian vegetaticm. 

The geology of the area is mtemrthy. Mazaurka Canyon itself represents a 

deeply-eroded layer of shale between two masses of granite, resulting in the 

deepest canyon in the range. Several impressive, -thly-ercded granite 

monoliths stand out on the ridgetop. The exposed rock on the east slope of 

Waucoba and Squaw Mountains includes a distinctive marble outcrop and rock 

representing a variety of metasedhentary formations and geologic perirxls. 

Primary vegetation types are pine-juniper wmdland, big sagebrush, and 

shadscale scrub. Seep Hole and Side Hill Springs support mque plant 

associations. Spring desert wildflower displays in Mazourka and Rose canyons 

are especially attractive. 

Scenic variety in the area falls into class A, 32 percent; class B, 64 

percent; class C, 4 percent. The west slop of the Inyo Wuntains is banded 

with colorful rock layers. This slope is a smc landnark from Highway 395, 

State-designated a scenic highway in the C" Valley. The surrounding area 

is also quite scenic. There are excellent views of the Owens Valley and 

Sierra crest to the west, and of Saline Valley to the east. 

Elevations range frun 3,800 feet to 11,123 feet at Waucoba Ivlountain. 

697 
Other atbactians include Nelsan bighorn sheep and wild horses and burms. 

Chrnmt uses include recreation, grazing, woodcutting and mining. 

B. Cl4PAEIILJ.W 

The natural emlcgical integrity of the area has been influenced to a high 

degree: its natural appearance to a very high degree. The major impacts, 

Wch affect 50 to 75 percent of the area, are numerous mining sites 

involving considerable disturbance and many miles of road and 

vehicle tracks. Additional signs of disturbance are scattered cabins, signs 

of wwdcutting, tm me-acre reservoirs, fences, foot trails, grazing, water 

pollution and tranpling at springs used by cattle and wild horses and burros, 

and wildlife guzzlers. There are also two unauthorized mining occupancies in 

the area. 

Opprhmities for solitude are high. The area is quite large, and adjoins 

additional roadless land administered by the BIN. Scxeenmg ’ is poor, and 

there are s~ne intzusions fran traffic on intruding roads. 

Opprbmties for primitive recreation are low, in spite of the size of the 

area. Access is difficult---= are few trails, and terrain is steep. 

There is little diversity, and only a little challenge. 

Special features include research being wnducted on the Inyo herd of Nelson 

bighom sheep, and three sensitive plant species (Scleraactus plyancistrus, 

Cryptantha rcosiorum, and Caulostramina jaegeri). The latter two species 

grow at Sidehill and Seepble Springs. 

The area wwld not be manageable as wilderness witbut major bow 

adjusbents. Due to the number of minpruved roads, vehicle access would be 

very difficult to wntrol. If the area were reduced in size to app”tely 

55,000 acres in the southeast mer, the boundary would be manageable, the 

key wildemess values would be retained, trade-offs with other resources and 

uses would be minimized, and major mining sites and roads would be excluded. 

The revised area would rate very high in natural integrity and natural 

appearance. 

Five parcels o€ roadless BLM land, emupassing 34,427 acres, adjoin the 

area. Of these, tm are wilderness study areas currently favored by the BLN 

for wilderness, which adjoin the National Forest lands on the southeast. 

C. AVAILMjILITY 

The Paiute area represents trade-offs between wilderness designation and 

vehicular recreation, wccdcutting, and vegetation manipulation to benefit 

wildlife. 

Chrrent recreation use includes dispersed “mtorized recreation (600 RVDs), 

dispersed motorized recreatim (500 RVDs), big game hunting (500 WFUDs), 

anall game hunting (200 WFUDs), and wildlife obsemation (200 WFUDs). 

r4?proximately 4,460 acres are suitable for wildlife habitat manipulation. 

Mining developnent could also conflict with wilderness values. 

698 
Water fran the area is used kcally for mining, irrigation, livestock, 

wildlife, and donestic needs. 

The proposed whippoorwill Flat research natural area on the east side of 

Squaw and Wauooba Mountains would preserve undisturbed stands of pinyon pine 

and limber pine. 

Grazing a"ts to 120 AUMs with no potential for increased outputs: 

inqrovemnts are valued at $8,000. 

The area is incapable of mercial timber proaUction. Some public 

woodcutting takes place in pinyon pine areas. 

Of the lands in this area, 34 percent are rated high in mineral potential: 15 

percent are medium, and 51 percent are low. There are 39 active mining 

claims in the area, of which none are currently prOaUcirg. Eleven mines have 

prcduced ore. Metals known or suspected to cccur in the area are gold, 

silver, tungsten, and scheelite. Ncovnetal minerals of possible value are 

marble, graphite, and talc. 

(xlltural resource values include prehistoric features and many historic 

mining sites. The Paiute Mxummt (also called Winnedumah) is a granite 

monolith on the divide. Variom Paiute legends have developd around this 

feature. 

D. NEED 

There is little apparent wilderness-type recreation use in the Basin and 

Range physicgraphic province. The Paiute area is typical of the province, 

except for a few destination points at perennial springs, and scenic views in 

every direction. This area is near the Andrews Mountain further p1armi.q 

area. 

Public involvement for the RARE I1 study indicated strong National and State 

interest in wilderness designation for the majority of the white and Inyo 

Mountains. 

There is, nevertheless, interest in sone form of protection and/or 

reoognition for unique features within the area. Local Paiute Indians value 

the winnedumah "ent. Geologists value the close association of varied 

rock strata. The local chapter of the California Native Plant Society would 

like to see the proposed research natural area established, and sane form of 

protection given to vegetation at Side Hill and Seep Hole Springs. Wildlife 

enthusiasts favor protection of the Nelson bigl" sheep. 

E. ~CoNsIQUENCS 

Local people favored nonwilderness options. 

Table C-31 indicates which managanent prescriptions were applied to (all or 

part) of the area under each alternative. The narratives following the table 

discuss the effects of each prescription on the area in terms of present 

uses, wildemess attributes, and mnwildemess developent opportunities. 

Resource and activity outputs for the area undex each alternative are 

displayed in Table C-32. 

699 
Table C-31 

Management Prescription Allocations 

by Alternative (M Acres and Percent of Area) 

Paiute (5064 Am) 

Alternatives 

Management Prescription PRF CUR RPA CEE A!4N AMI3 AMC 

2. Proposed Wilderness 47.5 54.4 130.6 130.6 130.6 

37% 41% 100% 100% 100% 

5. Research Natural Area 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 (3.3) (3.3) (3.3) 

3% 3% 3% 3% 

60% 56% 97% 97% 

18. Multiple Resource Area 79.8 73.3 127.2 127.2 

Designation: Wilderness 

Prescription #: 2 

Alternative(s): AMN, AM6 and AMC 

Effects on the Area: Wilderness designation would maintain wilderness 

attributes within areas of existing high - levels of natural ecological 

integrity and appearance. In areas containing low natural integrity and 

appearance, wilderness attributes would be somewhat enhanced, as motorized 

vehicle use would be eliminated. For much of the area, opportunities for 

finding solitude would be high. However, the overall quality of the 

primitive experience would remain low, due to the degree of past human 

influence and perceived desirability of the wilderness environment. 

Primitive recreation use in the area would, nevertheless, increase somewhat 

upon wilderness designation. Established motorized recreation would be 

eliminated. 

Management of the area as wilderness would be difficult and costly, as the 

terrain does not restrict vehicle access at many locations. Since the area 

is quite isolated and difficult to manage, monitoring of use would be a 

problem. Mining under existing valid claims would also significantly 

complicate management. 

Options to directly enhance wildlife habitat would be foregone: however, 

bighorn sheep habitat would receive considerable protection. Management of 

wild horses and burros would be more complicated and costly. Since these 

animals are nonnative species, they would constitute a wilderness management 

conflict. 

The area would be withdrawn from mineral entry upon designation as 

wilderness, resulting in a loss of mineral opportunity. No new mining claims 

could be located, and activities on mining claims with existing valid claims 

could be restricted. 

Unique geological features and sensitive vegetation would receive maximum 

protection from human influences. Wilderness designation would provide full 

protection for the proposed research natural area (RNA); however, the 

purposes and uses of wilderness and the RNA would not be completely 

compatible. Management conflicts could develop. 

700 
Socioeconomic consequences include lost opportunities for motorized 

recreation, hunting, woodcutting, and mining. The greatest social benefit 

would be a formal wilderness designation in an ecological type not yet 

represented in wilderness on the Forest. Costs of implementation would 

include construction of approximately 21 miles of trail and 5 trailheads. 

Administrative costs would increase dramatically. 

Confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most conditions. 

No other foreseeable environmental changes -or resource tradeoffs requiring 

mitigation would result. 

Designation: Wilderness(revised boundary)/nonwilderness 

Prescription #: 2, 5, 18 

Alternative(s): PRF, CUR 

Effects on the Area: The area recommended for wilderness under this 

combination of prescriptions would rate much higher in wilderness values, be 

more manageable as wilderness, and would conflict less with other existing 

and potential uses than would be the case if the entire area were managed as 

wilderness. For these reasons, a wilderness recommendation with the revised 

boundary proposed here would be more likely to be designated by Congress than 

the entire areas would be. The fact that the size of the revised area is 

considerably smaller than the entire area is offset by the fact that the 

revised area adjoins two large BLM wilderness study area currently favored by 

the BLM for wilderness. 

Under this combination, wilderness designation and RNA management would 

maintain wilderness attributes within areas with existing high levels of 

natural ecological integrity and appearance. Areas containing low natural 

integrity and appearance would be open for vehicle access, and the existing 

low quality of wilderness attributes would continue to deteriorate over time. 

For much of the area, both inside and outside of wilderness, opportunities 

for solitude would be high. The overall quality of the primitive experience 

would be low, even in wilderness, due primarily to lack of water. Primitive 

recreation use in the wilderness part would nevertheless increase upon 

wilderness designation. There is no existing motorized recreation in that 

area. 

Management of the wilderness part would not be difficult or costly, as the 

terrain presents natural barriers to vehicle access along most parts of the 

boundary. Since the area is quite isolated, monitoring of use would be a 

problem. 

The recommended wilderness and RNA areas would be withdrawn from mineral 

entry upon designation, resulting in a loss of mineral opportunity. No new 

mining claims could be located, and activities on mining claims with existing 

valid claims could be restricted. This effect would be moderated by the fact 

that the wilderness part of the area rates lower in mineral potential (5% 

high, 39% medium, and 56% low) than the entire area (34% high, 15% medium. 

and 51% low). 
The effects of wilderness designation, in combination with RNA management, on 

other resources and activities would be similar for the wilderness and RNA 

parts of the area to those discussed above for the entire area under 

Prescription 2. The following discussion will address only the effects of 

Prescription 18 on the remaining area. 

Parts of the area seen from Highway 395 would be nonwilderness, allowing for 

greater potential visual impacts as seen from a major scenic highway. 

Assigned VQOs for that area would, however, represent a fairly high level of 

protection. 

Options to enhance wildlife habitat would be maintained. Bighorn sheep 

habitat would receive little protection. Wild horses and burros would 

represent no conflicts with management objectives. 

Unique geological and ecological features are concentrated in the wilderness 

part of the area, and would, therefore, be protected from human influences. 

Most facilities would be retained, as they are concentrated in the 

nonwilderness part of the area. 

Exercise of lawful rights for road access to private land would constitute no 

conflict, as the private land is in the nonwilderness part. 

As the proposed research natural area would lie outside of wilderness, there 

would be no potential conflicts between the management of wilderness and the 

RNA. 

Socioeconomic benefits include opportunities for continued and increased 

motorized recreation, grazing, hunting, woodcutting, and mining. The 

greatest social loss would be a loss of potential wilderness designation for 

considerable acreage in an ecological type not yet represented in wilderness 

on the Forest. 

Confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most conditions. (All wildfires would be controlled 

under the CUR alternative.) 

No other foreseeable environmental changes or resource tradeoffs requiring 

mitigation would result. 

Designation: Nonwilderness 

Prescription #: 5, 18 

Alternatives(s): WA. CEE 

Effects on the Area: The effects of this combination of prescriptions would 

be similar to those described above under the combination of Prescriptions 2, 

5, and 18 except that wilderness attributes would be expected to deteriorate 

over the entire area (outside 3,300 acres in the RNA) in this scenario. 

Bighorn sheep would be managed for population viability, but would receive no 

overall protection. Outstanding ecological and geological features would be 

increasingly vulnerable to damage or destruction as vehicle use increased in 

the area. 

702 
Mining opportunities would be enhanced as access throughout the area would be 

increased. 

Vehicle-based recreation opportunities and mining with minimal restrictions 

would be social benefits under this “bination. 

mnfineinmt or containment muld be the appmpriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most conditions. 

703 
Table C-32 

Average Anmadl Outplts for Decades 1 and 5 

Paiute (5064 Am) 

Rescwxear Alternatives 

Activity Decacae PRF (XIR RPA CEE AMN AMB AM: 

Recarmended Wilderness -- 54.4 54.4 0 0 130.6 130.6 130.6 

(M acres) 

~lderness -- 76.2 76.2 130.6 130.6 0 0 0 

(M acres) 

mtal Developea 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

ReCreatian (M RVDS) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dispersed Recreation 1 1000 loo0 1300 1300 0 0 0 

(RVDs) 5 1500 1500 1950 1950 0 0 0 

Wilderness Recreation 1 600 600 0 0 1800 1800 1800 

( RmS ) 5 900 900 0 0 2000 2000 2000 

Total Wildlife and 

Fish User Days 1 500 500 1000 1000 400 400 400 

(WFUDS) 5 750 750 1500 1500 600 600 600 

Grazing (AW) 1 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 

5 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 

Suitable Timber Land 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

(acres) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

(-) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Timber Volume 

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Gross Benefits(Ms) 1 78 78 80 80 50 50 50 

5 117 117 120 120 65 65 65 

Costs (Ms) 1 

5 

520 520 183 183 638 638 638 

70 70 47 47 47 42 42 

Net Benefits (6) 1 -442 -442 -103 -103 -588 -588 -588 

5 47 47 73 73 23 23 23 

704 
SUGARLaAF (#52%) Acres: 10,720 (120) 

A. DISCRIPTION 

The Sugar Loaf area lies in Mineral and Esneralda Counties, Nevada; on the 

Wate mtain Ranger District. “kq roads lead fm Highway 6, 2-3 miles 

to the area boundary. Many Uninpmed roads and some stock driveways lead 

into the area. 

The boundary is defined by the Forest boundary and mining roads on the north, 

the meen Caqm-Trail Canp jeep road and the B & B Mine-hail Canyon road 

on the south, and the Forest boundary on the east and west. Mxt adjoinjng 

lands are a&ninistered by the BIN; the remainder are privately awned. 

The area lies at the north end of the White Mountains in the North Owens 

River and Northeast White E.lountains watersheds. It is roughly rectangular, 5 

miles long by 4.5 miles wide. Elevations range fran 6,480 feet to 10,248 

feet at Ho~-~eshoe Rock. 

Terrain is a steep and dissected escarpnent with gentler plateau on top. 

There are many intdttent streams: one mile of premia1 stream, but no 

fisheries; and no lakes. Rock is primarily mtasedimentary, with granitic 

intrusions. 

The primary vegetation type is pine-junipr -and. Bitterbrush and 

mxlntain mahagany are also present in -ate a”ts. 

Scenic variety in the area falls into class A, 21 percent; class B, 79 

percent. The surrounding area is also fairly scenic. Views include the 

desert valleys and muntains to the west, north, and east, and the high 

riageS and peaks of the White Mountains at short range to the south. 

The current uses are grazing and 

B. WABILITY 

The natural ecological integrity of the area has been influenced to a 

derate degree, its natural appearance to a high degree. A perline passes 

through the area, there are scattered mineral impacts, and many unimproved 

roads crisscross the area. 

Opprhmities for solitude are derate. The area is snall, and there are 

some intrusions, but screening is derate. 

Opportunities for primitive recreation are low. There is little &versity 

and challenges are rare. 

The original inventory boundary muld be unmanageable as wildemess. 

are not separable, and vehicle access on unimpmed roads is fairly easy. 

C. AVAILABILITY 

The Sugar Loaf area represents a few trade-offs between wilderness 

designation and other uses. Wildemess managanent would preclude increaslng 

exploration. 

Impacts 

705 
grazing ox inpmviq wildlife habitat by vegetation manipulation, and would 

restrict mineral exploration and developnent. 

bbtorized recreation amounts to 200 RVDs per year: big game hunting anrxuntS 

to 200 ms. 

Water in the area is used locally for irrigation, mining, livestmk, and 

danestic needs. 

Cattle grazing munts to 50 AW; maximum potential is estimated at 60 AW. 

The area is incapable of proaUcing COmnercial timber. 

Of the lands in this area, 2 percent are rated high in mineral potential; 20 

percent are medium, and 78 percent are low. I%re than 600 claims have been 

filed for the area since 1862; 255 of these were filed between 1980-1982: 

there are 110 prcducjng mines. There is one mine on a patented claim and one 

The principal metallic minerals in the area are silver, 

gold, and mercury. There are snaller amxlllts of lead, zinc, and copper. 

Alurite, a possible source of aluminun, is widespread in the southeast part 

of the area. Geologic formations indicate the likelihood of additicml 

resources. 

Cultural resource values include prehistoric features and ramants of gold 

and silver mining in the 1870‘s. 

The included private land (120 acres) is undevelaped. 

D. NEED 

There appears to be little wilderness-type recreation use in the Basin and 

Range physiographic pmince. The Sugar Loaf area is typical of the 

province. 

Public involvement for the RARE I1 skdy indicated support fran national and 

state environmental organizations for wilderness in the White and Inyo 

Mountains. 

Local residents and p-brs strcxgly favor mwildemess in order that 

mining and other existing uses can continue with “m restrictions. 

E. -CXSEUJENCB 

Table C-33 indicates which management prescriptions were applied to (all or 

part) of the area under each alternative. The narratives following the table 

discuss the effects of each prescription on the area in t- of present 

uses, wilderness attributes, and mnwildemess dwelopnent opporhmities. 

Resource and activity outputs for the area under each altemative are 

displayed in Table C-34. 

permit. 

This area is near the White Mmntains further plannirg area. 

706 
Table C-33 

Manamt Prescription Allocatians 

by Alternative (M Acres and Percent of Area) 

Sugar Loaf (5296) 

Alternatives 

MallagmEIl t Prescription PRF(XIRRPA(3EEAM"AtC 

2. F'romsed - Wildemess 10.7 

100% 

17. Semi-primitive Rec 10.7 10.7 

100% 100% 

18. Multiple Resource Area 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 

100% 100%. 100% 100% 

Designation: Wildemess 

Prescription #: 2 

Alternative( s) : AMC 

Effects on the Area: Wildemess values would be maintained, or possibly 

imroved. Activities capable of affect- wilderness values (exceut valid 

&sting "J claims) Auld be prohibited. 

inventoried, would be difficult and Costly. 

The anaxlnt of wildemess recreation would be low due to the mall size of the 

area, the lack of water or challenges and active mining mfluences. The area 

would be used primarily to access the north end of wildemess in the White 

Mountains area. Natural appearance would be improved with the exclusion of 

rmtor vehicles and elimination of 4-wheel drive trails. 

Cattle grazing would continue essentially unchanged, except that motorized 

vehicles could not be used to "itor cattle, nor would stzuctural 

improvenents or vegetation manipulation be allowed. 

The area would be withdrawn fm mineral entry upon designation as 

wildemess, resulting in a loss of mineral opportunity. No new rrrrmng claims 

could be lmated, and activities on mining claims with existing valid claims 

could be restricted. 

There would be a negative ec"i.c effect on the area. mnhg and grazing 

activities would continue, but under costly restrictions. Wtorized 

recreation would be eliminated. Benefits of increase wildemess recreation 

would be minor. Hcwever, there would be a social benefit of a formal 

wildemess designation of an ecological type underrepresented in wildemess 

on the Forest. 

confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most conditions. 

No other foreseeable environmental changes or resoruce trade-offs rquirirg 

mitigation would result. 

Achrustraticm of the -area, as 

707 
Designation: "wilderness 

prescription #: 17 

Alternative(s): AMN, AMB 

Effects on the Area: Wilderness attributes muld likely be reduced fran the 

existing situation due to the potential for further mineral exploration and 

dwelopnent. ouler activities capable of eroding wilderness values would be 

4-wheel drive vehicle access and range ~~ts. 

mtor vehicle use muld be limited to existing mads and trails; use would 

resemble the &sting situation but not be allowed to increase uncontrolled. 

Illegal vehicle use would, however, be difficult to control. Hmting and 

4-wheel driving would not be affected. Natural appearance would be expected 

to gradually degrade over parts of the area with the continuation of mining 

and vehicle access. 

The option of increasing livestock grazing would be retained. 

Mir!ing in the area would not be affected, mr would oppcrtunities for future 

exploratim and developrent change. Only applicable mining restrictions 

would affect mineral activites. 

The present socio-ecancmic situation would be maintained. Grazing and mining 

activites would continue with oppcrhmities for scme futher developnent. 

Confinanent or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under rmst conditions. 

No 0th- foreseeable environmental changes or resource trade-offs requiring 

mitigation would result. 

Designation: Nonwilderness 

Prescription #: 18 

Altemative(s): PRF, WR, RPA, G3 

Effects on the Area: The effects of Prescription 18 on this area wauld not 

be verv - different fm the effects of 17. discussed atnve. The maior 

differences would be that new vehicle mutes would be allowed to develGp, 

open OW areas could be established, and mining mads could be left open to 

public use. The increased vehicle use that would result from this lower 

level of restriction would ease access and inprove opportunities for 

nonwilderness recreation and resource management activities, but would have a 

corresponding negative effect on wilderness attributes. 

Confinement or containment would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most conditions. (All wildfires would be controlled 

under the OUR alternative.) 

Mining opportunities muld be enhanced as access throughout the area would be 

increased. 

708 
Table C-34 

Average Annual Outputs for Deczdes 1 atad 5 

Sqar Loaf (52%) 

Resourcear Alternatives 

Activity Decads PRFCURRPA CEEAMNAMBAMC 

Recarmended Wilderness -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.7 

(M acres) 

~ldeInesS -- 10.7 10.7- 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 0 

Total Developd 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Recreatim (M RVDs) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dispersed Recreation 1 250 250 250 250 200 200 0 

( RVDs ) 5 425 425 425 425 300 300 0 

(M acres) 

Wilderness Recreation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 

(RVDs) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 225 

Total Wildlife and 

Fish User Days 1 250 250 250 250 200 200 100 

(ms) 5 425 425 425 425 300 300 150 

Grazirg (AUT&) 1 

5 

51 51 51 51 51 51 50 

57 57 57 57 57 57 50 

Suitable Timber Land 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

(acres) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Timber VOlUme 

(-) 

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Gross Benefits(@) 1 

5 

9 9 9 9 8 8 6 

13 13 13 13 12 12 9 

costs (M5) 1 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 

5 8 8 8 8 8 8 5 

Net Benefits (@) 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 

5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 

709 
MCELSIOR (#5989-Nevada part dY) Acres: 8,039 (35) 

A. DESCRIPTION 

The Excelsior area lies in Minwal Chmty, Nevada. It is adhninistered by the 

bbm Lake Ranger District. Many mhproved roads lead into the area fm +3e 

direction of U.S. Highway 6. 

The boundary is defined on the north and east by the Forest boundary, and on 

the southeast by the Nevada state line. Adjoining lands are administered by 

the BIH or by the Toiyabe National Forest. 

The area lies on the south end of the Excelsior Hmntains, in the Hun- (3reek 

watershed. The area forms an irregular triangle, mughly five miles on each 

side. 

Teain is derately rugged. There are sone seeps and springs, but ~3 

fisheries and no lakes. 

Vegetation types are pine-juniper woodtand and big sagebrush. 

Scenic variety in the area falls into class B, 36 percent: and class C, 64 

percent. The imnediate surroundings are similar in appearance to the area 

itself. The Excelsior and White Mountains can be seen to the northeast and 

south fm high points within the area. 

Amther attraction is the Pizona herd of wild horses, which ranges over the 

area. Current uses include recreation and grazirg. 

B. CAPABILITY 

The natural ecological integrity and natural appearance of the area have been 

influenced to a law deyree. Unimproved roads in the area receive continuing 

use and would be very difficult to close. Other signs of hman activity 

include fences, other range impmvemnts, and grazing animals. 

Opportunities for solitude are high. The area is @te large when considered 

in canbination with adjoining roadless lands on the Toiyabe National Forest. 

Screenkg and visual intrusions are moderate. 

opportunities for primitive recreation are law, due primarily to the size of 

the area in canbination with Toiyabe National Forest lands. Diversity and 

challenge are low, and there is no available water. 

Special features include abundant cultural resource sites. 

The area boundary would be difficult to manage as wildemess due to the ease 

and history of vehicle access and the distance €ran Forest Service 

ackinistxative centers. 

C. AvAaABILITY 

The Excelsior area represents saw trade-offs between wilderness designation 

and other resources and activities. Wilderness management muld exclude 

710 
vehicle-based recreation, which is currently the primary use of the area. It 

would also preclude the increase of grazing or improvement of wildlife habitat 

by vegetation manipulation. Althaugh wilderness designation would protect 

cultural resoucces from vehicle-based artifact hunters, it muld also restrict 

access €or legitimate research. 

Dispersed motorized recreation accounts for approximately 200 RWs of use 1~1 

the area; big game hunting a"ts to 200 WFUDs. The majority of visitors to 

the area cam fm the local Benton ccmmurdty. 

Approximately 3,800 acres w1thu-1 the area are suitable for wildlife habitat 

manipulation: Truman Mea&& is key mule deer winter range. 

Watershed inip~t projects have been proposed for Truman Meadows and 

McBride Springs. Vehicle access mld be needed for the projects to be cost 

effective. 

There is currently no cattle grazing in the area, as wild horses have priori3 

for forage. The area is, however, suitable for grazing and could be managed 

with that emphasis if priorities charged. The Pizona herd of wild horses 

ranges through the area. 

The area is incapable of prcducing camercial quality timber. 

There are many prehistoric cultural sites, includirg Indian pine-nut gathering 

and wintering areas. 

Of the lands in this area, all are rated low in mineral potential. There are 

no active minirg claims in the area. 

There is one parcel of undeveloped private land (35 acres). 

D. NEED 

There appears to be little wilderness-type recreation use in the Basin and 

Range physiographic province. The Excelsior area is typical of, though perhaps 

more scenic than average for the province. This area adjoins the Excelsior 

madless area on the Toiyabe National Forest. 

The area is an 8-m drive frcm Los Angeles, and 8.5 hours from Sari Francisco. 

The area described here (in canbination with 45,938 additional acres 1~1 

California) was recarmended for wilderness by the RARE I1 Final EIS and by all 

California wilderness legislation drafted between 1979 and 1983. In 1983, thls 

area (along with most madless lands nationwide) was identified for 

reevalution. The adjoining California lands were subsequently released for 

mwilderness uses by the California Wilderness Act of 1984, while the Nevada 

lands 3?anau& ' under reevaluation. wilderness legislation for Nevada currently 

be- considered in congressional cormittees does not propose this area or the 

adjoining Toiyabe National Forest lands for wilderness designation. The 

proposed Toiyabe National Forest plan (now in public review) allocates the 

Toiyabe Excelsior area to nonwilderness uses. 

711 
Public involvwent for the RARE I1 study indicated gewal support fran State 

and ~ti- -tal organizations for wilderness designation: &ever, 

this area was rot targeted for special attention. 

Them was, in cmnbxst, midarable opposition to wilderness management of 

this area (and adjoining California lands). Local residents, especially senior 

citizens, resist exclusion of vehicles fmn the area: they do not see the area 

as roadless. 

E.~CENSEQMNXS 

Table C-35 indicates which management p@Scriptiom were applied to (all m 

part) of the area under each alternative. The narratives followjng the table 

discuss the effeds of each prescription on the area in terms of present uses, 

wilderness attributes, and Manvildemess developnent opprhmities. Resource 

and activity Outputs for the area under each alternative are displayed in Table 

C-36. 

Table C-35 

~~t Prescripticn Allocatims 

by Alternative (M Acres and Percent of Area) 

Mcelsior - Nevada part (5989) 

M3nagalmI t hescription PRFCURRPACEEHAMBAM: 

2. mpxed - Wilderness 8.0 

100% 

4. Mule Deer Habitat 3.1 3.1 3.11 

39% 39% 39% 

17. Semi-Primitive RE 4.9 4.9 4.9 

61% 61% 61% 

18. Multiple Resource Area 8.0 8.0 8.0 

100% 100% 100% 

Designation: Wilderness 

Prescription #: 2 

Alternative(s): AMC 

Effects on the Area: Wilderness values vlould be maintained, or possibly 

impnxrea under this prescription. Activities capable of affetirg wilderness 

values would be prohibited. Acbinistration of the area as wilderness would, 

however, be difficult and costly. The isolation of the area and ease of 

access would make illegal vehicle entry very likely. 

The a"t of wilderness recreation would be low, based on the area's lack of 

water, diversity, and challenge. opportunities for solitude would be high. 

Existing llatural appearance would be maintained, or possibly impmed with 

the exclusion of vehicles and restoration of 4-wheel drive trails. 

Options to manipulate vegetation and construct impruvements for wildlife or 

livestock benefits would be foregone. As wild horses are a nonnative 

species, their presence in wilderness wuld represent a conflict. 

712 
utural resources would receive "rm protection fmn damage or 

dest~~ctim, but wilaernesS designaticm would restrict ease of access for 

The area would be withifram fmn mineral entry up designation as 

wilderness, resultiq in a lass of mineral opportunity. No new mFning claims 

could be lozated, and activities cm minity claims with existjng valid claims 

could be restricted. 

Cmfinemnt or amtainmnt would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied umler most dtions. 

There are rn major ecananic depenaencies in the area. As big game huntkg 

and other vehicle-based based recreation are locally based, they do not 

aff& the local ec"y. Wilderness designation could bring mre ncollmal 

people into the area, with benefits for the local ec"y. The potential to 

opportcolity is already, hclwwer, foregone with the mghasis on wild horses). 

There would be a negative sccial inpact on the area, as historical recreation 

pattems muld be disrupted. On the other hand, a social benefit would be 

derived fran wilderness designation in an ecalcgical type rnt yet represented 

in wilderness on the Forest. 

legitimate research. 

graze livestock in the area remts an ecaxnLic Oppr-hmity foregcole (this 

Designaticm: ~lderness 

Alt-tiWL?(s): PRF, AMN, AMB 

€?rescription #: 4, 17 

Effects on the Area: Wilderness values would generally be maintained under 

this oambination of DmscriDtions. Nsst activities capable of affectiw 

wiidemess values (a& as I-& public road wnst~ctlon & open ORV aceass 

would be restricted or prohibited. The ammnt of recreation use would remain 

low. Gpticms to manipulate vegetation and construct inpsrovements for 

wildlife would be n=tahd. Wild horses would not represent a conflict with 

wilderness, but might ccme into captition with deer. 

Cultural resources would receive derate protection from damage or 

destructian, as no new vehicle routes would be allwed. Research parties 

would have the option of vehicle access to research sites. 

The area would be open for new dniq claims; only applicable mining laws 

would apply. 

oonfinement or ccmtaunnent would be the appropriate fire suppression 

strategies applied under most wnditions. 

"here are m major eccomnic dependencies in the area. Existing big game 

hunting and other vehicle-based based recreation would cnntinue unchanged, 

representing a social benefit. On the other hand, a social loss would be 

derived fran lack of wilderness designation for the area. 

Designation: Nonwildemess 

Prescripticol#: 18 

Alternative(s): CUR, RPA, CEE 

Effects on the Area: Wilderness attributes in the area would be expected to 

decline under this prescription, as vehicle access (including open ORV areas) 

Arry new minjng roads would be closed to vehicle access. 

713 
could hcrease, and new mutes proliferate. Under wnditions of inproved 

access, natural integrity and appearance would decline. Use would increase 

scmewhat, altbugh the distance of the area from ppulation centers would 

prevent major increases. Opprturxities for solitude would probably remain 

high, and oppr-hmities for primitive recreation mld continue to be limited 

by lack of water. Mining opprhnu 'ties mld be enhanced as access 

throughout the area inc?2=ased. 

Ccolfinement or con-t would be the appropriate fire suppressian 

strategies applied under mt conditions. (All wildfires mld be controlled 

under the am alternative. ) 

The maintenance of traditional recreation opp3rtunities would be a social 

benefit: the lack of formal wilderness designation would be a social cost. 

There would be m major ecomnic effects. 

714 
Table C-36 

Average Annual Outputs for Decades 1 and 5 

Excelsior - Nevada part (5989) 

Resoulrceor Alternatives 

Activity Decacae PRFCURFPA CEEAMNAMBAMC 

Recxmwnded Wildemess -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.0 

(M acres) 

Nmwildemess -- 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 0 

(M acres) 

Total Developed 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Recreation (M RVDs) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dispersed Recreation 1 200 200 200 200 200 200 0 

(RVDS) 5 300 300 300 300 300 300 0 

Wilderness Recreation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 

(RVDs) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 

Total Wildlife and 

1 

5 

200 200 200 200 200 200 100 

300 300 300 300 300 300 150 

Grazing (AUMs) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Suitable Timber Land 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

(acres ) 5 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 

(-) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Timber Volume 

1 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 

5 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 

Gross Benefits(W) 1 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 

5 12 12 12 12 12 12 9 

1 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 

5 8 8 8 8 8 8 5 

Net Benefits (M$) 1 

5 

1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 

5 5 5 5 5 5 4 

715 
Appendix D 

Roadless Area 

Allocations 
INTRODUCTION 

The California Wilderness Act of 1984 called for mnwilderness management on 

338,319 acres of roadless land in 21 areas on the Inyo National Forest. None 

of these nonwilderness areas have been ccolsidered for potential wildemess 

designation in the present 10-year planning periOa. These areas could be 

considered for wildemess in future p1anning-perid.s if they continued to met 

theminj" criteria for wilderness designation. Table 1 lists mnwilderness 

areas by nmhr and name and the National Forest System acreage in each. Table 

2 displays the management prescriptions der which each area would be managed 

under the various altematives. 

Table 1 

Nonwildemess Roadless Areas 

Code 

"b=r Name NFS Acres * 

5029 

5030 

5031 

5032 

5034 

5036 

5039 

5041 

5042 

5043 

5044 

5046 

5047 

5053 

5054 

5055 

5057 

5062 

5288 

5988 

5989 

south Sierra 

ma Peak 

Inaepenaence creek 

Tinemaha 

Coyote North 

North Lake 

Horizon Creek 

Nessie 

Rock Creek West 

Whiskey meek 

Nevahbe Ridge 

Sherwin 

San Joaquin 

Dexter Canyon 

Glass Mountain 

Watterson 

Deep Wells 

Soldier Canyon 

bbm Craters 

Mt. OlSen 

Excelsior (California) 

43,203 

11,279 

14,024 

28,002 

15,293 

2,584 

6,414 

1,243 

2,854 

1,152 

519 

3,968 

21,214 

17,735 

53,975 

7,465 

7,433 

44,774 

6,900 

2,395 

45,893 

* This acreage was derived from the Forest data base: it does not necessarily 

match acreage figures for the same roadless areas in other documents. 

716 
KEY TO ABBFUWPTIONS USED IN TABLE 2: 

1. Designated Wilderness 

2. Propsed Wilderness 

3. Bigl" Sheep Habitat 

4. Mule Deer Habitat 

5. Research Natural mas 

6. 

7. Ancient Bristl-e Pine Forest 

8. Wild and Scenic River 

9. Uneven-aged Timber Managment 

LO. High Level Timber Managanent 

11. Range 

12. bcentrated Recreation Area 

13. Alpine Ski Area 

14. Potential Alpine Ski Area 

15. Developed Recreation Site 

16. Dispersed Recreation 

17. Semi-primitive Recreation 

18. Multiple Resource Area 

Wxm Basin NF Scenic Area 

Des Wld 

ap Wld 

Bighm 

Deer 

RNA 

"FSA 

ABPF 

W/SR 

U/A Tbr 

Hi Tbr 

Range 

Con Rec 

Ski 

Pot ski 

Rec Site 

Disp Rec 

MR Area 

S-P R~c 

717 
Table 2 

Acres by Management Prescription 

by Altemative for Nonwildemess Areas 

Wnwildemess Area Acres by Prescription by Alternative 

Mrmber/Name PRF CUR RPA CEE AMN AMB 

5029 Deer Range Deer Deer 

South Sierra 25,800 * 5,900 20,000 25,600 

W/SR W/SR W/SR W/SR 

2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 

s-P Rec S-P Rec Hi Tbr Hi Tbr 

15,100 24,000 11,000 11,000 

HiTbr Range Range 

11,000 9,900 4,300 

5030 S-P Rec S-P Rec S-P Rec Roaded 

Woqa Peak 11,300 11,300 11,300 11,300 

5031 Bighom Bighom Bighom Bighom 

Independence 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 

creek 

S-P Rec S-P Rec S-P Rec Roaded 

11,400 11,400 11,400 11,400 

5032 Bighorn Bighorn Bighom Bighom 

Tinemaha 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 

Deer S-P Rec Range Dm 

11,600 25,800 12,200 12,200 

S-P RE 

14,200 

S-P RE S-P RE 

13,600 11,800 

MR Area 

1,800 

5034 S-P Rec Range Range MR Area 

Coyote North 15,300 3,000 3,000 15,300 

S-P Rec MR Area 

12,300 12,300 

* Figures have been rounded off to nearest hundred. 

Deer Deer 

25,600 25,600 

W/SR W/SR 

2,300 2,300 

S-P ReC S-P RE 

15,300 15,300 

S-P Rec S-P Rec 

11,300 11,300 

Bighom Bighorn 

2,600 2,600 

S-P Rec S-P Rec 

11,400 11,400 

Bighorn Bighorn 

2,200 2,200 

Deer Deer 

12,200 12,200 

S-P Rec S-P Rec 

13,600 13,600 

S-P Rec S-P Rec 

15,300 15,300 

718 
Table 2 (ad-itinued) 

Acres by Management Prescription 

by Altemative for Ncolwilderness Areas 

Nmwilderness Area Acres by Prescription by Alt-tive 

Mr”ame PRF m FPA CEE Am AMB 

5036 Deer 

North Lake 2,600 

5039 Deer 

Hortan Q-eek 6,400 

5041 S-P RE 

Nessie 1,200 

5042 S-P Rec 

Rock Creek West 2,900 

5043 S-P Re 

whisky Cr€& 1,200 

5044 S-P Re 

NW& 500 

5046 Ski 

Sherwin 3,100 

900 

S-P Rec 

S-P Rec S-P Rec 

2,600 2,600 

S-P Rec Range 

6,400 5,200 

MR Area 

1,200 

S-P Rec S-P Rec 

1,200 1,200 

S-P RE S-P ReC 

2,900 2,900 

S-P Rec Range 

1,200 1,200 

S-P Rec Range 

500 500 

Ski Ski 

3,100 3, 100 

900 900 

S-P Rec S-P Rec 

S-P Rec Deer Deer 

2,600 2,600 2,600 

Deer Deer Deer 

5,200 5,200 5,200 

MR Area S-P Rec S-P Rec 

1,200 1,200 1,200 

S-P Rec S-P Rec S-P Re 

1,200 1,200 1,200 

S-P ReC S-P ReC S-P RW 

2,900 2,900 2,900 

S-P ReC S-P Rec S-P Rec 

1,200 1,200 1,200 

S-P Rec S-P RE S-P ReC 

500 500 500 

Ski S-P ReC S-P Re 

3, 100 4, CaJ 4, 

S-P Rec 

900 

719 
Table 2 (continued) 

Acres by Managemnt prescripticm 

by Alternative for Nonwilderness Areas 

“wilderness Area Acres by Prescription by Alternative 

PRF aJR RPA CEE AMN AMB 

5047 

San Joaqyin 

5053 

Dexter Canyon 

5054 

Glass Mountain 

5055 

Watt-n 

UATbr 

600 

Con Rec 

200 

Ski 

1,300 

Disp Rec 

1,200 

21,200 

Pot ski 

13,000 

Hi Tbr 

600 

S-P Rec 

Range 

17,100 

RNA 

3,100 

Hi Tbr 

5,400 

Range 

30,800 

S-P Rec 

14,700 

Range 

7,500 

HiTbr HiTbr 

3,700 11,3(30 

Pot Ski S-P Re 

2,300 9,900 

S-P Rec 

15,200 

Hi Tbr Hi Tbr 

3,300 3,300 

Range Range 

14,400 14,400 

RNA RNA 

3,100 3,100 

fi Tbr Hi Tbr 

2,700 2,700 

Range Range 

33,500 34,900 

S-P Rec S-P Rec 

14,700 13,300 

Range Range 

7,500 7,500 

HiTbr 

3,700 

Ski 

13, OOO 

S-P Rec 

4,500 

Hi Tbr 

3,300 

Range 

14,400 

RNA 

3,100 

Hi Tbr 

2,700 

Range 

33,500 

S-P Rec 

14,700 

Range 

7,500 

HiTbr UAm 

3,700 2,600 

ConRec HiTbr 

700 3,700 

S-P Re Con Rec 

16,800 3,700 

Ski 

7,100 

S-P Rec 

7,100 

HiTbr HiTbr 

3,300 3,300 

Range Range 14,400 14,400 

RNA RNA 

3,100 3,100 

Hi Tbr Hi Tbr 

2,700 2,700 

Range Range 4,900 4,900 

43,300 43,300 

S-P Re S-P ReC 

S-P Rec S-P Rec 

7,500 7,500 

720 
Table 2 (continued) 

Acres by Managemnt Prescription 

by Alternative for Nonwilderness Areas 

"wildmess Area Acres by Frescription by Alternative 

-/NEW PRF CUR RPA CEE AMN AMB 

5057 S-P Re 

Deep Wells 7,400 

5062 MR Area 

Soldier Canyon 44,800 

5288 MBNFSA 

mno craters 6,900 

5988 S-P Re 

Mt. OlSen 2,400 

5989 Deer 

Excelsior 7,500 

38,400 

(California) 

S-P Re 

S-P RS Raqe 

7,400 7,400 

MRArea MRArea 

44,800 44,800 

MBNFSA MBNFSA 

6,900 6,900 

S-P RS S-P RS 

2,400 2,400 

S-P Rec MR Area 

45,900 45,900 

MR Area S-P Rec S-P Rec 

7,400 7,400 7,400 

MR Area S-P Rec S-P Rec 

44,800 44,800 44,800 

"FSA MBNFSA MBNFSA 

6,900 6,900 6,900 

S-P ReC S-P RE S-P RS 

2,400 2,400 2,400 

MRArea Deer Deer 

45,900 ~ 7,500 7,500 

38,400 38,400 

S-P Rec S-P RS 

721 
Appendix E 

Major Silvicultural Systems 

and their Application 
AF'PENDIX E. MAJOR SILVIUJL!l'URAL SYSlDS AND THEIR APPLICATION 

mEUC!.TCN 

The of this paper is to describe the major silvicultural systems used 

in land management planning for National Forests, and the advantages and 

disadvantages of each, cznsidering both biological and managerial 

perspectives. Ha+ever, almast all of the infomtion in this paper also 

applies to selecting an appropriate silvicultural system for a particular 

Stand. 

Silvicultural systems are used to manage forest stands. A silvicultural spkm 

is a planned sequence of treatments for wntmlling the species ocmposition and 

structure of the vegetation eing the life of a stand. A stand is a "ity 

of trees sufficiently uniform to be distiquishable as a silvicultural or 

manag-t unit. Typically, stand sizes vary fm about 5 to over 30 acres on 

National Forest lands. 

Manag-t objectives for stands typically are mnbinations of forest proaucts 

and amenities. An example is: specific mts of livestock forage, water 

runoff, and wmd prducts: kinds of wildlife habitat: and specific scenic view 

qualities. No single silvicultural system can produce all desired mnbinatiaw 

of prcducts and -ties frun a particular stand, or fmn a National Forest. 

Forests are managed by using ccmbinatirms of silvicultural system to achieve 

the forest manag-t objectives. All of the silvicultural systems discussed 

here are used in the National Forests in California. The canbinations vary 

greatly, depending on the characteristics of local forest ecosystem and 

differing manag-t objectives. 

SelWtion of the appropriate silvicultural system occurs at both the National 

Forest land managwent planning level and Ranger District project level. The 

Forest's selection is based on a broad match of silvicultural systems with the 

werall planning objectives and ecological characteristics of broadly-defmed 

land Classes. Examples of land classes are: areas capable, available and 

suitable for grmirg carmercial wxxi proaucts: streamside manageinmt zones: and 

sptted owl managwent areas. At the Ranger District, project level selection 

of silviculhual systems is typically made by a certified silviculturist. 

CAOices are based cm matching the attributes of the silvicultural systems with 

specific manageiwnt objectives and the ecological characteristics for spec ific 

stands. 

DEs(3RIFTIONS OF THE SILVI" SYSTElS 

A Silvicultural system typically includes cutting trees, growing new trees, and 

controlling cxqeting plants. Cuttings are classified as regeneration cutthgs 

(those that help to replace stands), and intemediate cuttings (me that 

maintain or inprove the character of existing stands. 

722 
-- Occurrence of shade-tolerant and intolerant plants. Even-aged and group 

selection mtems favor ~lants that can be readily - established and which grrrw 

well in fuli sunlight (&de-intolerant plants). These include grasses, kt 

forbs and shrubs, and many of the mst valuable carmercial tree species, such 

as p"sa pine and Douglas-fir. The single-tree selection system fawrs 

plants that can be readily established and p well at law light levels 

(shade-tolerant plants). Examples in California forests are many ferns; few 

grasses, forbs, and shrubs; many non-carmercial hardwood tree species; and a 

few comnercl 'al &fer tree species, such as white fir and in-e-cedar. 

Hmever, on lm-quality forest lands where lack of soil misture or 0- soil 

conditions cause low plant densities, sham by trees is greatly reduced. 

There, shade-intolerant plants will persist if the singletree selection system 

is wed. 

-- Diversity of plant spec ies. Species diversity depenaS on the biological and 

physical en-ts, hud diversity is evaluated, and on how the stands are 

managed under the different silvicultaal systems. 

h moderate-to high-quality lands, stands managed by the single-tree selection 

system shift toward shade-tolerant species. In California, many stands and 

forests which were previously daninated by ccmnercially mre valuable pine and 

Douglas-fir IIDW have large ccmponents of less valuable taroak, madrone, or 

white fir. This process could reduce tree species diversity in such stands, 

oarrpared with manag-t by other silvicultural systems. The shift toward nnre 

shade-tolerant species also means that the species diversity of plants near the 

ground would eventually be laver in stands managed by the single-tree selection 

system. 

The species canposition of carranercial tree species may be significantly 

increased or decreased during stand regeneration: depending on the 

enviamental conditions, availability of natural seed, selection of species to 

be planted, and the success of the plantings. If artificial regeneration fails 

in stands with mixed species, the diversity in the nataally-regenerated stand 

may be reduced significantly. Potential seed trees of sane species could have 

been harvested, or only certain species (for example, white fir) could 

regenerate naturally under the brush that rapidly occupies newly harvested 

areas. 

If both artificial and natural regeneration fail, the species bversity of 

amnercial trees has been significantly reduced. The risk of a canplete 

regeneration failure is least for the single-tre selection system. There is 

high probability of successful natural regeneration of all species where 

openings are snall, seed sources are present, and gmund environmental 

conditions are suitable for tree seedling establiSment. The risk of loss of 

diversity in large openings can be reduced by planting all appropriate species, 

or by designating appropriate seed trees or sheltenvood trees of mixed species. 

-- Vertical diversie. The vertical diversity in stands managed by the 

even-aged or group selection systems can be quite limited. Typically there is 

a single dminant layer of seedlings, saplings, or larger trees. However, 

usually there is considerable diversity in stands with the larger trees because 

scme trees are significantly taller and have fuller crams than others. Full 

vertical diversity still cccur~ over the forest, but not in each stand or 

723 
group. Ey contrast, in the single-tree selection system, the vertical 

diversity within each stand should be much greater. Seedlqs, saplings and 

trees in larger tree classes should be seen fm any point in the stand. 

-- Tree vigor. If the stands are well managed, tree and stand vigor should be 

of silvicultural systems, with three excepbons. First, new 

seedlings in openings (particularly &&-tolerant species such as red fir and 

white fir) are heavily stressed by heat and lack of adequate water, until they 

develop good root systems. These stresses often cause heavy mortality 

(especially of natural seedlings, or of low-quality or mishandled or poorly 

planted seedlings fm nurseries). Second, seedlings in openings are more 

susceptible to damage or mrtality fm frosts, particularly at high-elevation 

sites. Where seedling mortality (even of high-quality of properly handled and 

planted nurseq seedlings) is expected to be excessive, use of the singletree 

selection, sheltenuood, and group selection (where groups are snall) systems 

are favored. Third, maintaining gd vigor of snall shade-intolerant species, 

such as pmderosa pine, can be very difficult in stands managed by the 

single-tree selection system. To pmte vigor and growth of these trees, tree 

density may have to be reduced, which can significantly reduce timber yields. 

Many stands on National Forest lands are severely infected with certain root 

diseases or dwarf mistletoes. It is very difficult and costly to maintain or 

improve tree vigor and prcductivity there if the single-tree selection system 

were used. These root diseases and dwarf nustletces infect other trees more 

easily when this system is used. 

Genetic ResourCes 

-- Conservation of genes. Genetic diversity is basically unaffected when 

natural or artificial regeneration of "ercial tree species is successful. 

(Successful artificial regeneration means that appropriate p-dures are used 

during seed collection to emure a large genetic diversity in the collected 

seed.) However, if regeneration of a particular species were to fail 

repeatedly over broad areas, genetic diversity would be reduced. 

-- Quality of genes. Where improwly applied, the single-tree selection 

system.can lead to "high-grading", which in tum reduces genetic quality for 

wood production. High grading is the selective mal of the best trees (most 

rapidly ping, largest, and most valuable for wood), so that most 

regeneration comes fm seed prcduced by the lower-quality, remw trees. 

The average genetic quality may be significantly lowered in a stand managed by 

the smgle-tree selection system, because of higher rates of inbreeding. Sane 

forest geneticists theorize that inbreeding shld also increase under the 

shelterwood or seed-tree systems. Nearby trees of the same species usually are 

closely related, and they can pollinate each other. The natural seedlings 

should be even more inbred. By contract, artificial regeneration or natural 

regeneration fm e@es of large opnirgs reduces the probability of 

significant inbreeding. Large opnings facilitate pollen "ent fm more 

distant, less closely related trees. 

F'rcductivity. Scientific long-ten ccmparisons of wood production using the 

different silvicultural systems have not been made anywhere in the world. This 

canparison will be possible many decades fm rxm at BlOagett Forest, a 

724 
University of California research facility. Theoretically, the total 

biological prductivity (bianass) may be greatest for stands "aged by the 

single-tree selection systen. This is because of mre continuous tree cover, 

ccmpared to the other systems. See Table 1 for a biological amparison of 

system attibutes. However, merchantable stand growth and timber yields may not 

be higher for the single-tree selection system. Merchantable yields are 

strongly influenced by managerial factors. 

The major managerial contrasts described in this section are surrmarized in 

Table 2. 

Public Concerns. In the last tvm decades the cle-tting system and to a 

lesser extent the shelt-uwood and seed-tree systems, have generated con-ersy 

in the united states and Europe. 

There are at least six major concerns in California: 

-- Clearcut areas are regarded as visually unattractive 

-- The risks of significant soil erosion and loss of soil productivity are 

-- Regeneration of clearcut stands is thought to be unreliable 

-- The risks of significant genetic lasses are thought to be much greater 

for the clearcui=ting system because new stands may be mmc~~ltures 

-- The use of chemical herbicides (strongly opposed by some pups and 

individuals) is thught to be mch greater if even-aged systems are 

used, particularly the clearcutting system 

be too costly 

thought to be much greater for the clearcutting system 

-- Artificial regeneration, particularly of even-aged stands, is thought to 

All of these undesirable effects can cccur under any silvicultural system. 

However, the risks of scme are significantly different among certain systems. 

The concerns about genetic losses were addressed earlier in the sections on 

Diversity of plant spec ies and Genetic Resources. The other five concerns are 

discussed in the followjq sections on Effects on Scenic Quality, Risks of 

Adverse Effects on Watersheds and Soils, Scientific Knowledge Base, Management 

Experience, Need for control of ccmpe ting Vegetation (including the use of 

herbicides), and Treatment Costs. 

other managerial aspects of the silvicultural systems are also discussed in the 

sections below. They cover: risk of major wildfires: risk of damage by 

insect, disease, or wildlife pests; prcduction of livestock forage; protection 

of archeological resources; acbninistration of silvicultural projects; timber 

harvesting efficiency: genetic improvements in forests; and effects on 

fisheries and wildlife. 

Effects on Scenic Quality. Uneven-aged silvicultural systems are usually 

better than even-aged systems for creating or maintaining naturally-appearing 

landscapes. Uneven-aged systems apply treatments on a mall scale. The 

treainients are also mre selective in nature, and are well distributed in the 

725 
Table 1. 

attributes. 

Ratings of the major silvicultural System by principal biological 

0 is Good, Excellent, or Many 

c) is Moderate or Few 

0 is Poor or None 

- BVATTRIBUTE 

a. Diversity of tree sizes in a stand: 

(1) Vertical 

(2) Horizontal 

b. Number of openings in a forest': 

(1) Larger than 2 acres 

(2) l/lOth to 2 acres 

(3) Smaller than l/lOth acre 

C. Potential for conserving or improving 

plant species diversity in a stand 

Genetics 

a. Resistance to inbreeding effects 

b. Resistance to degradation by "high-gradingn 2 

c. Potential for conserving genes in a forest 

Productivltv (potential for producing biomass) 

1 Exclusive of roads and natural opeungs such as meadows or rock outcrops. 

2 Assumes all harvested species are planted successfully, or wall regenerate 

naturally; otherwise "Poor" 

3 Assumes no major fires; otherwise "Poorn 

726 
Table 2. 

attributes. 

Ratings of the major silvicultural systems by key managerial 

0 

c) is Moderate 

0 is Poor 

is Good, Excellent, or High 

&il ProteeSoil stability where soils have high 

erosion potentials 

Base 

3ood ProducGion 

a. Cost efficiency of treatments: 

(1) General (based on treatment unit size) 

(2) Regeneration 

(3) 

herbicides 

(4) Harvesting 

Feasibility of aerial application of 

b. Potential for regulating the forest, whale 

maantaming harvest levels 

contracting, and record keeping) 

C. Admimstrative efficiency (planuing, 

d. Need for control of competang vegetation 

e. Potential for retaining vigor and value 

of residual trees1 

f. Potential for genetic improvement of trees 

by planting 

0 

c 

c 

J 

U 

e: 

W 

-1 

V 

E 

a 

- 

9 

D 

@ 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

5 

2 

il 

-1 

3 

i! 

n 

- 

- 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

c) 

Q 

0 

0 

0 

Y 

Y 

e: 

c 

I 

tl 

Y 

iY 

a 

- 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

0 

8 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

727 
Table 2 (continued). 

0 is Good or Excellent 

0 is Poor 

0 is Moderate 

VAN -ATRIBUTE 

?* 

z 

5. 

5 

t 

c: 

-2 

!4 

el 

u 

a Forest 

a. Potential for controlling major wildfires 

b. Potential for us- controlled fires to 

manage fuels 

b. Potential for spotted owls and tree squirrels 

&%k of Slaruflcant Pest Damz? .. 

Potential for controlling damage from dwarf 

mistletoes and certan tree root diseases 

0 

6 

n Poteual in a Forest 

Potential for protecting fish habitat 

at in a Foresk 

a. Potential for deer, rabbits, and quul 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

lo C. Potential for soaring hawks and eagles 

e3 

83 

a 

e 

0 

e' 

0: 

0 

1 Assumes gentle slopes; otherwise "Moderate", but "Poor" for the Group 

2 Assumes openings of about 1-2 acres; "Poor" if smaller 

3 Assumes lughly productive land; otherwise "Moderate" or "Good" 

and Single-tree selection systems. 

728 
forest. However, lcolg-term maintenance of naturally-appearing landscapes can 

be mre difficult under the uneven-aged system because natural wildfires are 

mre difficult to control. 

Where timber management activities are not permitted to be visually evident, 

the single-tree selection system may be the only feasible alternative. All 

silvicultural systems may be feasible where the management objective is to 

maintain the desired landscape character, depending on the circumstances. 

However, the uneven-aged systems mld generally be better than the even-aged 

systems. All silvicultural systems may also be feasible where timber 

management objectives are daninant over visual quality objectives. Similarly, 

if the landscape character needs to be irpmved, any silvicultural system could 

be apprapriate. For example, snall or large temprary openings that blend with 

the topzgraphy, which are created by group selection or clearcutting 

regeneration cuttings, can help to achieve a pleasing landscape. 

Risks of Adverse Effects on Watersheds and Soils. These risks depend mxe on 

the characteristics of the watershed and soils, and on the care and quality of 

work, than on the kind of silvicultural system used. Adverse effects 

associated with any silvicultural treahmt can usually be avoided or 

mitigated. The major possible adverse effects are erosion, sedimentation in 

waterways, soil canpaction, and loss of soil prcductivity through soil or 

nutrient loss. 

The risks of significant, cumulative erosion and sedimentation effects in 

watersheds usually &pad more on road quality and location than on 

silvicultural treatnents. 

The risk of significant erosion within stands depends on how much protective 

vegetation and litter cover is med, as well as on road quality and 

location. This risk is generally higher for the clearcutting system because 

mre cover is temporarily rammed by clearcutting and preparation for seedling 

establishment. 

Extensive and frequent use of heavy machines can cause significant soil 

oanpaction of sane soils. The risk of this cmurring should not be different 

aim- the silvicultural systems. 

The risk of soil nutrient losses is increased where vegetation or litter is 

cleared or high-intensity fires OCCUT. Again, the risk due to clearing 

vegetation or litter is greater for the even-aged silvicultural systems. 

High-intensity fires may OCCUT in any stand if controlled fires are used 

inpmperly. Hawever, the risk of high-intensity fires is greater for the 

single-tree selection system because crown wildfires are mre likely. (See the 

section on Risk of Major Wildfires. ) 

Scientific Knowlee Base. Knowledge is least for the single-tree selection 

system for National Forest lands in California. 

-- Biological. Considerable research has been “pleted on the biological 

foundations for all of the silvicultural systems. Planting, natural 

regeneration, and genetic principles have been extensively studied for all 

system. Research is mre ccanplete on early growth of young potential crop 

trees and control of ccqxting plants for the even-aged and group selection 

(See the section on Risk of Major Wildfires.) 

The risk is least for the single-tree selection system. 

729 
systems. Similarly, stand growth del research is nwre ccmplete for the 

even-aged and group selection systems. There are ro major differences in the 

-ledge base abut intmate cuttings or abut insect and disease pest 

manag-t, a"g the silvicultural systems. 

-- Managerial aspeds . Research on the managerial aspects of California's 

forests has focused on the even-aged and group selection systems. Only in the 

last decade have wndd efforts been made to research the long-term 

practicality of the single-- selection system. Earlier studies were not 

canpleted because of difficulties with controlling regeneration of scme desired 

species, controlling stcckhg, or sustaining the desired stand structures and 

"ntable yields. This resulted iq stsong recarmendations against the 

system by many forest research scientists. New interest has been generated by 

demands for amtinwus forest mer, maintenance of an unmanaged appearance, 

and an alternative to managment by the even-aged systems. However, several 

decades of management will be required before analyses of overall effectiveness 

can be made. 

Research in the group selection system is also underway in California. 

will require several decades of treaiments to achieve regulated stands. 

Manag-t exper ience. Timber harvesting has occurred in California for over 

140 years. However, experience with managing forests with the goal of 

regulating potential yields, has been limited to the last several decades. 

Regulation of National Forest lands has only involved the even-aged 

silvicultural systems, particularly clearcutting. However, extensive 

experience has been gained with all of the silvicultural systems in managing 

certain stands. 

-- sirgle-tree selection. mst of the harvesting from National Forest and many 

private timber lands in Califomia has been selection cuttings of large trees. 

These cuttings were typically made with m lorg-term plan for managing the 

stands by the single-tree selection system. This system can require cutting 

tceeS in all size classes during each operation. Regeneration fm nalxral 

seeding was usually counted on. Also, growth of the yuung trees and the uncut 

snaller msrchantable trees was counted on to offset the reduction in the forest 

inventory due to harvesting the largest trees. Unfortunately, repsated 

harvests of the largest trees have often caused undesirable results: 

understmked residual stands with lmer quality, lower value trees. These 

stands will have to be regenerated using one of the even-aged silvicultural 

systems or the group selection system, so as to re-establish full stocking of 

desired species. 

-- Group selection. The group selection systan was tried extensively on 

National Forest land in the Region abut 20 years ago. Small oms were 

made to enwurage natural regeneration, particularly of sugar and ponderosa 

pines. Special cutting guidelines were developed for different kinds of 

naturally-ozcumirg gruups of trees. The system, called Unit Area control, 

failed for three reasons. First, the many snall groups of naturd regeneration 

wuld not be managed efficiently. They could not be monitored. Needed 

subsequent treatments were not made. The young trees drd not grow well or 

died. Sane groups could not be treated due to the higher costs of treating 

snall areas. Second, the cutting guidelines could not be used wnsistently. 

There was great difficulty in deteminiq which kinds of groups were actually 

It too 

730 
present in the stand, and the location of thair boundaries. Third, many of the 

snall g-mups wem unavoidably destrayed when large tceeS in adjacent groups 

were felled, or when logs were mnred out of the stand, in later harvesting 

projects. It is particularly difficult and costly to save snall groups of 

trees on steep slopes from excessive damage during harvesting or preparation of 

the site for successful establishment of tree seedlings. 

-- --aged syst ems. The oldest plantations on National Forest lands in the 

Regicol are about 60 years old. Sane are sotol to be harvested and replaced, 

thus ccrrlpletjng the cycle of an even-aged silvicultural system. Extensive 

experience has teen gained in the regeneratioa, wumtion of young tree growth, 

intemediate cutting, and regeneration cutting trea-hnents for even-aged systems 

in all major timber types in the Region. Overall, artificial regeneration 

following clearcutting has been very reliable in p"sa pine, Douglas-fir, 

and Mixed Conifer stands. Artificial regeneration has been significantly less 

reliable in red or white fir stands. The primary causes of p1anth-g failures 

are: (1) difficulties with consistently pnducing high-quality seedlings in 

the nurseries, and (2) plantkg when the e"mental conditians are 

inappropriate. The shelterma3 systm with natural or artificial regeneration 

is presently used in red or white fir stands where regeneration after 

clearcutting is exp=cted to be unreliable. 

-- Need for Control of ocmpe ting vegetation (inc1ucTh-g the use of herbicides). 

C"l of anpetirg vegetation is needed in all of the silvicultural systms 

to ensure establishment and gccd growth of tree seedlings or spmts. Sane 

have theorized that less control is needed in the single-tree selection 

system. Under this system tree cover is me Ocoltinuous, resulting in fewer 

cuq~ting grasses, forbs, and shrubs. However, these canpetitom cause 

significant moisture stress in the seedling and sapling potential crop trees 

(in addition to the substantial moisture stress caused by the larger trees), 

thereby reducing their sunrival and growth. There is no canpelling theoretical 

basis for concluding that the need for control of cuqEting vegetaticol &auld 

be reduced if the single-tree selection systm were used. Certain cmm~~nly 

ccmming, major ccnp3eting plants can retain goOa vigor wha. shaded by mst 

conifers such as manzanita, Sear clover, twak, or madrune). Using the 

single-tree selection system would definitely not reduce the need for 

conixolling anpetition from such plants. 

h-equency of control treatments varies by silvicul-bral system. %a+ments 

under the single-tree selection system could be needed SdRWhere in every stand 

as often as every 5 to 10 years. The average treabnent fqencies in the 

other Systems are much lower. For example, in any of the even-aged systems, up 

to abut three treatments could be needed in the first ten years of a new 

stand. No additional treatments may be needed until the stand is regenerated - 

a perid that could exceed 50 years. Thus, the average pericd between 

treatmnts would be greater than 20 years. Regardless of the silvicultural 

system used, the total acres treated (and the total pounds of herbicide applied 

per acre, if herbicides were used) should be abut the same over the long ten. 

The aerial application of herbicides (usually the mst cost-effective, and 

frequently the most controversial, method of applying herbicides) could not be 

used in the sirgle-.tree selection system. De- on tqxgraphy and 

731 
vegetation structure, it could also be impractical in the group selection 

system. 

-- Treatment costs. The size of a treatment area is a major factor in 

treatnent costs and managerial feasibility. Generally, costs per 

acre in intensively managed forests are higher when the treatment units are 

snaller. Therefore, the even-aged systems are the most cost efficient, and the 

group se&ction and the single-tr- selection system in that order) are the 

least cost-effective. 

Regeneration by clearcutting is the mt cost-efficient amnq the even-aged 

systems. Shelterwood and seed tree systems are less so, in that order. The 

removal of shelterwood trees or seed-trees, after the seedlings are 

established, is a second cost rot required m the clearcutting system. 

In ‘chary, the total cost of natural regeneration should be less than for 

artificial regeneration. The costs of seed collection, nursery operations, 

seedlirg handlmg, and planting are eliminated. However, these savings are 

often offset by increases in pre-ccmmrcial thinning costs. Natural 

regeneration often results in much greater densities of threes than muld be 

planted, or are desirable. Also, unreliable seed proauCtion by many carmercial 

tree species often delays natural regeneration. This reduces wxd oarq?eting 

plants, the control of which can be costly. Overall, artificial regeneration 

insures pranpt reforestation of preferred species at desirable densities. If 

natural regeneration is to be used, the shelterwood and seed-tree systems are 

usually more cost-efficient than the uneven-aged systems. The reason is the 

ecormnies Of scale associated with larger treatmnt areas. Where artificial 

regeneration is to be used, the clearcuttirg and shelterwood systms are more 

cost-efficient, for the same reason. 

*. 

-- Achieving regulated forests, while maintaining Forest timber harvest 

levels. Regulation can be accamplished mst easily with the even-aged or group 

selection silvicultural systems. There are two critical &sadvantages of the 

single-tree selection system. First, foresters lack the detailed information 

abut trees needed for cutting on a stand-by-stand basis. There are tens of 

tt~~~~ands of stands on a typical National Forest in California, with up to 

abut ten thousand potential crop trees per stand. Currently, inventory data 

needed for the single-tree selection system are lacking for abut two-thirds of 

these stands. Second, in the Mediterranean climate in California, large forest 

wildfires are inevitable. Reforestation after these fires creates many, new, 

even-aged stands. It is very difficult to regulate a forest under a 

single-tree selection system when substantial acreages of unplanned even-aged 

stands OCCUT. 

-- Planning , contracting, and record keeping. The many small units used in the 

uneven-aged systems - makes for ineffective and costly operation and 

aCmnins&ation. If stands in a typical Ranger District- we& managed by 

uneven-aged systems, in excess of 50,000 separate areas would have to be 

inventoried, planned for, treated, and -tored. Even with canputem the 

managmat canplexity muld be excessive. Therefore, the extent to which 

uneven-aged managemat systems are used for intensive timber managenat will 

necessarily be very limited. 

732 
-- Timber harvesting. Five important aspects of timber harvesting are strongly 

influenced by the &mice among silvicultural systems: (1) variability in sizes 

of harvested trees, (2) area to be harvested, (3) canplexity of the harvesting 

treatment, (4) the probability of causing significant damage to trees to be 

left in the stand, and (5) the probability of causing long-term root disease 

problems. The first three influence hatvesting efficiencies, and the other two 

affect the vigor, tree stocking, and value of the residual stand. 

There is wi& size variation in trees harvested in each operation under the 

single-tree selection system. This reduces hamesting efficiency because 

logging -pent is size-&gemlent. mevex, this disadvantage could be 

insignificant in young-grawth stands. 

Harvesting in the single-tree selection system is much less efficient than for 

the other system because mre land must be treated in each opration to 

harvest the desired yield fran the forest. 

The canplexity of harvesting treatments is alSo greatest in the single-tree 

selection system. Identifying which kses to cut, determining where they are 

to be felled, felling the trees in the designated areas, and m“g ’ thetrees 

or logs out of the stand without damaging the residual trees can be very 

difficult and costly. In the single-tree selection system, cuttings OCCUT as 

frapently as every five to ten years. In the other system, only the 

intemediate cuttings are as oanplex. The regeneration cuttings in the other 

systems are mre straightforward operations. Group selection and clearcutting 

are the mst efficient. 

Logging damage to trees left to gn>w in the stand is typically greatest for the 

single-tree selection system. It is veq difficult to selectively harvest 

trees in dense stands without damaging many residual trees, particularly on 

steep slopes. Damaged .trees are often infected by wood-decaying fungi that can 

persist in the soil for long perid, thus retaining the capacity to infect new 

trees. The fungi reduce the windfimmess, vigor, COrmerCial value, and 

stodring of residual trees. This characteristic is a particular con- in 

developed recreation areas where selection system are often applied. Stands 

with red or white fir: have an especially high probability of being infected 

with wood-decaying fungi when damaged. 

-- Genetic imprwements in forests. Genetic inprov-ts to increase timber 

growth, improve tree form and wood quality, or increase resistance to disease 

and insect pests, depend primarily on plantirig trees with desirable genetic 

characteristics. Therefore, the potential for genetic improvement is greater 

for silvicultural systems that use artificial regeneration. The clearcutting, 

group selection, and shelterwood systems (if artificial regeneration is used) 

have the greatest potential for improving the genetic quality of forest trees. 

The single-tree selection system, with its natural regeneration and higher 

rates of inbreed.lng, has the least potential. 

Risk of Major Wildfires. The even-aged systems (clearcutting in particular) 

are best for reliucing the risk of major wildfires because the greater control 

of fuel distribution makes wildfire prevention and suppression easier and less 

costly. The single-tree selection system is least desirable because fires bum 

intensely and are mre difficult to oontrol. openings which can sexve as fuel 

breaks OCCUT less frequently in forests or stands managed by this system. 

733 
Silvicultural systems are not just the creation of foresters; rather, they are 

adaptatiom of ~tural -. Nature maks "regeneration cuttings" by 

means of fire, ins&, disease, wind, and other &?m; by reroving a 

single tree, a snall pup of trees, a stand, or Scmetimes a whole forest. 

RegeneratioIl cuttings stmqly influence stand characteristics and managanent 

optiom. Therefore, the 5 major silvicultural systems are named after them: 

clearcutting seed--, shelterwad, single-tree selection, and sroup 

selection. kach of these systems includes llegeneration cuttirags to establish 

new tree seedlings or sprouts, and intdate cuttings to develop the desired 

stand characteristics, such as species ccmposition, spatial distribution, and 

plant vigor. 

The clearcutting, seed-tree, and sheltermcd systems are even-aged systems; 

which mans that all of the trew in the stand are approximately the same age 

for a-t all the life of the stand. The singletree and group selection 

systems are uneven-aged systems; the txees in the stand differ markedly in age, 

with at least three major age classes present. Vneven-aged stands have no 

keginning or end points in time. 

Even-aged sys tens 

Clearcutting (shown in Figure 1) is the harvestirg, in one operation, of all 

merchantable trees in a stand or a larger area to help establish a new 

even-aged stand. The new stand may be created by natural processes such as 

seeding fm trees in adjacent stands, or by Sprouting frcrn the stups or roots 

of the cut .trees. The new stand can also be created by man through broadcast 

scattexing of seed, or by planting seeds or seedlings. In California, 

clearcut stands are usually regenerated by plant- seedlings. 

Clearcutting does not necessarily mean that all unmerchantable trees are 

reamed. Where feasible, high-quality unmerchantable trees are saved to becane 

part of the new stand. A 1987 survey showed that on gentle terrain in the 

National Forests on the westem slope of the Sierra Nevada muntains, 

high-quality u"Aantable trees are be- retained on an average of abut 10 

and 20 percent of the acres being regenerated to ponderosa pine, and to red fir 

or white fir, respedively. 

The seed-tree system (shown in Figure 2), each tree is evaluated for its 

contributxon to the desired characteristics of the uneven-aged stand. 

Regeneration and intentk=diate cut35.r-g~ are usually done in one operation. The 

desired seedzings or sprouts grow in the spaces created by harvestiq of 

individual trees. 

Repeated selection cuttings, part of the single-tree selection systan, have 

been used frequently to manage National Forest lands, particularly in the 

Sierra Nevada and Cascade Mxntain Rqes. There has been a major shift to 

using the clearcutting or shelterwood system over the last two decades. The 

primary reason is that the selection cuttings caused significant understmkirq 

in many stands, thereby reducing prOauctivity. There are many examples of poor 

selection cuttings in California, under the guise of the skgle-tree selection 

system. High quality, large trees were cut, leaving mferior, snall trees. 

Genetic principles were ignored, and many stands were left understocked, with 

734 
Figure 1. Clearcutting. Part of a mature stand is cut, removing all trees. A new 

srand arms from seeds of surrounding trees or from sprouts sent up by roots 

or stumps. Seedlings may also be planted or seeds broadcast. When the new 

trees are well on their way in the unobstructed light of the clearing, a neighboring stand of mature trees IS cut in turn. (The illustration IS from The Secrec 

Life of the Forest by Richard M. Ketchum, copyright 1970 by American Heritage Press, and IS used with the permmion of McGraw-Hill Book Company 

2nd che Society of American Foresters.) 

735 
Figure 2. Seed-tree System. The mature stand LS logged. but enough trees are 

left to reseed the area. The seed trees usually are large and valuable, and may 

be harvested when they have fulflled their purpose. Like clearcutting, the system favors light-demanding species. (The illusrration is from The Secret Life 

of the Forest by Richard M. Ketchum, copyright 1970 by Ammcan Heritage 

Press, and is used with [he permmion of McGraw-Hill Book Company 

and the Society of American Foresters.) 

736 
Figure 3. Shelterwood System. A mature stand is partially cui, leaving some of 

the better trees of desired species to grow, cast seed, and provide shade and 

perhaps other shelter for the new stand. Usually more trees are left per acre 

than in rhe seed-Wee system. These shelter trees will be harvested afier seedlings have become established and no longer need protection. (The figure 

and caption are used “ch,the permission of the Society of 

--- American Foresters.) 

737 
slow-grming, -1 trees that are mre susceptible to attacks by insects and 

diseases. In these situations, establishing a new even-aged stand typically is 

the mst efficient way of regaining desired proaUctivity levels and other stand 

qualities. 

The shelterwood system (shown in Figure 3) requires leaving sufficient trees 

per acre (typi-ly 10 to 20), mirg the regeneratian cuttirag, to provide an 

environwnt that protects (shelters) the seedlings of a new --aged stand. 

protection may be needed fran excessive misture stress or frosts in some 

forest areas. The new stand can be created by the natural or &ificial 

processes described above. 

Regeneration under shelterwxds by planting seedlings is a canmn practice on 

national Forest lands in the Region. The shelterwood are harvested 

followirg establishnent of the seedlings of the new even-aged stand. ?he 

shelterwood system is the seocold-most cunmnly used wen-aged system on 

National Forest lands in Region 5, after the clearcutting System. The 

shelterwood system is mst cc"nly used in stands where red or white fir are 

to be regenerated. 

The 'pnzp selection system requires harvesting trees in mall groups (less than 

about 2 acres). The openings created in the stand resemble miniature 

clearcuts. The uneven-aged stand consists of a maic of even-aged groups. 

Thus, the pup selection system uses the principles of even-aged systems 

described above to manage much snaller units of land. Currently, the group 

selection system is used less frequently than the single-tree selection system 

--aged systms are mre practical than uneven-aged systems for intensive 

managerent of wood proaucts. The reasons are explained in the section below on 

"MANAGERIAG alNTRAcps. . . " 

TIMBER YIELD AND REWlATION OF FORESIS AND STIWX 

Timber yield is the amount of wood that is harvested periodically frun a 

specified forest area. The maximum yield allowed fran a National Forest for a 

planning perid (typically one decade), is called the allmable sale quantity. 

By Federal law, the allowable sale quantity generally cannot exceed the 

long-term, sustained capacity of that Forest to grow wwd. Within each 

National Forest, stands are managed by silvicultural systems to achieve 

continuous prcduction of the allowable sale quantity. 

When this continuous production level is achieved, the Forest and stands are 

said to be "regulated". Where the single-tree selection or pup selection 

silvicultural systems are used, each regulated stand muld proauCe 

approximately the same yield frun each harvest, which would OCCUT about every 

10 years. By contrast, where the even-aged systems are used, yields fm each 

harvest in a regulated stand would not be equal, but the average yield for the 

Forest would be the same. 

The conversion of wild stands to regulated stands in many of California's 

forests has just begun. The goal of regulation will take many decades to 

achieve. 

on the National FO& lands in Region 5. 

No major forest in California has yet been regulated. 

738 
BIaLoGIcAG UXIWSTS AKJS FORESTS AND SENW MWAGELl BY Dm 

SIVLIaJL~ .sYsTms 

Appearanc0 

-- Variation in tree age. A forest managed by even-aged silvicultural Systems: 

mists of a nusaic of --aged stands. hrery age class would be rapresented 

in a regulated forest, and each age class muld be represent& by app"te1y 

the same nmber of stands. A regulated forest managed by the group seldon 

system would resemble forests managed by the even-aged silvicultural systems; 

except that the even-aged -ts (groups3 would be much snaller and mre 

~9ne~ous. By ccmlrast, each stand in a regulated forest managed by the 

single-tree selection system would have trees of many ages (perhaps all ages). 

"he oldest (or largest) trees in any managed forest dem primarily on the 

managenat objectives, not on the silvicultural systems. In particular, the 

amnmts of large- or old-growth to be proauCea or maintained depnd rmre on the 

willjngness to forego yields than on the kinds of silvicultural systems used to 

manage stands. 

-- Variation in developnen tal stages. In the even-aged and group selection 

systems, all stages - of forest develomt are present in the forest; includinrJ 

&asses; forbs, NIX., tree seediL-gs, &-larger trees. ~ach stage iS 

represented by entire stands or groups. By contrast, in the single-.tree 

selection system the ateas dcminated by snall plants such as grasses, forbs, or 

shrubs are camonly very snall (for example, less than one-hundredth of an 

acre), but they typically OCCUT sonewhere in every stand. In a regulated 

forest, the total area -pied by each stage should be abut the same, 

regardless of the silvicultural system. 

Also, the multiple tree layers create "ladders", permitting ground fires to 

spread into the cnmns of the large trees. 0" fires are imre destmckve 

and mre difficult to wntml than ground fires. Finally, the use of 

ccmtmlled fires to reduce the risks of large wildfires is mst difficult and 

costly in the single-tree selection system. 

Risk of Significant Pest Damage. Silvicultural treaiments reduce risks by 

selecting appropriate tree species, by diversifyirg within and amrig stands, 

and by maintainFng tree vigor. Diversification within stands is increased 

through use of multiple species or uneven-aged silvicultural systems. Vigor is 

pmmted by preventing the trees and other plants fmn becarmng ' toodense. 

Cbqeting plants also provide habitat for animal pests such as pocket gophers 

and rabbits. Well-managed stands in all systans reduce the risk of significant 

pest damage. However, there are significant exceptions. 

Risk of significant insect or disease damage to trees increases if the trees 

have heen wounded. Many muds OCCUT during silvicultural treahmts. 

Accidental scarring of trees can be caused by felling nearby trees, or by 

bunping them with machines or logs rrvrring through the forest. Risk increases 

with frequency of stand treatments, particularly cutting. Cutting frequency is 

much higher for the single-tree selection system than for others, so the risk 

of significant insect and disease damage is highest. 

739 
Tom serious disease, dwarf mistletoes and some root rots, can be difficult, 

cost& and, in scme cases, impossible to control under selection systems. 

Damage fran these diseases is most easily controlled by managing stands as 

wimles. Dwarf mistletoe plants can project seeds down on trees within abut 100 

feet horizontally, thereby infecting nearby susceptible species. Even-aged 

systems allow the manager to control damage from this pest through cutting 

treatments. 

Many root disease infect susceptible trees by root-to-root mntact. Sane 

root diseases start at harvest time and spread to other trees in the stand. 

control may require killing trees in a zone mund the infected area. 

Uneven-aged management, particularly the single-tree selection system, can 

perpetuate root disease “centers“ and spread infection. 

Generalizations about wildlife pest damage and silvicultural systems are 

difficult. The major potential wildlife pests in the Region include pocket 

gophers, deer, porcupines and rabbits. These animals feed in vegetation 

&“ted by grasses, forbs, shrubs, or tree seedlings. Use of the even-aged 

or group selection systems can create large areas teniprarily c3”ted by this 

kind of vegetation. This can cause higher densities of potential pests, which 

increases the risk of significant damage to potential crop trees. However, 

often the actual damage levels are not increased where this occurs. 

production of Livestock Forage and Browse. Even-aged systems and the group 

selection system are best for livestock prcduction. Grasses, forbs, and shrubs 

used by livestock ccmr in the greatest guantity in opniq‘s. Managment 

efficiency hcreases in large forage areas because livestock control and access 

is easier and less costly. 

F’rotection of Archeological Resources. There should be m significant 

differences arm% the silvicultural systems in their risk of damage to 

undetected archeological resources. Damage de- mre on the intensity and 

frequency of managemnt treatments than on the kind of silvicultural systen, 

particularly when large machines are used. 

Effects on Fisheries and Wildlife Habitat. Fisheries habitat is mst easily 

protected where the water quality is high, stream temperatures are keDt 

aerate through shadirg, arkl wh2e the --ff guanti6 is sufficient 

maintain spawniq areas. The single-tree selection or group selection systems 

are usually mre advantageaus than the even-aged systems for “zgm the 

vegetation in streamside management zones and riparian areas. Hmever, the 

silvicultural systs used outside these zones does influence the amount of 

sediment in the water (see the discussion in the section titled Risks of 

Adverse Effects on Watersheds and Soils.) 

The choice of silvicultural systems to best manage wildlife habitat depends on 

which species are to be emphasized. Regardless of which treabnent is used in a 

stand, sone species will benefit and others will not. Pbst wildlife species 

are adapted to thrive in specific structures and species of forest vegetation. 

For example, the use of the even-aged or group selection systems favors deer, 

quail, and rabbits that use herbaceous and shrubby vegetation most abundant in 

large openings in the forest. The single-tree selection system may favor 

animals that need vertical diversity, such as spotted owls and tree squirrels. 

740 
Almost all forest wildlife species could use a particular young-growth stand at 

same time in its dewlopent regardless of the silvicultmal system. (The 

exceptions are the few species that may be totally dement on very large, 

decadent trees for habitat.) The kind of system would influence the 

Fnroportions of species and when and how they could use the stand as habitat. A 

significant exception is single-.tree seledion managmt applied to large 

areas. The absence of large Openings could prevent use by wildlife adapted to 

this kind of habitat, such as soarirg hawks. Overall, a mix of the 

silvicultural systems in the forest mld probably best achieve most wildlife 

management objectives. 

741 
BIBIitaB?MXY 

Burns, Russell M. (Tech. Cmpiler) 1983. Silvicultural Systems for the Major 

Forest Types of the Unitd States, Revised, Dec. 1983. USDA Forest Service 

Agriculture Handbcak No. 445, 191 pp. 

Daniel, Theodore W., Helms, John A., and Frederick S. Baker. Prjnciples of 

Silviculture, Sd Ed. maw-Hill, 500 pp. 

Helms, John A. 1980. The California Regia in Regional Silviculture of tke 

united States, Sd Ed.(Barrett, John W. ea.). John Wiley & SCaLs, pp 

391-446. 

Gxxlm, Dmald T. 1983. --age3 vs. Vneven-aged Managenent in Eastside 

Pine in Management of the Eastside Pine Type in Wn-theastem California - 

Prcc. of a Synpdum, June 15-17, 1982, Lassen College Forest Resource 

Center, Susdlle, Calif. (Robscsl, Tkmas F. and Richard B. Standiford, 

eds.). Northern Calif. Society of American Foresters, SAF 83-06, pp 54-58. 

Scott, David R. M. 1980. The Pacific "st Region in Regional 

Silviculture of the united States, Semnd Ed. (Barrett, John W. ed. ). John 

Wiley & Sons, pp 447-493. 

Forests. Society of American Fmestefi, Washbgbn D.C., 80 pp. 

Sons, 578 pp. 

Regenerate Stands. Paper for the California State Wversity at Hayward 

Course "Learn Today To Lead Tanorrau". To be published by the Pacific 

southwest Regional Office, 12 pp. Capies on file at the Regional Office 

and the Suprvkor's Office, Sierra National Forest, Fresr~, Ca. 

Society of American Foresters. 1981. choices in Silviculture for American 

Smith, David M. 1962. The Practice of Silviculture, Seventh Ed. John Wiley & 

Smith, Mark T. In press. Utilizing Advanced Repxdudzlon and Planting to 

USDA Forest Service. 1978. Vneven-agd Silviculture and Management in the 

Unitd States. mined Prw. of tm In-Service workshops held in 

I%rgantmn, West Virginia, July 15-17, 1975, and in Redding California, 

October 19-21, 1976. Timher Management Research, Forest Service, 

w-- D.C., 234 pp. 

Chapter 5, Timber. Agriculture Handhook No. 559, 223 pp. 

EDA Forest Service. 1980. National Forest Landscape Management, Vol 2, 

WDA Forest Service. 1985 National Forest Landscape Management, Vol. 2, 

cllapter 6, Fire. Agriculture Handboak No. 608, 89 pp. 

Impact Statement, Vegetation Management for Reforestation. 

WDA Forest Service, Pacific southwest Region. 1983. Draft hvironmental 

340 pp. 

742 
Appendix F 

Economic 

Ef fi ci en cy 

Analysis 
APPJ!NDIX F. ECONCMIC EFl?ICIEXY ANALYSIS 

aWmF"LPresent Net Value (FNV) is the criterion used to "ize net benefits in 

p1amk-g b?"% and alternatives for the Inyo National Forest. For each 

Alternative, PNV is the difference between the discounted value of all priced 

Outputs and all Forest Semice manag-t and investment costs over the 

analysis perid. "Priced" outputs are those that are or can be excharged in 

the market place. They include the value of forage; the stmpage value of 

timber; the value of mrcial fish in the strems; fur-bearing animals and 

other harvested miscellaneous prcducts; the value of any increased water flow 

quantities; the in-the-ground value of minerals; and all Recreation Visitor 

Days including those for wildlife, fishing, and wilderness experiences. 

The alternatives are designed to achieve specified "m-priced" outputs and 

to meet ccastraints at the least cost. The PNV of each alternative estimates 

the value of the "I attainable benefits of priced outputs. It is the 

value of priced benefits realized in excess of all the Forest Service costs 

of proaUcing bth priced and mn-priced outputs while neetiq management 

ccastxaints. PNV, therefore, is an estimate of the market value of the 

current forest resources after all costs of prcducing outputs and meeting 

wnstraints have been subtzacted fran the value of the expected flow of 

priced outputs. 

Net F'ublic Benefit is defined as the overall value to the nation of all 

outputs and pitive effects (benefits) less all the associated Forest 

Service inputs and negative effects (costs) for prcducing those primary 

benefits, whether or not they can be quantitatively valued. Thus, 

conceptually, Net Public Benefits are the sum of PNV plus the full value of 

non-priced outputs. The full value of non-priced benefits is used because 

their cost of proauction has been accounted for in PNV. The rxm-priced 

benefits include outputs such as threatened and endangered species 

maintenance or enhancement; natural and scientific areas; cultural site 

reservation such as Indian religious sites, and historical or anthropolcgi~ 

sites; visual quality in excess of standards; diversity objectives; or air 

quality in excess of Minir" ManagaentRequirements. rCu"I Management 

Rephments in this context are standards that must be mt in the proaucticol 

of any or all outputs from the Forest. The mini" level, therefore, is a 

cost of prcduction in the mltiple-use context. 

There are seccold-level benefits or effects that are also the concern of 

national Forest policy and management. These include local in- and job 

effects on the ea"ic developnent of cxnnnmities: net cost impacts on 

taxpayers: price effects on of forest prcducts and other proaucerS 

of those products; payments to cannunities in lieu of taxes; and benefits to 

Specific USBLs Of National Forest prcdu& wtn pay Iy3 fees, or fees less than 

the price of the valued outputs. All these are distributive welfare effects 

of National Forest prcd~~ction. All the foregoing distributive effects and 

impacts have been the object of national policy issues and discussions in 

both the Achinistration and the Cangress. Because they are distributive 

effects, they are essentially questions of equity rather than efficiency. 

!l'hey involve questions of wlm should get benefits and who pays the costs. 

.. 

743 
They cannot be assessed in the context of the efficiency criteria associated 

with the PNV and the Net public Benefit coI1cepts. 

EIS pRFs"IcN 

The methodology, backgzuund, and results of the ecananic efficiency analysis 

"ental Impact Statement. As a result, all of the major secticms of 

the EIS including me listed below rrntSt be read in order to get a cunplete 

pi- of the analysis that was conduded. 

cantext Reference 

Discussion of how econCmic efficiency 

analysis was used in the glnxess 

of developiq alternatives. 

outputs, total cost, and PNV for chapter 11, BenchmKks. 

each of the bendmarks. 

Results of the cmstraint analysis 

and a cauparison of the alternatives 

in terms of PNV. 

c"sive sumnary of the 

analysis results in the EIS. 

that was c€mduM during the Planning process are presented throught the 

chapter 11, Alternative 

Developnent Precess. 

chapter 11, Eccormics and 

Trade-off Analysis 

This is the nnst 

Ba&g?"d information on e"ic 

cmditions and the resauce supplydenand situation for the Forest. 

HowandwhythePNVof the 

alternatives differ. 

Technical details of the &ling 

and analysis process including 

a description of basic estimates 

and assunlptions on benefits, costs, 

and interest rates. 

chapter 111, Affected 

-t . 

chapter w, mviranmental 

consequerlces. 

Appxdix B, The ResourCe 

Allocation Model and Analysis 

process. 

744 
Appendix G 

Budget 

Appendix 
The puzp=se of this appendix is to explain how the Forest gets its funding and what effect different funding levels will have on bplementation of the 

Land and Resource Managment Plan (Plan). The appendix explains: (1) the 

Federal wet process, (2) altemate sources of funding, (3) Forest 

priorities, and (4) mnitmjng for Plan mnpliance. 

The BLldget pmcess 

The Federal budget prcu?ss is lengthy and cnnplex. The Forest's budget 

becanes part of the Region's budget, which becanes part of the Forest 

Service's met, which kxxcnies part of the Deparhmt of Agriculture's 

"et, before it enters pertinent Cmgressional suknmu 'ttees. Needlessto 

say, the budget gets negotiated every step of the way. The following 

illustratim highlights the chain of events a Forest budget underyoes on its 

way to and fmn CWgress. 

BUDGET PROCESS FLOW CHART 

I 

745 
Note that the factors influenciq the Forest's final budget are many and 

relatively unccmtrollable fran the Forest's Perspective. For this reason 

alone the Forest Plan budget and its adual budget will never be one and the 

same. However, it is anticipated that the parties involved in the budget 

pnxess will use the Forest Plan for guidance and long range direction in 

deciding budget priorities. 

As an indication of the Inyo National Forest's budget trends and priorities 

as they have been reflected in recent budgets, the following table shows the 

Forest's funding by resource (function) for fiscal years 1985,1986,and 1987. 

Table 1. 

Irryo National Forest wadget History 

Resource 1985 1986 1987 TOTAL 

Fire $1,121, 000 $1,414,000 $1,055,000 $3,590, 000 

Timber 646,000 599,000 760,000 2,005,000 

PQaLiS 699,000 709,000 775, 000 2,183, 000 

Recreation 2,366,000 2,190,000 2,530,000 7,092, 000 

Wildlife 225,000 264,000 224, 000 713,000 

Range 177, 000 193, 000 141,000 511,000 

other* 2,139,000 2,185,000 1,652,000 5,976,000 

Tow 7,373,000 7,554, OOO 7,153, 000 

*Includes Soil, Watershed, Lands, Minerals and General Administration. 

To mnpare the historic budgets and the Plan's budget, we have converted 

recent budgets and the costs for the Plan's Preferred Altesnative into pie 

charts. The top chart displays average yearly budgets for Forest resources 

for the years fran 1985 to 1987. The average yearly total budget for the 

Inyo National Forest duriq this time was $7,353,000. The lower chart 

displays the Plan's total budget of $12,062,000 by resource needs. 

There are significant differences in resource emphasis between the twD budget 

sumnaries. The largest difference is in the recreation resource, which 

increases fran 32 percent of recent buc?gets to 40 percent of the Plan 

budget. Wildlife hcreases fran 3 percent to 5 percent and Roads increases 

fm 10 percent to 12 percent of the total. The largest decrease frun 

3 1/2 percent of the total. h-otectian (fire) decreases fmn 16 percent to 

14 percent and other resources decrease fm 17 percent to 23 percent. There 

is a anall decrease in the range percentage. It should be mted, however, 

that total dollars increase fmn current levels for all resources. The 

dezeases are in program emphases within the multiple-resource mix of all 

pmgrams on the Forest. 

cufient to Plan is in the timber resource, which is reduced fran 9 percent to 

746 
Historical and Planned Budgets 

Percent of Total 

1985 - 1987 AVERAGE BUDGET 

Avg Yearly Budget $7,353,000 

FOREST PLAN FIRST DECADE AVG 

Avg Yearly Budget $1 2,062,000 

747 
-Financing 

The bu&get given to the Forest Service by Cbngnss authorizes it to spend 

both appropriated and .trust funds. However, while the budget is paramount in 

a Natimal Farest’s ability to carry out activities, it is not the cmly 

factor that all- a Forest to get wcack done. Forests also receive nvney and 

services fmn marry other sources. These other sources are lxxmilq 

increascngly impartant. 

cwperators and mtees often aid in amnplishing needed work. Marry 

gazing pmnittees do range il-nent work, such as fencing, as part of the 

n!anag-t of their grazing allotmnts. The Inyu National Forest also 

receives $45,000 fmn the State of California through the “green sticker” 

program for the cperatim and maintenance of OHV (off-highway-vehicle) 

facilities. Marry of these facilities have been planned and ccndxucted with 

The California State Department of Boatkg and Waterways has also funded the 

-an of toat rw and associated restrocms and picnic areas on the 

Forest. The law enfommsnt prcg~am cm the Forest is operated under coop 

agreawnts with lccal annumities and the Forest is a cxxpra~ in the 

Interagency Dispatch Center with the Bureau of Land Manapsnt and the 

California Deparhnent of Forestry. eath prqrs provide for mxe efficient 

and cost-effective pmtecuan of Forest resources and visito?23. 

Twelve Inyo National Forest caqg”& are 1y3w operated by concessionaires. 

Whenrunbycancessiclnaires , opraticns are funded out of fees collected fnrn 

canprs. Volunteers ate playing an hu-easiqly large role on National 

Forests. Older American, job lxajnjrg, and youth progranc; p?mvi.de volunteers 

to help with office mrk and field activities. The Forest has an adopt-atrail prcgram and also uses the services of 240 volunteers WhDSe work is 

valued at $219,000. 

Other programs an the Forest that play an important part in gett5.z-g the work 

dane include the Older American Program with 24 people and valued at $117,000 

in 1987: the ca3 and California Dewt of Correcticas programs with 552 

participants valued at $606,500; and the YCC program with 8 participants 

valued at $17,000. 

The Forest is exploriq ways to make additional use of user fees to fund 

Wal5.r-g ~ograms. An example would be having pmpments of projects pay 

mnd.iti0n.s of the National Envimnmntal Policy Act. 

Ccoltributiolzs are a source that has been used on a mall scale in the past 

but offer much pranise for the future, based on experiences in programs such 

as “penny pines“, and the National Park Service’s use of donations. 

In additian, the Forest is continually investigatirg ways to improve 

efficiency and prcductivie. By operating mre efficiently, mre can be 

acccmplished with available resources. 

“green sticker“ nvney. 

for the prducticm of the envircarmental documents required underthe 

748 
Forest Primities zhder the Plan 

While output levels listed in the Plan are tied to wet levels, they are 

not the sole or even the primary product of the Plan. The Land Manag-t 

Plan establishes manag€3Ierlt dire32 'on for the Forest. This includes the 

Implementation Requirmats 

(MI-) and Forest-wide Standard and Guidelines discussed in chapter 2 Of the 

EIS and chapter 4 of the Plan. The Plan delineates which activities are 

appropriate for each area of the Forest. Areas managed as semi-primitive 

rrarmotorized will be managed pr-ily for dispersed recreation with M road 

building or timber harvesting. Other areas are managed for range or timber 

prlzihction as their primary fundion. 

The preferred Altfxnative direds the "l potential the Forest can 

achieve such as the a"t of timber that can be sold, the "ber of cattle 

grazed, etc., within the k"ds of the managemmt direction the Forest has 

set for itself. The a"t of outputs that are actually prcduced and the 

rams3er of activities and projects that will be iq~lementea de@ on 

available funding. 

If ccssgress does rnt provide the wet levels required for Plan 

Regardless of levels, the first priority for manag-t activities on 

the Forest will be the inplementaticsl of the W4P.s and MI& ccoltained in the 

Plan. These are necessary to maintain the health of the Forest. 

Implementation of Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines may be affected by 

wet levels. Generally speakjng, Standards and Guidelines fall into two 

categories: (1) those associated with project mitigation, and (2) those that 

will maintain or enhance the Forest envinaunent. 

Standards and Guidelines established by the Plan to regulate inplementation 

of projects will rnt be relaxed simply to meet production levels. Under 

"A, an e"mntal analysis is prepared for every project that effects 

other resources. If the emnbmm" analysis shows the project cannot be 

accanplished wi-t violating the Forest's Standards and Guidelines the 

project will be efied or revised to ensure it meets the established 

standards and Guidelines. 

other Standards and Guidelines address maintenance and/or enhancement of the 

environment but are not tied to specific projects. Lower budget levels will 

alter their rate of accunplishment. For example, the Forest has a goal to 

pnYiuce 100 acres of early seral stages of brush for wildlife by prescribed 

burnirag each year. Without appropriate fundhg, this my mt be acccmplished 

within the timeframe envisioned by the Plan. 

rw-d" Management Resuirements "1, - 

inplanentation, management intensity and prlzihction levels will be lower. 

Mcni~ing 

Each Forest Plan includes a mmitorhg plan that lets the Forest knm how it 

is doing in meting the goals it has set for itself. This mnitorirg plan is 

found in chapter 5 of the Plan. If the Forest deviates to0 far fm 

accanplishing the objectives set in the Plan, a Plan amendment or revision is 

required. Hawever, because Plan objectives are expressed in average annual 

tem!s for a ten-year perioa, accanplishment levels at less than the annual 

749 
average will not autanatically trigger an !l%e all& variability 

fOr each m3Ii-w item iS shown the ImnitOKhg plan. If Forest 

an amendment m revisicfl 

could be iziggered. 

activities fall outside of the allowed variability, 

750 
Appendix H 

Timber Supply 

Appendix 
APPENDIX H 

THE FfEGIONAL TIMBER SUPPLY-DEMRND SIlUATION IN (XiLIE0FNI.A 

This appendix was created to address public ccnment that requested 

additional information on the broad level timber supply and demand situation 

in relation to supplies fran individual National Forests. bsting 

information fran recent RPA assessnents, the Pacific Southwest Regional 

Guide, Forest Sexvice research publications, and the State of California's 

Forest and Range Resource Assessnent Program was used for this purpose. 

Histcnical Harvests €ran Public and Private Lands - Statewide 

Timber harvest in California has been in a c?amward trend for over 30 years. 

In 1955 tmber harvest in the state fran all lands totaled 6 billion board 

feet. In that year, harvest fran private lands was 4.9 billion and harvest 

fran National Forests was 1.0 billion. Less than 100 million board feet were 

harvested fran other public lands. Since that time, total harvest in the 

state has fallen steadily. By 1982, at the bottcm of the last recession, 

harvests had fallen to 2.5 billion board feet. Since then, annual harvests 

have rebounded to 4 billion board feet. Harvest fran private lands fell to 

1.5 bxllion board feet in 1982 and have since reboum?ed to 2.2 billion board 

feet. Harvest fran National Forests increased to a peak of 2.36 billion 

board feet in 1968. National Forest harvests then trended dawnward to a low 

of 0.9 billion board feet at the bottan of the last recession and have smce 

rebounded to 1.96 billion board feet. Harvests fmn other public lands have 

been relatively stable at near 100 million board feet for the last three 

decades (see Table 1). 

As sbwn in Table 1, harvest levels fluctuate widely fran year to year rather 

than following a -th pattern. Year to year variations are influenced 

primarily by changes in housing markets and general busmess conditions. My 

over the long term dr, tmber inventory and growth levels llmit haxvests. 

Statewide DaMnd for Timber Products and the Relationship to Harvest -1s 

With a population that has grown faster than the national average to over 26 

million Wple and a high level of mme per capita, California is one of 

the largest markets for lumber, wood, and paper pmucts in the world. When 

discussing the relationship between the deinmd for tunber prducts (lumber, 

wood, and paper) and the demand for timber harvest (stumpage), it is 

necessary to translate the demand for timber prduc'cs into its timber harvest 

equivalent. Expressed in these terms, the demand for tlmber has been 

increasing, but at a slower rate than than the growth m population. While 

the population has been growing, per capita consumption of timber has been 

declining. This has occurred due to the introduction of labor and material 

saving technologies in both timber prduct manufacturing and in industries 

that use manufactured timber products. The result of these technological 

innWations has been a drop in per capita consumption of timber from 390 

board feet annually in 1950 to 360 board feet annually in 1983. However, 

because population in the state grew fran 10.6 million m 1950 to over 26 

million at present, total demand increased fran 4.1 billion board feet 

annually in 1950 to 9.3 billion hoard feet annually at present. 

751 
While the demand for tinb=r has been irmeasing, timber harvests in the state 

declining supply has been made up by increased imports to the state, 

primarily fran w, Washiqtm, and Canada. The state has changed hrm a 

net exporter to a net importer of timber prcducts over the last thre 

decades. 

California ~y3w relies on imports for mxe than one half of its overall timber 

proaUct needs. Althmgh California receives only a small proportion of its 

impoas fran Canada, Canadian shi)yients to the U.S. have a significant 

effect on the state's ability to import timber prcducts frun the Pacific 

Nort-hwest. In contrast to California's reliance on imports, the bulk of the 

states and countries. Increases in Canadian shipwnts to the eastern half of 

the U.S. have displaced timber prmiucts fmn the Pacific Northwest. The 

result has teen an increase in the availability of timber pmducts fmn the 

Pacific Northwest for California markets. Increased prcduction in the South 

has also been displacing the Pacific Northwest in eastern markets, which has 

also increased the availability of prcducts fmn the Northwest in California 

markets. 

have been aecreasing. The difference between the gIw.ciq demand and the 

timber proaUcts proaucea in both wa&ingbm and Oregon are expcated to other 

Emad Lwel S0ci-c Effects 

About 95 percent of California's population lives in urban areas. As 

wr"xs, the primary effect of charges in harvest levels in the state on 

thm is a change in prices paid for timber products. A reduction in timber 

harvests in the state rd~ces ccqetition armng suppliers, raises market 

prices, and leads to increased use of imprted products. Fx"etric 

analysis &ne for the 1985 RPA indicates that a one billion board foot change 

in harvest level would change lumber prices by abut three percent. This 

translates into a $250 change in the price of the typical new house at 

current conversion efficiencies. For the U.S. econarry as a whole, this would 

amunt to a cast to hane buyers of abut $4aa million annually. 

effect on the urban population is through "indirect and induced" 

employment. While the employment effect of changes in harvest levels is felt 

most stnxgly in the cammities where the logging and sawmilling takes 

place, some broader level employment effects also OCCUT. This is because 

firnr; that manufacture and supply gcds and semices to logging and 

sad11 canpanies are typically located in the major urban centers rather 

than in the rural areas where the logging and milling takes place. 

Logging and milling by itself typically requires 4-7 person years of 

employment per million bard feet processed. Newer, me specialized and 

autanated mills using readily accessible timber are at the bottan of this 

range, while mre labr intensive operations are at the top of this range. 

This direct employmnt generates indirect employment in firms that supply 

firms and govemmmts providing gccds and services to those employed directly 

and indirectly. In undeveloped rural areas there is little if any i"ct 

and induced effect because suppliers are located outside of the area and 

logging and sawmilling employees must "drive into the city" to make major 

purchases. In addition, on mst National Forests a portion of the logs 

harvested are trucked well outside of the pr- zone of influence for 

gmds and se?xices to logging and milling firms and induced q1-t in 

752 
manufacturirg into lumber products. As a result, total statewide employment 

effects fm changes in harvest levels are laryer than employment effects 

OcCuTring in the primary zones of influence for individual National Forests. 

Bnployment effects on a statewide basis range between 10-20 person years per 

million board feet of timber harvested. These employment effect estimates 

were made with input-output mels ccast~~cted by the Forest Service and the 

U.S. Department of Carmerce. They reflect present techmlcgies. As the 

trend toward increased timber utilization efficiency continues, employment 

generated per unit of timber prccessed is expected to decline. 

The Outlook for Tjnt~er Supp lies - Private Lands 

Based on an examination of timber growth and inventory levels ccmpared to 

historical harvest levels, timber supplies fm private lands in California 

can be maintained or increased over present levels ovex the 10-15 year life 

of the Forest Plans. Recent harvest levels and timber growth and inventory 

levels are Shawn in Table 2. Private harvests averaged 2 billion bard feet 

private lands of 2.3 billion board feet annually. Current private sawtimber 

inventory is 86.8 billion bard feet or the equivalent of a 43-year supply 

(not counting growth) at ment harvest rates and utilization standards. As 

timber utilization efficiencies increase, the effective supply will also be 

extended. 

The picture changes sunewhat when growth and inventory levels are divided 

amrg the major private ownership classes. Non-industrial private owners 

hold 38 percent of the sawtimber inventory. These ownerships account for a 

similar percentage of mual sawtimber growth. Historically, these owners 

have harvested a much smaller percentage of the timber growth and inventory 

on their lands than have large industrial owners. statewide, harvests fm 

mn-industrial private "tups have averaged only about 30 percent of 

annual sawtimber growth. This proportion has been higher in the northern 

parts of the state and lmer in the central and southern Sierra. With 

increasing urbanization there is also the likelihwd that the harvest rates 

on mn-industrial private "tu 'ps may decline in the future. 

Industrial owners Fold 62 percent of the private sawtimber inventory. In 

contrast to non-inchstrial private ownerships, harvest rates on industrial 

ownerships are 23 percent higher than annual grayth. %s mans that without 

significant increases in grcwth, inventory depletion could lead to dec1i;lmg 

harvest levels in the next century. However, timber growth and inventoq are 

sufficient to maintain harvests ming the 10-15 year life of the Forest 

Plans. 

annually over the perid 1978-1985. This ccmpares with sawtimber growthon 

The Outlook for Timber Supp lies - Import S 

As discussed ahcnre, the Pacific Northwest is the primary so- of importea 

timber proauctS in California. Displacement effects in national markets, 

Canada and the South also play a major role in determining the supply of 

timber proauctS fm the Northwest that is available to California markets. 

According to studies conducted by Forest Service research units, timber 

supplies fmn the South are likely to increase, but at a slower rate than 

experienced over the last 20 years d~~irg the life of the Forest Plans. A 

753 
decline or falldown in supplies fnm the South is in prospect for the next 

century if there is M increase in hvesmt and timber growth. 

Studies conducted in Canada indicate that sawtimber growth and invakq is 

not expected to restrain wrts to the U.S. until after the turn of the 

century. However, recent tariff and trade negotiatiuns are expected to 

moderate Canadian exports to the U.S. over the near tenn. 

A decline in timber harvests in the Pacific Abrthwest over the next 10-15 

years is expected. This is due to reduced availability of timber inventories 

on both public and private lands. 

The mall outloak is that imp3rts will wntjnue to grow to supprt 

increased demands by California cannrmers over the next 10-15 years. 

However, imports will likely increase at a lower rate than mer the last 20 

years and may decrease in availability beyond the year 2000. 

The Outlcok for Timher Supp lies - National Forests 

The Allowable Sale Quantities set in individual Draft Forest Plans are an 

indicator of future timber supply levels fm National Forests in 

California. The Allowable Sale euantity places an upper limit on the average 

annual anrnmt of green sawtimber fnm suitable timberlands that can be sold 

frun a National Forest in the first tm-year period of the Plan. 

Non-chargeable timber (dead timber and fuelwood fm either suitable or 

unsuitable timberlands) is in addition to the Allmable Sale Quantity. The 

addition of m-chargeable volme usually increases the total amollnt sold by 

a few prcentage pints. 

The antnmt of timber offered for sale in an individual year is determined 

through the budget pnxess. When the amount of timber sold in an individual 

year is less than the Allowable Sale Quantity, sales in future years may be 

higher than the Allowable Sale Quantity, since the ASQ is a limit on the 

average annual a"t that can be sold wer a ten year period. 

Total planned timber sales programned in the individual Draft National Forest 

Plans in Region 5 is 1.85 billion board feet annually. This is slightly 

above the average annual volume sold and ahwe the 1.6 billion board foot 

average annual wluma harvested over the past decade. Excluding the perioa 

of severe econaRic recession that occurred in the early 1980s, timber output 

under the Plans is equal to the 1.85 billion board foot average annual 

harvest during the decade of the 1970s. Output under the Plans is slightly 

alxxre the 1985 RPA "high M" program sale offering goal of 1.8 billion 

board feet for the year 1990. 

?hesubreg id Outlook - OMNiew 

The picture is smmhat different when observed at the subregional level. 

Based on the historical pattem of log flows to mills, the state can be 

divided into six timber market areas: North Coast, Northem Interior, 

Sacramento, San Joaquin, Central bast, and Southem California. National 

Forests play a significant role in the North Coast, Northem Interior, 

Sacramento, and San Joaquin areas. 

754 
virtually all of the decline in the state's timber harvest that has occurred 

over the last 30 years has taken place in the North Coast market area 081 

private lands. The outloak m is for relatively stable output fran private 

lands over the 10-15 year life of the Forest Plans in all major market areas. 

The relative ccsltributlon of National Forests to the timber supply differs 

markedly between market areas. In the North Coast area where the private 

timber supply has been falling mxt rapidly, National Forests supply only 138 

of the timber. In the Northem Interior and Sacramento areas, National 

Forests supply 50% of the timber. In the San Joaquin area they supply 70%. 

Timber outputs under the Forest Plans lower than average -1 sale 

levels over the last eight years in the Wrthem Interior area and higher in 

all other areas. This means that adverse impacts on local ecoMRies 

resulting frcm the Plans will be centered in Northeastem California. 

Timber fmn the Iriyo National Forest has historically been baed to mills 

in the Northern Interior and San Joaquin timber supply areas. A "2 

detailed descriptiosl of those areas follows. 

lllesuta-eg id Outlook in the Northern Interior TMYX Scrpp ly Area 

Timber harvests in the Northern Interior area over the past eight years have 

averaged 1.04 billion board feet annually. Harvests frcm National Forests 

account for 50 percent of the total volume harvested. The Klamath, Modoc, 

Lassen, Plumas, Shasta-Trinity, and Mendocin0 are the major National Forest 

suppliers in the area. Small volumes fmn other Forests have also been 

milled in the area (Six Rivers, Eldorado, m, etc). Timber outputs under 

the Forest Plans are belm average sale levels duricg the last eight years by 

about 15 million board feet. 

Private harvests in the area have averaged 520 million bard feet annually 

over the past eight years. This is slightly less than annual sawtimber 

growth on private lands of 563 million board feet annually. Private 

sawtimber inventory is 18 billim bard feet. This is the equivalent of a 

35-year supply (not countiq grawth) at recent harvest rates. Harvests on 

industrial lands may increase slightly because of recent ownezship changes. 

There are 22 sawinills with a canbined 8-hOur shift capacity of 2.5 million 

board feet in the Northern Interior area. This means that mill capaciw is 

sonewhat abe the available sawtimber supply on an annual basis. 

Thesubreg i& Outlook in the San 3oaqu.h Tinbr supp ly Area 

Timber harvests in the San Joaquin area over the past eight years have 

averaged 407 million bard feet annually. Hmests fran National Forests 

account for 70 percent of the total volume harvested. The Stanislaus, 

Sierra, and Sequoia are the dcminant National Forest suppliers, but volume 

fmn the Eldorado, Irryo, and San Ee" ' is also milled in this market 

area. Timber outputs under the Forest Plans are above average sale levels 

during the last eightyears by abut 25 million bard feet. 

Private hanests in the area have averaged 131 million bard feet annually 

over the past eight years. Thki is less than annual sawtimber growth on 

755 
mvate lands of 145 millicm board feet annually. Private sawtimber 

iwmtcuy is 5.8 billion boar-d feet. This is the equivalat of a 44-year 

supply (not anmtitq growth) at recent hanrest rates. Harvests on private 

life of the Farest Plans. 

!I" are 14 sadlls with a ambined 8-hour shift capaciw of 1.8 millim 

board feet in the San Joaquin area. This means that mill capacity is ovar 60 

percent above the available sawtimber supply on an annual basis. 

Timber fran the Inyo National Forest makes-up less than 1 peroent of the 

supply available to mills the the San Joaquin and Northem Interior market 

areas. "er, because this tinbr is available for winter logging, it 

serves a unique role in the tinter e~~ol~ny. Individual timber purchasers are 

able to keep logging mews emplayea during the Winter mths because of the 

Inyo's mntributim to the timber supply. The relatively high prices 

received far timber sold fran the Inyo is an iridicator of the of 

its timber to individual purchasers and their emplayees. 

lands are exp&& to be maintained near mt 1-1s the 10-15 

756 
Table 1. 

(billion board feet) 

California Timber Harvests by Chnersh *p, 1952-86 

Year Private Other Public National Forest Total 

1952 4.40 .05 .61 5.06 

1953 5.32 .04 .63 5.99 

1954 4.79 .05 .76 5.60 

1955 4.93 .06 1.03 6.02 

1956 4.69 .08 1.09 5.86 

1957 4.36 .07 .92 5.35 

1958 4.47 .09 1.11 5.67 

1959 4.29 .12 1.48 5.89 

1960 3.70 .11 1.33 5.14 

1961 3.85 .I1 1.38 5.34 

1962 4.05 .11 1.38 5.54 

1963 3.69 .11 1.66 5.46 

1964 3.50 .11 1.86 5.47 

1965 3.21 .14 1.92 5.27 

1966 2.97 .11 1.93 5.01 

1967 3.06 .11 1.89 5.06 

1968 2.82 .16 2.36 5.34 

1969 2.88 .12 2.00 5.00 

1970 2.62 .10 1.84 4.57 

1971 2.59 .13 2.06 4.78 

1972 2.66 .12 2.22 5.00 

1973 2.81 .10 2.01 4.92 

1974 2.86 .11 1.73 4.70 

1975 2.71 .10 1.52 4.33 

1976 2.76 .08 1.89 4.73 

1977 2.96 .09 1.74 4.79 

1978 2.78 .08 1.80 4.66 

1979 2.26 .09 1.73 4.08 

1980 1.86 .07 1.51 3.44 

1981 1.72 .04 1.09 2.86 

1982 1.50 .06 .94 2.50 

1983 1.89 .08 1.68 3.65 

1984 2.09 -03 1.56 3.68 

1985 2.17 .06 1.82 4.05 

1986 1.96 

sourceS: California Deparhnent of Forestry and Fire h-otection 

California State Board of Equalization 

Bureau Of Indian Affairs, USDI 

Bureau Of Land Management, USDI 

Forest Service, USDA 

757 
,'. 

Table 2. 

Timber Harvest, Qawth, and Inventcxy on Private Land in CalifArea Average Annual Net Ar"l - "* 

"est, "l? sawtjmber csowth BBF, 1982-1984 

1978-1985 =, 1982-1984 

m coast 949 

Northern Interior 520 

Sacramento 415 

San Joaq~in 131 

other- 22 

All Private Land 2037 

Industrial Private 1785 

Ncol-industr ial Private 252 

981 

563 

502 

145 

141 

2332 

1458 

874 

34.9 

18.0 

20.7 

5.8 

7.4 

86.8 

53.8 

33.0 

Source: Harvest data fran California State Board of Equalization and 

forest inventmy data fmn Pacific "west Forest and Range 

Experiment Statim, Forest Service, LEDA as ccnipiled by the 

California Department of Foreshy and Fire ProtectiOn-Forest and 

Fmngeland Resources Assessnent unit. 

758 
” Klamath (1) 223*6 

Interior Mdcc 59.5 

LasSen 174.7 

ShaSta-”ty 215.7 

Sacramento Mendoccno (2) 

Plumas (3) 

TabDe 

El&& (4) 

San Jwquin Stanislaus (5) 

Sierra 

sequoia 

Inyo (6) 

San Bernardino 

80.7 

208.0 

141.7 

146.7 

117.4 

128.4 

77.2 

12.8 

8.8 

198.0 

52.0 

154.0 

226.0 

93.0 

265.0 

178.7 

138.0 

134.0 

125.0 

97.0 

10.0 

5.2 

%.Calif. Los Padres 1.3 3.8 

R5 Total 1,747 1,855 

(1) Typically 100-130 lvMBF of logs flow into Oregon. W&z of this a”t is 

fmn the Klamath National Forest. 

(2) Mendocin0 lcgs typically flow 40 percent to the Sacr-to area, 40 

percent to the Northern Interior area, and 20 percent to the North coast. 

(3) Plumas logs typically flow 40 percent to the Northern Interior area, 60 

percent to the Sacramento area. 

(4) Eldorado logs typically flow 60 percent to the Sacramento area and 40 

percent to the San Joaquin area. 

(5) Stanislaus logs typically flow 20 percent to the Sacramento area and 80 

percent to the San Joaquin area. 

(6) Inyo logs typically flaw 50 percent to the San Joaquin area and 50 

percent to the Northern Interior area. 

759 
- !' ! 

Hi-te, Bruce A., and James 0. Howard, Califcm-da's Forest Industry , 1976, 

USDA Forest service, Pacific Narthwest Forest and Range Expariment Statim, 

1978. 

Howard, James O., Califomria's Forest h-oauct Industq : 1982, USDA Farest 

Service, Pacific Nxthwe& Forest and Range ncperiment Station, 1984. 

Rude", Florence K., and Debra Warren, Frodwtion, =ices, Emp lOymen tand 

Farest and ncperiment statim, qWrter1y. 

Trade in Ndzhwe& Forest Industries, USDA FmeSt Service, Pacific Northwest 

USDA Farest Service, America's Renewable ResaucceS: A Suppl-t to the 1979 

Assesmat of the Forest and Range Land Situation in the United States, 

February 1984. 

USDA Forest Ssxice, An Analysis of the Timber Situation in the United States 

1952-2030, Deoember 1982. 

USDA Farest Swice, An Assessnent of the Farest and Rang e Land Situation in 

the United States. January 1980. 

USDA Forest Service, Regional Guide for the Pacific Southwest Region, August 

1984. 

USDA Forest Service, The South's Fourth Forest, Alternatives for the ntme, 

(review draft), 1986. 

760 
4 Appendix1 

Bibliography 
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 

Colorado State University Exprment Station, Estimating EcoMrm ‘c Impacts of 

Adjusbwnts in Grazing on Federal Lands and Esthathg Federal Rangeland 

Forage Values, Technical Bulletin 143, Fort Collins, Colorado. (The Inyo 

National Forest’s range forage value was developed from this study and 

received by the Forest in a memo dated May 10, 1982 from U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, F”u ‘c Research Service, National Econcmics Division.) 

Hauser, Philip M., The Census of 1980, Scientific American, 245(5): 53-62 

pp., 1981. 

Hendee, John C.; Stankey, G.H.; Lucas, R.C.; Wilderness Management, 

publication No. 1365, Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, 1978 ”ber, pp. 308-309. 

LQS Angeles Deparhnent of Water and Pmer, City of Los Angeles, Statistical 

Report for the Fiscal Years 1972-1981, 1981 ”ber. 

Southem California Association of Governments, Draft 1982 SCAG Population 

Grayth Sumnary, 1982 January. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1980 RPA Assessment 

Minerals, Trends in h-oductions, 1980 January, pp. 79-80. 

The follming function was used to adjust first quarter 1978 RPA values to 

1980 dollars: RPA Value x 177/144.93 = adjusted value. 

Aldridge, Delores P., Toward an Ijnderstanding of the Social Sciences and 

their Potential contribution to Forest Planning and Decision Makirg, 

w. , D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1981 

Fzpp. 2-3. 

Brown, Ermnd G., Em” ‘c Report of the Ckven-kor, State of California, 

State printing Office, Sacramento, CA, 1981. 

Eusby, Colin I.; Findlay, John M.; Bard, James C.; A Cultural Resource 

Overview of we Bureau of Land Managenent-Coleville, me, Benton and Owens 

Valley Planning Units, California, Bakersfield, CA, Buzeau of Land 

Managenent, Bakersfield Diskict Office, &ntract No. YA-512-CT8-181, 1979 

June. 

California State County Suprvisors Association, California County Fact 

Book, 1977-1978, Sacra”, CA, 1977 December. 

761 
Califarnia State Btploynient Developnent Department, Bishop nuploymnt 

Bvelopnent Deparbnent -ive Plan, Fy 1980-1981. Unpblished, 1980 

September. 

California State E"ent Developnent Bparbnent, Labor Market Newsletter, 

Health and Welfare Agency, Employment Developnent: Deparhnent, nuployment 

Data and Research, 1982 May. 

California State Deparbnent of Finance , California Statistical Abstract, 

State Printing Office, Sacramento, CA, 1981. 

California State Department of Finance, papulation Research Unit Report I, 

State hinting Office, Sacramento, CA, 1981, pp. 70-80. 

California Interstate Telephone Ganparry, Continental System, Ranantic 

Heritage of Inyo-Mnm, Los Angeles, CA, 1967 May. 

Bxmnic Research Rssxiates, Ecolvnu 'c Base and Future (xltlcok Study for the 

IMAGE P1arni.q Area, Eb" 'c Research Associates, Los Angeles, CA, 1974 

January. 

Farquhar, Francis P., History of the Sierra Nevada, Berkeley and Los 

Angeles, University of California Press, 1965, 262 pp. 

Holden, Amold. PhD., Estimation of Social Effects, Social Science in the 

Planning h-ocess, Portland, OR, 1980 October 15, Draft. 

Lawson, Chris E.: Lee, Robert G.; Kitto, William D.: Draft SOcio-eCananic 

Bellevue, WA, 1980 "her. 

Mono Cbmty Planning Deparhent, Mono County Draft Revised Housing Element, 

Bridgeprt, CA, 1981 June. 

Pete", Linda J., socio-~c Overview of the Zone of Influence for the 

Rogue River National Forest and the Siskiyou National Forest, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Servica, Unpublished, 1980. 

Robinson, Douglas, Irryo National Forest, March 1933, Persanal ccmersations. 

Schumacher, Genrry, Deept Valley, Berkeley, CA, Wilderness Press, 1969, 239 

PPSchwabe, Jeamie, Sccio-ecco7anic Cmrview for the Angeles National Forest, 

U.S. Deparbnent of Agriculture, Forest Senrice, Pacific Southwest Region, 

1981 member. 

Sierra Daily News, Bishp, CA, Bigger Slice of the Highway Pie?, 1983 

February. 

Security Pacific Naticnal Bank, Research Department, WWy Sumnary of 

Business Clmditions, Southern California, Security Pacific National Bank, 

Research Deparhnent, 59(10), 1980 October. 

Overview of Mnmt Bake?=-Srxqxalmie National Forest, CanPanY. 

762 
Office of Tourisn, Deparhnent of Rxx" 'c and Business Developnent, state of 

California, Statewide havel Survey, The Econrm 'c nnpact of Travel in 

California 1980, U.S. havel Data Center, Sacramento, CA, 1984 January. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, A"l Collection Stataent, 

National Forest Fbd, 1975-1982, San FraIdsco, CA, 1982. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Semice, Land Areas of the Natie 

Forest System, FS-360, Washington, D.C., 1980 September 30. 

U.S. Deparbuent of Agriculture, Forest Service, Mannmt3-1-Mm~ P1ard.q Unit, 

Final -tal Stabiwnt, Land Managem2nt Plan for the M"3th-m 

Planning unit. 

U.S. Bureau of Census Report, 1980 Census of population and Housi.ng, 

California, San Rancisco, CA, 1981 March, PHC 80-V-6. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest senrice, Preliminary Forest Plan, 

Bishop, CA, Inyo National Forest, 1911 October. 

U.S. Depaxtment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Report of the Forest Service 

Fiscal Year 1980 Highlights, FS-364, Wazhkgtm , D.C., 1981. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Social Analysis, Proposes 

Policy, Federal Register, Volume 46, No. 101, Washiqkn, D.C., 1981 May 27. 

U.S. Deparhnent of Agriculture, Forest Service, The Use of Social Groups to 

Analyze Social Effects in Forest Planning, Region 5, San Francisco, CA, 1982 

May. 

aJrIluRALFu"as 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservatim, Treatment of mlcgim 

properties: aHandbook, Washington , D.C. 

Betting-, Robert L., Archaeology East of the Range of Light: Aboriginal 

Human Ecology of the Inyo-Wno Region, Bishop, CA, U.S, Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Inyo National Forest, 1979, Contract No. 

05-04-39-5895. 

Busby, Colin I.; Findlay, John M.; Bard, James C.; A Cultural Resour~e 

Overview of the Bureau of Land Management, Coleville, me, Beutcol, and 

Cwens Valley Planning units, California, Bakersfield, CA, U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield District Office, 1979, 

Contract No. YA-512-cP8-181. 

Wrton, W. Brown, 111; Hume, Gary L.; Secretary of the Interior's Standards 

for Historic Preservation projects, Washington , D.C., U.S. Departmat of the 

Interior, National Park Service, 1979. 

763 
DIVERSITY 

(See Wildlife) 

ENERGY 

Msz, Douglas R., Letter to Regional Forester, Pacific Southwest Region, 

1981 September 16, 2 leaves, Located at U.S. Deparhnent of Agriculture, 

Farest Service, Pacific Southwest Regional Office, San Francisco, Ca. 

FRcItITIES 

Armstrcolg, Pat, John Muir Wilderness "rail Manag-t Plan, Bishop, CA, U.S. 

Deparhent of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inyo National Forest, 1979. 

DeGraff, Gmest P., Pacific Crest National Scenic Wail i"ge"t Plan, 

Bishop, Ca, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inyo National 

Forest, 1981. 

Decsaff, Ernest P.; Wade, Lam- R.; Minarets Wilderness "rail Management 

Plan, Bisimp, CA, U.S. Deparbcent of Agriculture, Forest Senrice, Inyo 

National Forest, 1979. 

P%%"ld, Jim, mt Inventory of Fire, Administrative, and Other (FAM)) 

Builclirgs, Bishap, CA, U.S. Deparbnent of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inyo 

National Forest, 1981. 

Nunn, Bob, Perscnal conversation with Dan Jacobs, 15 June 1978, Traffic 

Wineer, Traffic Dept. Caltrans District 09, Bishop, Ca. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inyo National Forest 

Airfield and Heliport Inventory, Bishop, CA, Inyo National Forest, 1978. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inyo National Forest Borrow 

and Disposal Sites Inventmy, Bishop, Ca, Inyo National Forest, 1978. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inyo National Forest Dam 

Inventory, Bishap, CA, Inyo National Forest, 1978. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inyo National Forest Major 

Adnhistrative Sites Inventmy, Bisbp, CA, Inyo National Forest, 1976. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Sdce, Inyo National Forest 9R Road 

Inventory, Bishop, CA, Inyo National Forest, 1974. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inyo National Forest 9T Road 

Inventmy, Bishop, CA, Irryo National Forest, 1974. 

764 
FISH 

California Department of Fish and Gam, License and Stocking Records, 

Bisbp, CA, orgoiq. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Recreation Information 

Managenat System, Bisbp, CA, Inyo National Forest, 1982. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wilderness Attribute Rating 

System (InwIs), unpublished files, Inyo National Forest, Bishop, CA, 1977. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Public Camsnts on Roadless 

Area Reevaluation, Pl- Records, Inyo National Forest, Bislmp, CA, 

1983-1984. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inyo National Forest Water 

System Inventory, Bishop, 04, Inyo National Forest, date "own. 

Seeley, M.W.; Dresen, M.D.; Lull, J.S.; West, D.O.; Geological Resource 

Inventory - An Evaluation of Landslide, Seisnic, and Volcanic Hazards in the 

Inyo National Forest, mill and Seeley, Inc., Consulting Geotechnical 

Bgineers and Geologists, Hayward, CA, 1981 May, Bishop, CA, Inyo National 

Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inyo National Forest Borrow 

and Dispxal Site ImrentoIy, Bishop, CA, Inyo National Forest, 1981. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, An Initial InventoIy of 

Potential Geologic Special Interest Areas on the Inyo National Forest, 

Bisbp, CA, Inyo National Forest, 1983 July. 

Larson, Enid A.; Giuliana, &??ham; Oak Survey, Inyo County, CA. 

Patton, David R.; Jones, John R.: Managing Aspen for Wildlife in the 

Southwest, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Reeky I'4nmta.h 

Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1981, Technical Report PSW-54, 11 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Recarmendation 

Regarding Hardmcd Retentian in Areas Where Timber Proctuction is the Primary 

Resource Direction, Nevada City, CA, Take National Forest, 1984, 

Unpublishea draft. 

765 
U.S. Deparhnent of Agriculture, Forest Service, ' s of the 1979 

Symposium on the Ecology, Managemnt, and Utilizatim of California Oaks, 

1979 J~ne 26-28, Clmt, CA. 

California Divisicm of Mines and Geology, Geothermal Resources of 

California, Cdlifornia Divisicm of Mcnes and Geology, Sacramnto, CA, 1980. 

Diggles, Michael F. (et al), Mineral~Resource F~tential of the White 

P4xntai.m and Birch Cl'eek Roadless Areas, White Mnmtahs, Califma and 

mda, U.S. Geological Survey Sumnary Report and Map MF-1361-D, 1983, 

Bishop, Ca, Inyo National Forest. 

mffler, L.J.P.; William, W.L.; Wthznnal Investigations of the U.S. 

Geological Survey in Lay Valley, California, 1972-1973, Journal of 

Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Act of December 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1566, 30 

Geaphysical Re~earch, Volume 81, pp.721-860 and 1527-1532, 1976. 

U.S.C. 1001-1025. 

Regulatims on the Leasing of Geothermal. Reslxlrces in Title 43, Chapter I1 

of the code of Federal Regulatims, CFR 43, parts 3200 to 3287, 38 FR 3S082, 

December 21, 1973, U.S. Gsmmwnt Frintiy Office, Washingtcol , D.C. 

Regulatims on the Leasing of Geothermal Resources in Title 30, Chapter 11 

of the Qde of Federal Regulations, CFR 30, parts 270 and 271, 38 FR No. 

245, Decanber 21, 1973, U.S. Gwernment printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

National Oceauic and Abmspheric Administraticol, "a1 Sprh-gs List for 

the United States, 1980, U.S. Goverrrment printing Office, Wadrkgkm , D.C. 

U.S. Deparbient of Agriculture, Forest Service, Anatnny of a Mine fm 

Prospect to Production, Gneral Technical Report INT-35, Cgden, Utah, 

Intenmuntain Forest and Range wiment Station, Surface B-wiromt and 

Mining hrogram, 1977 June. 

U.S. Deparbent of Agriculture, Forest Semice, Emi"ta1 Assesanent, 

Geothermal Leasing of National Forest System Lands in the i%m-Long Valley 

KGRA - Second Lease Block, Bishop, 04, Inyo National Forest, 1982 May. 

U.S. Deparb-nent of Agriculture, Forest S&ce, Ehv' tal Assesanent, 

Leasing of National Forest Lands for Geothermal Exploration in the Long 

Valley Caldera, Bishop, CA, Inyo National Forest, 1980 April. 

U.S. Departrezit of Agriculture, Forest Service, Final EhvirOnmental Impact 

Statement Land Management Plan for the Ma"th-i'4nx1 Planning Unit Pacific 

southwest Region, Bishop, CA, Iqo National Forest, 1979 May. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest S&ce, Inyo National Forest Mineral 

Potential Estimates and Ratings, Bishop, 04, Inyo National Forest, south 

zone Minerals Area Managenat, 1981. 

766 
U.S. Deparbnent of Agriculture, Forest Service, Issues and Co”s and 

Plan&q Coals, Final Version, Bi-, CA, Inyo National Forest, 1982 May. 

U.S. Deparhnent of Agriculture, Forest Service, Land Management P1anrrh-g 

Diredicol, San Francisco, CA, Pacific southwest Regicm, 1982 March, 3-23+24, 

B-1+2, B-7-9. 

U.S. Deparbnent of Agriculture, Forest Service, Outline for the AEiLs 

Resources Narrative, Bishop, CA, Inyo National Fo-t, 1982 February. 

U.S. DeparAxrIt of Agriculture, Forest Senrice, Revisicm of the Decision 

Notice and Supplement to the Ehvimnmntal Assessnent for Geothermal Leasing 

of National Forest Lands in the Long Valley Caldera - First Sale Block, 

Bishop, CA, Inyo Natimal Forest, 1981 August. 

U.S. Deparhnent of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inyo Cam*, California, 

M3lKuandLml of ’ , Surface Minicg and Reclamation caordinaticm in 

Inyo County, Bistmp, CA, Inyo National Forest, 1980 June 6. 

U.S. Deparbwrit of the Interior, Geological Survey, Assessment of Geothermal 

Resources of the United States, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 790, U.S. 

Gwernment printing Office, Washhgtm , D.C., 1987. 

U.S. Deparhnent of the Interior, Geological Survey, Geothermal Resources 

Operational Orders, U.S. Govenrment printing Office, Washingtan , D.C., 1980 

August. 

%my, M.L.; Lewis, R.E.; Olmsted, F.H.; The IIydrothermal System of the Long 

Valley Caldera, California, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

1044-A, U.S. Gavernment Printkg Office, Washhgbn , D.C., 1978. 

U.S. Deparbnent of the Interior, Geological Survey, Mineral Resource 

Potential of Part of the San Joaquin Roadless Area, Madera Cam*, 

California, Open File Report 82-993, U.S. Gwenvnent Printing Office, 

Washington , D.C., 1982. 

U.S. Deparbnent of the Interior, Geological Survey, Mineral Resources of the 

Buttermilk Roadless Area, Inyo County, California, Open File Report 82-380, 

U.S. Gwemment ?Yinting Office, Washkgton, D.C., 1982. 

U.S. Deparbnent of the Interior, Geological Sunrey, Mineral Resources of the 

Minarets Wilderness and Adjacent Areas, Madera and MOM, Counties, 

California, Geological Survey Bulletin 1S16-A-D, U.S. Gwernment Printing 

Office, Washingtan , D.C., 1979. 

U.S. Deparbnent of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Geological 

Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Senrice, Memra” of 

Understanding (W) for the Geothermal Frqram, 1981 December. 

767 
McKee, Win; Rains, Richard L.; Benton Range Roadless Area, California, In: 

Wilderness Mineral Potential-Assessnent of Mineral-Resource Potential in 

U.S. Forest Service Lands Studied, 1964-1984, U.S. Geological Survey 

professional Paper 1300, U.S. Government Frintiq Office, Washington , D.C., 

1984. 

Diggles, Michael F.; Rains, Richard L.; Blanc0 i%untain and Black Canyon 

Roadless Areas, California, In: ibid 

McKee, Win H.; Capstick, Donald 0.; San Jcaquin Roadless Area, California, 

In: ibid 

Dellinger, David A.; Zilka, Nicholas T.; Golden ?rout Wilderness, 

Califomia, In: ibid 

Dellinger, David A.; Johnson, Frederick L.; Jahn Muir Wilderness, 

California, IIX ibid 

Seitz, J.F.; Fedaspiel, F.E.; Ticga Lake, Hall Natural Area, Log 

Cabin-Saddlebag, and Horse Meadows Roadless Areas, California, In: ibid 

heneault, N.; Argeles-San Be" National Forests Ski Area Evaluation 

Report, Mamnoth District, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Inyo National 

Forest, 1981. 

California State Deparhnent of Finance , mpulation Estimates of California 

Cities and Counties, Phnmth District, U.S. DeWt of Agriculture, Inyu 

National Forest, 1981. 

Martin, Carl, Potential Ski Area Studies #1, #2, #3, and #4, Sherwin, San 

Joaquin, Knolls, and Sumit Areas, Bishop, CA, U.S. Deparbnent of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Inyo National Forest, 1980. 

O'Gmnor, Allan and Associates, Mammth Mountain Winter Recreation Master 

Plan Alternatives, Mamnoth District, U.S. Deparbmt of Agriculture, Inyo 

National Forest, 1978 July. 

O'cannOr, Allan, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Mammth 

Mountain Ski Areas Developwnt Plan, Mammth District, U.S. De-t of 

Agriculture, Inyo National Forest, 1981 September. 

Sasaki Walker and Associates, Group Planners, Mono Plan IV Final Report, 

Bishop, CA, U.S. Dep?hE?nt Of Agriculture, InyO Naticu-Jal Forest, 1975. 

U.S. Deparbnent of Agriculture, Forest Semice, Bishop Bawl Ski Area Study, 

Bishop, CA, I~TJ National Forest, 1960. 

768 
U.S. Deparbrent of Agriculture, Forest Service, EnviroMlental Analysis for 

the Expansion of Mamoth Mn” Ski Area, Biw, CA, Inyo National 

Forest, 1980. 

U.S. Department. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Final Environmental 

Statement, Land Managesent Plan, Mammth-bDm Planning Unit, Bisbp, CA, 

Inyo National Forest, 1979. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Growth Potential of the 

Skier Market in the National Forest, Research Paper Wo-36, 1980. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Recreation Management Plan, 

Independence Qeek Recreation Area, Bi-, 09, Inyo National Forest, 1966. 

Cooper, J.L., 1979, A Technique for Evaluating and Predicting the Impact of 

Grazing on Small Stream Channels, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Idaho Panhandle National Forest, 24 pp. 

crouch, G.L., Lcolg Term mes in Cotbnwcds on a Grazed and Uqcazed 

Plains Bottanland in Northeastem Colorado, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rccky Mountain Forest and Rarqe Experiment Station, Research 

Note 370, 4 pp. 

C2ouch, G.L., Effects of Fmtection fm Livestock Grazing on a Bottunland 

Wildlife Habitat in Northeastem Colorado, Pnc. Lowland River and Stream 

Habitat in Colorado Symp., pp. 118-124, 1978. 

Gaines, D., A New kxzk at the Nesting Riparian Avifauna of the Sacramento 

Valley, California Western BH, 5:61-80. 

Thanas, J.W. (Technical Editor), Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests - The 

Blue Mx” of Oregon and Washington, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook No. 553, 511 pp., 1979. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Arapaho-Rmsevelt Land and 

Resource Management Plan, Rocky Nnmtain Region, U.S. Government Printing 

Office, No. 576-803-M3899, Fort Collins, CO, Variously paged, 1981. 

Westem Division American Fisheries Society, Best Management Practices 

(Ws) Paper for Westem Riparian Habitat Resources, Westem Division 

American Fisheries Society Publisher, Prepared by Riparian Habitat 

Cannittee, Best Management Practice Subcarmittee, 68 pp., 1982. 

(Also see Wildlife. ) 

769 
SENSITIVE PLBNE 

Albert, Carroll, Telephone conversation with Mary DeDecker, 1982 June 18. 

Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Carmittee Resident for Califomia Native 

Plant Society, Indepndence, CA. 

Albert, Carroll, Telephone conversation with K.Teare, 1982 June, Botanist, 

Leevining, a. 

DeDecker, Mary. Narrative Descriptians, 1979, Unpublished Reports, Available 

fm: U.S. Deparhmt of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inyo National Forest, 

873 N. Main St., Bishop, CA. 

PkFarlane, B.S., Planning for Threatened and hdangered Plant Species, 

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 35(5): 221-223, Date unlamwn. 

Reed, et al., EDP codes for California Wildland Plants, U.S. Deparbwnt of 

Agriculture Forest Service Research Note PSW-N20, Berkeley, CA, 1963. 

Shevock, J.R., Sensitive Plant Species of Sequoia National Forest and 

Aajacent Regians, Porterville, CA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Sequoia National Forest, 1977. 

Smith, J.P. Jr., Ed., Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of 

California, 1st Supplement, Berkeley, CA, California Native Plant Society, 

1981, 28 pp. 

Smith, J.P. Jr.: Cole, R.J.: Sawyer, J.O.; Powell, W.R: Inventory of Rare 

and hdangered Vascular Plants of California, Special Publication No. 1, 2nd 

ed., Berkeley, CA, California Native Plant Society, 1980, 115 pp. 

Smith, J.P. Jr.: York, R., Eds., Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular 

Plants of California, 2nd Supplement, Berkeley, a, California Native Plant 

Society, 1982, 28 pp. 

Stebbins, G.L., Rarity of Plant Species: a Synthetic Viewpoint, Ri-dora 82: 

77-85, 1980. 

Taylor, D., Species Status Report for LupinUS dedeckerae, Bisbp, CA, U.S. 

Deparhnent of Agriculture, Inyo National Forest, 1981. 

U.S. Deparin?ent of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region Five Sensitive Plant 

Species Master List, 1982, 46 pp., Available fm: U.S. Deparbwnt of 

Agriculture, Inyo National Forest, 873 N. Main St., Bishop, CA. 

770 
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, District Multiple Use Plans, 

Bishop, CA, Inyo National Forest, 1960-1975. 

U.S. De-t of Agriculture, Forest Service, Mammth-Mnm Unit Plan, 

Bishop, CA, Inyo National Forest, 1979. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Visual Management System, 

National Forest Landscape Management, Agric. Handbook 462, U.S. Government 

Printirg Office, Washington , D.C., date l”. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Interim Plan and Frcgram for 

June Lake Loop, Bishop, CA, Inyo National Forest, 1973. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Mammth-Mnm Unit Plan, 

Bishop, CA, Inyo National Forest, 1979. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wmache Meadows ECO-analysis 

Report, Bishop, CA, Inyo National Forest, 1972. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farest Service, Soil Resource Invenbry of 

the Inyo National Forest, East Part, Bishop, CA, Inyo National Forest, 1983. 

U.S. De-t of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey - 

Bishop, California, Bislaop, CA, Soil Survey Area Office, 1983. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Benton-~ens 

Valley Planning Unit hviranmental Impact Statement, Bishop, CA, Bureau of 

Land Manag-t Area Office, 1981 July. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Managmt, Soil Survey of 

the Saline Valley Area, Bishop, 09, Bureau of Land Management Area Office, 

1979. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climatological Data, Bi-, 

CA, Inyo National Forest, 1953 to the present. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Land Use Reports, Bishop, 

CA, Inyo National Forest, date -. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Potable Water Supply 

Inventory, Bishop, CA. Inyo National Forest, 1979. 

771 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Range Allotment Plans, 

Bishop, CA, Ir’lyo National Forest, u@ted every 10 years, some are as old as 

1930’s. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Range Inventories, BisMp, 

CA, Inyo National Forest, upaatea every 10 years. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Recreation Information 

Management (RIM) System, Bishp, CA, Inyo National Forest, 1983. 

U.S. Dep-t of Agriculture, Forest Service, Soil Surveys, Bishop, CA, 

Inyo National Forest, 1972, 1976, 1984, ongoing. 

U.S. Depariment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Streamflow Records (United 

States Forest Service, united States Geological Survey, Deparhnent of Water 

and Power, and Mamroth County Water District), Bishop, CA, Inyo National 

Forest, 1940+. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Semice, 208 Assessnent, Bishop, CA, 

Inyo National Forest, 1971. 

U.S. Departrnent of Agrzculture, Forest Service, WPA Assessment, Bishop, CA, 

Inyo Naticmal Forest, 1971. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Water Balance Information, 

Bishop, CA, Inyo National Forest, ongoing. 

U.S. Depadxent of Agriculture, Forest Service, Water Resource Data, Bishop, 

CA, Inyo National Forest, Mamroth Lakes Ranger District, orgoing. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Water =ghts Inventory, 

Bishop, CA, Inyo National Forest, ongoing. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Water Use Inventory, Bishop, 

CA, Inyo National Forest, Lakes Ranger District, orgoing. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Watershed Improvement Needs 

Inventory (WIN) 1982, Bishop, CA, Inyo National Forest, 1982. 

Sapusek, Oliver F.A., Personal conversation with John Kruse, 1983 January 

28. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Analysis of the Management 

Situation, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Porterville, CA, Sequoia National Forest, 

1983. 

772 
WILDLIFE 

(Includes papers applicable to Diversity and Riparian) 

Anderson, R.G., 1979, Forest Management and Goshawks in Northeastem Oregon, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wallcwa-Whiiman National 

Forest, 23 pp., Rough draft. 

Andalaro, L.; Ramey, R.R.; The Relocation of Bighom Sheep 111 the Sierra 

Nevada of California, Envimmental Field Program, Publication No. 7, 

University of California, Santa Cmz, CA, 60 pp., 1981. 

Airola, D.A. (editor), California Wildlife Habitat Relationships program: 

Northeast Interior Zone, Volume I1 - Reptiles and Amphibians, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 5, CA, Wildlife Habitat 

Relationships aogram, 137 pp., 1980. 

Aimla, D.A. (editor), California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program: 

Northeast Interior Zone, Volume I11 - Birds, U.S. Deparbnent of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Region 5, CA, Wildlife Habitat Relationships Prcgram, 590 

pp., 1980. 

Aimla, D.A. (editor), California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program, 

Northeast Interior Zone, Volume IV- Mannnals, U.S. Deparbnent of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Region 5, CA, Wildlife Habitat Relationstups Program, 255 

pp., 1980. 

Banky, C. (team leader), mens Valley Tule Elk Habitat Managemnt Plan, 

Interagency publication, Bureau of Land Management, California Department of 

Fish and Game, Forest Service and Los Argeles Department of Water and Pcwer, 

California Department of Fish and Game, 1416 Ninth St., Sacramento, 43 pp., 

1977. 

Barrett, R.H., Administrative Field Survey of the Distribution, Status And 

Habitat R-ts of Wolverine, Red Fax, and Other Large Furbearers, 

Phase I, Uss Report, Supplement RO-38, Master Agree”t No. 21-395, 

Depa-bmt of Forest and Resource Management, University of California, 

Berkeley, CA, 55 pp., 1979. 

Bertram, R.C.; Rampel, R.D.,; 1977, Migration of the North Kings Deer Herd, 

California Department of Fish and Game, 63(3):157-159. 

Bond, R.M., The Peregrine Population of Westem North America, condor 

4:lOl-116, 1946. 

Bureau of Land Management, The Tule Elk in California, Department of 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 7th Annual Reprt to Congress, 44 pp., 

1983. 

Camilleri, E. 1981, California Wildlife and Fish Habitat Relationships 

System: Habitat Capability Model - Goshawk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Region 5, 8 pp., Draft Wdel. 

773 
-, J.L., 1979, A Technique for Evaluatkg and Predicting the Impact of 

Grazing on Small Stream channels, U.S. Depaiment of Agriculture, Forest 

Sdce, 1- Panhandle National Forest, 24 pp. 

&ouch, G.L., Lcolg-term changes in Co~woods on a Grazed and Uqrazed 

Plains Bottanland in Northeastern Colorado, U.S. Depadment of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Pbuntain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research 

Note 370, 4 pp. 

(Irouch, G.L., Effects of Pmtection frcm Livestock Grazing on a Bottcmland 

Wildlife Habitat in Northeastern Coloradp, Lowland River and Stream habitat 

in Colorado Sy”, 118-124 pp., 1978. 

Forman, E.D. 1980. Accipiter Managmt on tha kenrmt National Forest, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 6, Fremvt National 

Forest, 22 pp. 

Gaines, D., A New Look at the Nest- Riparian Avifauna of the Sacramento 

Valley, California Western Birds, 5:61-80. 

Garrett, R.L., A Cliff Nesting Raptor Survey of the MOM Lake Ranger 

District, Inyo National Forest, Califoda, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Inyu National Forest, contract No. RFQ-R5-04-78-003, 53 pp., 

1978. 

Grinnell, J.; Storer, T.I.: Animal Life in the Yosemite, U.C. Press, 

Berkeley, CA, 294-295 pp. 

Hanley, T.A., Salwasser, 1980, Deer Habitat Management in California, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Sdce, Tabs National Forest, Nevada 

city, a, 35 pp. 

Hargis, C.D.; Mccullough, D.R.; Winter Diet and Habitat Selection of Marten 

in Yosemite Natianal Park, Journal of Wildlife Management, 48(1): 140-146. 

1984. 

Kerr, R.M., 1979, We Deer Habitat Guidelines, U.S. Depaiment of Interior, 

Bureau of Land Manag-t, Technical Note 336, 61 pp. 

Kcehler, G.M.: mre, W.R.: Taylor, A.R.: Preserving Pine Martens 

-Management Guidelines for Western Forests, cooperative Wildlife Research 

Unit, University of Idaho, Wscow, ID, 1977, 6 pp. 

Laudenslayer, W.F., California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Program: 

Northeast Interior Zone, Volume I - Intxcduction and Species Habitat 

Relationships Makix, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 

5, California Wildlife Habitat Relationship program, 161 pp., 1982. 

Mccarthy, C.: RLLssi, T.: Thanas, R.; Recovery of the Peregrine Falcon on the 

Inyo National Forest Adjacent Lands with nnphasis on the Pbm Basin, An 

Intqated Publication Involving the Bureau of Land Managemnt, California 

Department of Fish and Game, Forest SenriCe, U.S. Depadment of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Inyo National Forest, 21 pp., 1983. 

774 
my, C.:Hargis, C.; Analyzing Wildlife Habitats at the Project Level: 

an Evaluation MetbDd, CAC-NFWA Wildlife Trans., 1984: 73-80. 

Pacific Coast Recovery Plan for the American Pereqine Falcon, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service in Cooperation with Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon 

Recwery Team, USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Dernrer, 03, 87 pp., 1982. 

Reynolds, R.T.: Wight, H.M.; 1978, Distribution, Density, and Proauctivity 

of Accipiter Hawks Breeding in Oregon, Wilm Bull, 90(2):182-196. 

Schempf, P.F.; White, M.: 1977, Status of Six Furbearers in the Mmntains of 

Northem California, University of California, Berkeley, Department of 

Forestry and Conservation, Museum of Vertebrate Zcolcgy, 51 pp. 

Shuster, W.C., 1980, Northern Goshawk Nest Site Requirements in the Colorado 

Rockies, Western Bin33 11~89-96. 

Sierra Bighom Interagency Adhrisory Group, Sierra Nwada Bighom Sheep 

Recoveq and Canservatiun Plan, Interagency Publicatiun Including Forest 

Service, Bureau of Land Management, Park Service, California Department of 

Fish and Game, Available fmn U.S. Deparbnent of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Inyo Naticmal Forest, Bi-, (3, 13 pp., 1984. 

St”, K.; Wak, P.; Unpublished Vegetation Data for Inyo National Forest, 

U.S. Departmat of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inyo National Forest, 

assorted 7 1/2 min quad map, 1981. 

Taylor, D.W., 1982, Eastern Sierra Riparian Vegetation: Eoolcgical Effects 

of Stream Diversions, Pbm Basin Research Group, Contribution No. 6, 56 pp. 

Tab, J.Jr.; Tate, D.J.; 1982, The Blue List for 1982, American Birds, 

36:126-135. 

“as, J.W. (technical editor), Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests - the 

Blue Wnmtains of Oregon and Washbgbn , U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook No. 553, 551 pp., 1979. 

Vemer, J.: Bass, A.S. (technical ~rdinator); California Wildlife and 

Their Habitats: West- Sierra Nevada, U.S. Departnent of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Experiment Station, General Technical 

Report PSW-37, 439 pp., 1980. 

Wehausen, J.D., Sierra Nevada Bighom Sheep - An Analysis of Management 

Alternatives, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inyo National 

Forest, 92 pp., 1979. 

Wehausen, J.D., White Mnmtain Bighom Sheep: An Analysis of Current 

Knowlwe and Management Alternatives, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Irryo National Forest, Contract No. 53-9JCJ9-0-32, 93 pp., 

1983. 

775 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Arapaho-Rmsevelt Forest 

Land Resource Management Plan, Rocky bb”ain Region, U.S. Gwemmen‘c 

Printkg Office No. 57640343899, Fort Collins, CO, Variously paged, 1981. 

U.S. Deparhnent of Ag-riculture, Forest Service, Unpublished Recreation 

Information Manag-t (RIM) System, Bisi-op, CA, Tnyo National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sensitive Bird 

Species - Region 1, Portland, Oregon, 18 pp., 1982. 

776 
Appendix J 

Glossary 
APPENDIX J. 

- AMB: 

secondary emphasis on expansion of developed recreation. 

- AMC: This is a Forest Plan Alternative which has been eliminated. It 

recDrrmentLs all mer Planning Areas for wildexness designation. 

- AMN: See Amenities Alternative. 

The Forest Plan Alternative which %@"sizes wildlife habitat with a 

AMP: see Allotment Management Plan. 

- m: 

Aop: See Annual operating Plan. 

- AETD: 

AQRVs: 

- SQ: 

AUM: - 

Acre-foot: The amount of water or sediment that would mer one acre to a 

depth of one foot (43,560 cubic feet; 326,000 gallons). 

Achinistrative Cost: Costs of required general admirustration which are 

prorated over fixed, variable, and mvestrnent costs. 

Administrative Facilities: Those facilities, such as ranger stations, work 

centers, and cab-, which are used by the Forest Service in managing the 

National Forest. 

Age Class: One of the intervals, usually 10 to 20 years, into which the age 

range of vegetation is divided for classification or use. 

Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs): A feature or proprty of an area that is 

affected in saw way by air pollution. Identified values are visibility, 

odor, flora, fauna, soil, water, geologic feature, and cultural resources. 

Allotment: See Range Allobnent. 

Allotment Managenen t Plan (AMP): A cooperative plan between the Forest 

Service and the range pennittee which sets forth the aped upon management 

scheme for the allohent. Besides gazing aclxvities, the plan can cwer 

other resources, such as soil, wildlife, fisheries, and riparian areas. 

Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ): The "um quantity of tlmber that may be 

sold frcm land capable, available, and suitable for thber prcduction for a 

time period; usually expressed on an average mual basis. 

See Analysis of the Management Situation. 

Air Pollution Control District. 

See Air Quality Related Values. 

See Allowable Sale Quantity. 

See Animal Unit Month. 

777 
Alluvial Fan: A geologic feature oonsim of rock and soil depited by 

nmniq water at the base of a steep slope in the shape of an inverted cone. 

Amenity (Anrslity Value): A resource for which mmetary market values have 

not ken (or cannot be) eskablished; also called a =-priced value. 

Amenities Alternative (A”): Forest Plan Altemative which maximizes 

Wilderness, wildlife, and primitive and semi-primitive dispersed recreation 

are emphasized. 

Analysis of the Managenen t Situatim (AMS): A step in the Forest plannirg 

pmess in which the Forest‘s ability to supply gccds and services in 

respnse to society’s demand for those goods and services is determined. 

Animal Wt Wmth (AUM): 

cm for one mth. 

Annualoper ating Plan (AOP): The COoperatLve plan between the Forest Semice 

and the grazhg permittee which sets forth the agreed upon management of the 

allotment on a seasonal basis. 

ArterialRoads: SeeRoads. 

Assigned Value: A mmetaq value that represents the price co~lsumers wuld 

be willing to pay for Forest outputs, whether or nut such prices are actually 

paid to the Federal G”ent by consumers. In Forest planning the ten 

assigned values refers to both market and noMlarket outputs because it is 

national policy to pruvide mst Forest outputs at either m charge to 

consumers or at a price less than the willingness to pay price. 

amenities with little regard for the effects on ‘ty outputs. 

The amount of forage required to support a mature 

(Region 5 uses loo0 lbs./mnth or 26 lbs./day.) 

ms: 

s: 

See Best Available Control Techniques. 

Bureau of Land Managat, U.S. Department of Interior. 

- Ems: see Best Management Practices. 

- PSS: See Base Sale Schedule. 

Back- Level (Backqrinmd , Natural Background ): The ever-present 

environmental conditions or effects abwe which a uhenc”n - must manifest 

itself in order to be detected. 

Base Sale Schedule (BSS): The timber sale schedule in which the quantity of 

timber planned for sale and hamest for any future decade is equal to or 

greater than the planned sale and harvest for the preceding decade. This 

planned sale and harvest for any decade must mt be mt greater than the 

lq-term sustained yield capacity of the land. 

778 
Benchmark: An analysis of the supply potential of a particular resource or 

of a set of resources subject to specific management objectives or 

mtrmts. BenchmKks define the lmts withm wluch alternatives can be 

formulated. 

Benefit: 

Benefit-Cost Analysis: An analytical approach to making cbies on the basis 

of receiving the greatest benefit for a given cost or prOaucing the required 

level of benefits at the lowest cost. Also referred to as cost effectiveness 

analysis when the benefits cmt be quantified in terms of dollars. 

Benefit-Cost Ratio: Measure of ecoxmic efficiency, quted by &viding 

total benefits by total costs. Usually both benefits and costs are 

discounted to the present time. 

The total value of an output or other outcane. 

(Also see Discountmg. ) 

Best Available ccoltml Techniques (WiCJ%): An emission limitation for air 

quality subject to the regulations of the Clean Air Act. 

Best MarJagmEn t Practices (EM&): Management actions that are designed to 

maintain water quality by preventive rather than corrective means. 

Bitterbrush: 

mule deer and domestic livestock. 

Board Foot: The munt of wood contained in an unfinished board one inch 

thick, twelve inches long, and twelve inches wide. 

A species of shrub considered palatable and nutritious for both 

" 

- CAS: Capable, Available and Suitable land for tunber production. 

- CDF: 

CDFG: 

CEE: See Cost-Efficiency Alternative. 

- m:

9: 

- CFR: 

CNX: See Culmination of Mean Annual Increment. 

QUDDB: 

CTiPS: California Native Plant Society. 

COWFISH: A quter mdel designed to analyze the condition of riparian 

areas in relation to past and current livestock grazing management and to 

estimate the qatibility of grazing with associated aquatic resources. 

California Department of Forestry. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 

See Council on FiwiroMwtal Quality. 

See California Ehvironmental Quality Act. 

code of Federal Regulations. Detailed documentation of federal laws. 

California Native Diversity Data Base. 

779 
CQP: See coordinated Resource Planning. 

- am: SeeciJrrentProgram. 

volcanic mxlntain after an eruption. 

Caldera: A tudl-shapd geologic feature representing the collapse of a 

California hvimarmen tal Quality Act (-1: Following the passage of NEPA, 

the California State Legislature passed an Act in 1970 to declare state 

policy which will ensure the long-term ptection of the en-mt. The 

Act will encourage the developnent and maintenance of a high quality 

enviranmen t nm and in the future; provide the people of California with 

clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic 

a-lvi."en tal qualities, and freedcm fm pollution; and prevent the 

elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man's activities. 

Canopy: The mre or less continuous wver of leaves and branches 

collectively fonned by the crowns of adjacent trees in a shrub stand or 

forest. 

Capability: The potential of the land to prcduce resources and supply gccds 

and services under a set of management practices and at a given level of 

manag-t intensity. Capability depnds upan site mnditions such as 

climate, soils, and geology, as well as the application of managexent 

practices such as siviculture. 

Capital mvesiment: Investment in facilities such as mads and structures 

with specially appropriated funds. 

class I pmpert ies: Archaeological or historic sites that have been 

determined eligible for or x"ted to the National Register of Historic 

Places. 

class I1 Propert ies: Archaeological or historic sites that have not been 

evaluated against the eligibility criteria (36 CFR 604) for inclusion on the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

class I11 propert ies: Archaeological or historic sites that have been found 

to be mt eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. 

clearcutting: Harvesting of all trees in one area for the purpose of 

creating a new, even-aged stand. The area hamested may be a patch, stand, 

or strip. 

CollectarROads: seeRoad.3. 

Carmercial Spec ies: 

Ccmmdity (camnodity Value): 

has been established; also called a priced benefit. 

canpartrast: A unit of forested land, usually between 3,000 and 15,000 acres 

in size, defined by natural and "ade features and used to facilitate 

Ree species suitable for industrial wmd products. 

A resouTcB proaUct for which a mmetary value 

timbsr Planning. 

780 
Ccmcentrated Remeation Area: 

(if developed) potentially receive high-density recreakon use. 

Ccmditirm Class: 

density, and age. 

confinanen t: Restricting fire within determined h0Undarie.s established 

either prior to the fire, clurhg the fire, or in an escape3 fire situation 

analysis. 

Constraint: A limitation: action which carvlot be taken or which must be 

taken. 

Cc"ptive Use: Use of a resource that reduces the supply. 

Ctmtaiment: Sufiounding a fire, and any spot fires therefm, with control 

lint?, as needed, which can reasonably be expected to check the fire's spread 

under prevailing and predicted oonditions. The "a1 tactic is indirect 

attack and bum to hm-made or natural barrier with little or m mop-up. 

contingency Level: A priority setting and decision-making method which takes 

into acoount fire situation factors that may significantly affect national, 

Regional, or Forest fire situations or individual fire response actions. 

Ccmtrol: To canplete the control line around a fire, any spot fires 

therefmn, and any interior islands to be saved, burn any unbumed area 

adjacent to the fire side of the control line, and 0001 down all hot spots 

that are inmediate threats to the control line, until the line can reasonably 

be expected to hold under foreseeable conditions. The normal tactic is 

direct attack on the fire, if possible, and mop-up. 

comdinated Rescxnce Planning (W): A process that involves all agencies, 

special interests or imhviduals c"ed with the management of a specific 

project, resource or issue. 

corridor: 

and utility facilities are or will be located. 

- Cost: The price paid or what is given up in order to acquire, produce, 

accanplish, or maintain anything. (See Econcmic Cost.) 

A land area that currently recieves, or could 

Description of the existing forest in terms of size, stock 

The IW& tactic is surveillance only. 

A linear strip of land in which existing or planned transportation 

Cost-Effective: Achieving a specified level of outputs under given 

conditions for the least cost. 

Cost-Ef f iciency Alternative: "us Forest Plan Alternative maximizes cost 

efficiency with a mix of land allocations and management practices available 

on the Inyo National Forest. 

Cost-Efficiency: A measure of how proaUctive an input is in prcducing 

outputs. Measured by Present Net Value (PNV) in Forest plar"J. (See 

EcoMmic Efficiency. ) 

781 
Cumcil on nnrirormental Quality (CXQ): An advisory council to the President 

established by the National Esnrircounental Policy Act of 1969. The CEQ 

reviews feder-al programs for their effect on the environmen t, canducts 

e”wntal studies, and advises the h-esident on environmental matters. 

Cover: Vegetation used by wildlife for protection frun predators and weather 

ccolditions, especially during reproduction. 

Wic Foot: The amunt of timber equivalent to a piece of wcd measuring one 

foot by one foot by one foot (6.5 bard feet on the Inp National Forest). 

Wic Foot per second (cfs): unit measuce of streamflaw or discharge, 

equivalent to 449 gall- per minute or about tku acre-feet per day. 

chldnatim of Mean &mud Increnent (CNAI): The point whera the average 

annual growth of a stand of timber m longer increases. 

Cultural Resaurces: Cultural resources are the tangible and intangible 

aspects of cultural systems, living and dead, that are valued by a given 

culture or contain information abut the culture. Cultural nsoufces include 

but are not limited to sites, structures, buildings, districts, and objects 

associated with or representative of people, cultures, and human activities 

and events. 

current program (CUR): The No Action Alt-tive. This Forest Plan 

Alternative represents the condition expected to exist in the future if 

arrent management direction continued unmed. 

D 

- DBH: See Diamter Breast Height. 

- DEIS: Draft Envircovnen tal Impact Statement. (See tal Impact 

Statement. ) 

- Dwp: City of Los Angels, Department of water and Power. 

Demand Analysis: A study of the factors affecting the quantity and price of 

a gccd or service that would be used or purchased by consumers if made 

available. 

Dependent spec ies: A species for which a habitat element (snags, vegetative 

type) is deemed essential for the species to occuc regularly or to reproduce. 

Developea Recreation Site: A relatively snall, distinctly defined area where 

facilities are provided for concentrated public use (camp~~~~unds, picnic 

areas). 

782 
Developnen t Scale: A predetermined scale for recreation site develapnent 

which guides the degree of site modification and kind of facilities to be 

installed as Shawn below: 

Recreation 

G~~~~rtunity Develspec- 0-t class Scale Levels of Site Wdification 

M" site modification. Rustic or rudimentarv .. Primitive 

Semi-Prinutive 

Motorized and 

Nm-Motorized 

Fmaded Natural 

and Roaded 

Modified 

Rural 

Urban 

I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

improvemenb designed for protection of the site 

rather than canfort of the users. Use of synthetic 

materials excluded. Minimum controls are subtle. No 

obvious regimentation. Spacing informal and extended 

to "ize contacts between users. Motorized access 

not provided or permitted. 

Little site modification. 

improvements designed primarily for protection of 

the site rather than the "fort of the users. Use 

of synthetic materials avoided. IC" controls are 

subtle. Little obvious regimentation. Spaciq 

informal and &ended to "ize contacts between 

users. Motorized access provided or permitted. 

Primary access over primitive ruads. Interpretive 

services infonnal, almost sublmhal. 

Site modificatirm moderate. 

for protection of site and "fort of users. 

Contemporary and rustic design of inpmwm" is 

usually based on use of native materials. 

Inconspicuous vehicular traffic controls usually 

provided. Roads may be hard surfaced and trails 

formalized. Develpent density abut 3 family units 

per acre. primary access may be over high standard 

roads. Interpretive services informal, but generally 

direct. 

Site heavily modified. Scme facilities designed 

strictly for canfort and convenience of users. 

Luxury facilities not piwided. Facility design may 

incorporate synthetic materials. Extensive use of 

artificial surfacing of of roads and trails. 

Vehicular traffic control usually obvious. Primary 

access usually over paved ruads. Developnent density 

3-5 family units per acre. Plant materials usually 

native. Interpretive services often formal or 

structured. 

Kgh degree of site modification. Facilities mostly 

designed for canfort and convenience of users and 

usually include flush toilets; may include shower;, 

bathhouses, laundry facilities, and electrical 

hookups. Synthetic materials cc"l . yused. Formal 

Rustic or rudimentary 

Facilities abut equal 

783 
walks or surfad trails. Regimentation of users is 

obvious. Access usually by high-speed highways. 

Developnent density 5 or more family units per acre. 

Plant materials may be foreign to the envimnment. 

Formal intqretive services usually available. 

Designs formalized and architecture may be 

“porary. Pbmd lawns and clippd shrubs mt 

unusual. This category applies to private lands. 

Dimte Breast Height (DBH): The diameter of a tree measured 4.5 feet fm 

the ground. 

Discount Rate: The interest rate which is used to reduce costs and benefits 

cccw~ing in the future to their value in the present. The higher the 

discount rate, the lower the present value of future benefits and costs. 

(See Discountjng and present Value. ) 

Discounted Benefit: 

Disccnmted Cost: 

Discounting: An adjusbnent made to costs and benefits to wnpensate for the 

fact that dollars received or spent in the future have a lower value today 

than dollars in the present. For example, it would be preferable to receive 

$100 this year rather than one year fm rim because it could be invested at 

4 percent simple interest and be worth $104 in one year. Thus, given the 

choice between receivixq benefits worth $100 today or benefits worth $100 one 

year fm today, one muld choose to receive it today. Discounting reduces 

future costs and benefits to reflect that fact and enables canparisons to be 

made between benefits and msts cccurrirg at different pints III time. 

Dispers ed Recreation: Outdoor recreation which occu~s outside of construded 

and maintained recreational facilities (scenic drivirg, hunting, backpacking, 

District Ranger: : The official reqxmsible for ahinistering the National 

Forest System Lands on a Ranger District. 

Diversity: The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal 

cammities and species within an area. 

Diversity Index: A mathematical expression of the relative degree of 

The present value of future benefits. 

The present value of future costs. 

nordic skiing). 

wildlife habitat diversity per unit of area: DI = TP 

2/Axpi 

where TP is the total perimeter of an area, plus any browsable edge within 

the area in mtm or feet, A is the area in square meters or square feet, 

and pi is 3.1416. 

784 
E 

- FA: See &wi"ental Assessment. 

- EIc: see mding Inventory ccOlstra.int. 

- EIS: 

- EPA: Knvi"ental Protection Agency. 

- EPP: 

- EVC: 

Fccmanic Cost: Total fixed and variable costs for inputs, including costs 

incurred by other public and private parties, opprhmity costs, and cost 

See Environmental Impad Statement. 

See Ecosion Prevention Plan. 

See Existing Visual Gmdition. 

savings. 

Eccslanic Efficiency: A measure of how efficiently inputs are used to achieve 

outputs when all costs and benefits can be identified and valued. Usually 

measured by Present Net Value or Benefit-Cost ratios. 

Species: Plant or animal species identified by the Secretary of 

the Interior and listed in the Federal Register as in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

EMhg "imy Constraint (FJC): Conska.int to ensure that the total 

t.lmher volume left at the end of the plamiw horizon will equal or exceed 

the volume that would OCCUT in a manag& For&. 

nnriranmenlal Analysis: An analysis of alternative actions and their 

predictable short- and long-term environmental ccmsapsnces. 

hviranmental Assesgnent (FA): A concise public document required by the 

regulations implementing the National hviromtal Policy Act that briefly 

provides sufficient evidence and analysis for detenninirg whether to prepare 

an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact. 

"wntal s (Effects or Impact s): The physical, biological, 

social, and ecol-mnic results of implementing a given alternative. 

EnvirOmlmltal Impa ct Statement (EIS): A statement of the environmental 

effects which wuld be expected to result from proposed alternative 

management actions. 

Erosion: 

water, or gravity. 

Erosion Prevention Plan (EPP): An integrated erosion plan which states the 

Best Management practices necessary to protect the soil and water resources 

on ski areas. The techniques, the scheduling of work, and the priorities for 

treatment are all addressed in the plan. 

The detachment and mement of soil fran the land surface by wind, 

785 
Escarpllart: 

high lands. 

Even-Ag€d 

essentially the same age grrmixq together. The follmirg metbods prcduce 

even-aged stands: 

A steep land form characterized by a face abruptly tenninating 

t: Management of forest stands that results in trees of 

clearcutting: The remwal, in a single cut, of all .trees in a stand 

larger than seedlirgs. 

Shelterwood Cutting: The r-al of all kees in a series of two or mre 

cuts over a perid of not mre than 20 years. 

Seed Wee Cutting: Similar to clearcutting, except that a few of the 

better trees of the desired species are left scattered over the area to 

provide seed for regeneration. 

--Aged Sw. 

mall differences in age. 

A forest stand ccmpsecl of trees havirg M) or relatively 

Misting Visual Condition (Evc): 

natural landscape has already been altered. 

A description of the degree to which the 

F 

- FEIS: Final Ehvirunmntal Impact Statement (See EhvirOnmental Impact 

Statement. ) 

FERC: Federal Energy Regulatory Carrsnission. 

- FIL: 

FLPMR: 

- FLW: The k”wk which ”izes Present Net Value (r’ 

Teso-s . 

- FFA: Planning Area. (See Further Planniq.) 

- FSH: Forest Service Handbook. 

FSM: Forest Service Manual. 

- FVC: 

- M: 

See Fire Intensity Level. 

Federal Land Policy and Managanent Act. 

See Future Visual Condition. 

Fiscal Year--October 1 through September 30. 

J for m-ma 3t 

Final Cut: Generally, rwal of the last trees left in a stand; 

specifically, mal of the last seed bearers or shelter trees after 

regeneration is established under a sheltervxxd system. 

786 
 ire Intensity Level (FIL): A nmkr on a scale of one to six (one be- the 

lowest), which reflects the rate of heat release (BW/second) per unit of 

fire front (in feet). 

Fixed Cost: 

the total cost of the "m level benchmark. 

Forage: All browse and herbaceous plants that are available to feed 

livestock or wildlife. 

- orb: 

A cost Ccmmitted for the plannhg period. In Forest plarmng, 

Any herbaceous plant other than grasses or grass-like plants. 

F- , Middleg?"d I Ba&"d: 

Foreground - the portions of a view between the observer and up to 1/4 or 

1/2 mile distance. 

Middleground (middle distance) - the space between the foreground and the 

background; the area located fran 1/4-1/2 to 3-5 miles fran the viewer. 

Background - the view beginning 3-5 miles fran the observer and as far 

into the distance as the eye can detect the presence of objects. 

Forest and Range land Renewable Resources Platming Act of 1974 (RPA): An Act 

of Corgress requiring the preparation of an assessnent of the nation's 

renewable resou~ces and a program for their management. Forest planning is a 

p& Of this MtiOIlal PrOCeSS. 

Forest Highways : A designated forest road under the jwisdiction of, and 

maintamed by, a public authority that is subject to the Highway Safety Act. 

Forest Highways are designated, as such, where the use and developnent of 

NatiOMl Forest System lands affect the public road system necessitates 

FeAral investments to ensure these mads are safe and adequate. 

Forest Superv ism: The official respnsible for administerkg the National 

Forest System lands in a Forest Service administrative unit (one or mxe 

Na'ucmal Forests). 

FDRPLAN: 

planning alternatives. 

Fuels: 

~t~al material both live and dead. 

Rrelwood: 

Fur&er Planning: A category into which certain roadless areas on the Forest 

were placed by the RARE I1 study and in which they were retained by the 

California Wildemess Act of 1984. Recamadations for the managmt 

(wilderness or nanwildemess) of Further Planning Areas will be made in the 

Forest plan. 

A linear programiq model used for developing and analyzing Forest 

Any material capable of sustaining or carrying a forest fire, usually 

wood cut into short lengths for burning. 

787 
Fuhne Visual Condition (PIC): Describes the projected appearance of the 

landscape (fran M~UEI~ to altered) under each alternative by the fifth 

decade. 

GAWS: 

Gamespec ies: See Harvest Species. 

GeneralAqua tic Wildlife Sys ten: A dined aquatic data base and 

information system. It is the quantitative metbod used to inventory, 

&tor, describe, and predict fisheries habitat &tion and vulnerability 

fran existing to potential land uses. 

~ Goal: 

-tine in the future. 

may not have a specific date for completion. 

Goods and Semioss: The various outputs, including onsite uses, proc?uced by 

forest and rangeland renewable resources. 

Grazinq: clJ"ph 'on of forage by animals: typically used to describe 

damestic livestock use (Under permit) of National Forest land. 

Grazing Allotment: See Range Allotment. 

Grazing Permittee: See Range Permittee. 

Gnnmdwater: Subsurface water in the part of the gnnmd that is wlmlly 

saturated. 

Group Selecticm: The cutting metbod in which trees are remxed periodically 

in snall groups resulting in openings that do not exceed an acre or two in 

size. 

See General Aquatic Wildlife System. 

A concise statement that describes a desired condition to be achieved 

It is normally expressed in broad, general terms and 

The result is an uneven-aged stand. 

H 

- H20: The which "izes water yields for five decades. 

INDC: High Voltage Direct Current. 

Habitat: The sum of enviroMlenta1 conditions of a specific place that is 

occupied by an organism, a population, or a cmnmnity. 

Habitat Capability Model: 

suppcrt a given wildlife species or group of species. 

Hacking: 

Harvest spec ies: Species of animals or fish that are hunted or fished for 

human consungtion. 

A set of habitat factors determined necessary to 

A metbod of gradually releasing birds of prey into the wild. 

788 
Herbicide: 

mlding &ea: See Staging Area. 

A svhstance used to inhibit or destroy plant growth. 

ID Team: See Interdisciplinary Team. 

- IFM: See Integrated Pest managmt. 

Inputs: Land, labor, and capital wed to prduce outputs. Inputs are 

generally represented by activity costs. 

~nstrearm low: The volume of surface water in a stream system passing a 

given point at a given time. 

Integra t€d pest MaMgemsl t (IFM): A p-SS wherein pests, their ilIipaCtS, 

and managenwit are considered an integral part of resoucce managmt 

planning and decision-making. 

Intensity Level: 

Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team): A pup of individuals with &fferent 

training wb solve a problem or perform a task through frequent interaction 

so that disciplines can canbine to pdde new solutions. 

In- 'ate Harvest: Any remnral of trees fran a stand between the time of 

its fonnation and the regeneration cut. Wxt ccmronly used intermediate 

cuttings are release, thinniq, impmvmt, and salvage. 

Intennittent Streams: 

Interpre tive Services: Activities and &splays that interpret the natural 

and social histoq of the National Forest environment for the visiting public 

and inform then about National Forest goals, programs, and services. 

Irretrievable Mimsnts: Applies to losses of prcduction or use of 

renewable natural resources for a period of time. For example, timber 

prduction fm an area 1s irretrievably lost during the time an area is used 

for skiing. If the use is changed, timber prduction can be resumed. The 

prcduction lost is irretrievable, but the action is not irreversible. 

Irrwersible Camnitments: Decisions causing changes which c-t be 

reversed. Once used, the resource c-t be reinstated, nor can opportunities 

be recovered. Applies to nonrenewable resources such as "rals and 

cultural resources. 

See Fire Intensity Level. 

Streams that do not contain water year-round. 

789 . 
K-V J?undS: Fbl& WlleCted fm timber Sals under the Knutsan-Vandenberg 

Act of 1930 to be used for reforestation, timber stand impr"en t, and to 

protect and lmprwe the futwe proaudivity of renewable resources on timber 

sale mas. 

mRA: Knciwn GaWsrmal Rezzmrce Area: On the Inyo, this tenn refers to the 

LEZkcmg valley KGRA located on the northem part of the FOE&, north and 

east of Mamoth Lakes and south of I4n-a Lake. 

Key Fawning Area: An area important for mule deer during the fawning seasun 

(early armner). It typically includes gad vegetative cover to hide fawns 

fmn predators and protect them fran severe weather. 

Key winter Ranqe : h-~ area impsrtant for mule deer during the wintcr mulths. 

It typically includes palatable and nutxitiow shrub species on lands nnstly 

free of sTy3w dLlriq the winter. 

- LBU: It esthates the expected 

outputs and services that could be provided in the future if the 1982 bu2get 

were cut by 25%. 

G: 

This Forest Plan Alternative was eliminated. 

See Long-term Sustained Yield Capacity. 

Landline Location: To locate, survey, mark, and post the boundaries of 

National Forest System lands. 

wp Adjustment: The transfer of the c"Au 'p of lands by land 

exchange, land purchase, donations or other mtb3s. 

Lease Blocks I and 11: Land units that have been leased for geothermal 

exploration and developxent: located north of Marmpth and south of June Lake, 

both east and west of Highway 395. (See map in Chapter I11 of the EIS under 

Minerals: Leasable. ) 

- Lek: Sage grouse strutting grounds used during the mating season for 

courtship displays. 

Lifestyle: The characteristic way people live, indicated by conmnption 

patterns, mrk, leisure, expressed values, and other behavior. 

LocalRoads: SeeROads. 

--term Sustained Yield Capacity (LTSYC): The highest uniform wxd yield 

fmn lands being managed for timber production that may be sustained under a 

specified intensity of management consistent with multiple-use objectives. 

Low Standard Service: A level of recreation management (including 

maintenance and senrices) prescribed when recreation costs are reduced in an 

alternative. 

790 
M (MM): 

million. Cc”n examples are: 

As a prefix to a unit of measure, M indicates tk~usand; €@I indicates 

muM - thousand animal unit months 

MBF (Mvp3F) - thousar (million) hoard feet 

MCF (WCF) - thx~~and (million) cubic feet 

MRVD (MVD) - tbousand (million) recreation visitor days 

M(M)$ - thousand (million) dollars 

M acres - thousand acres. 

- MA: See Managemnt Area. 

MBNFSA: Pkn-~ Basin National Forest Scenic Area. 

B: Manmth County Water District. 

- MIS: 

MIR: _. SeeMini” Implementation Rquiraents. 

MKT: - A Forest Plan Alternative which Was eliminated. It mlzed high 

See Manag-t Indicator Species. 

level outputs of market resources. 

- MI(v: 

- MLV: 

The benchmark which maximizes Present Net Value (PW) for market value 

resources. 

The benchmark which aphasizes M”I Level Management. 

Management Requirement. - .. ram: SeeMln” 

Mamnoth/June: The geographic area bounded by U.S. 395 on the east: State 

Route 203 on the mth: the John P4ri.r and Ansel Adams Wildernesses on the 

west: and the ridgeline of the June Lake an@lex on the mrth. 

MaMgenen t Area (MA): A contiguous area of land used in planrung, to which 

one or mre prescriptions are applied. Managanent areas do mt vary between 

alternatives: however, the prescriptions applied to them do vary. 

Managanen t Conoern: 

Managenen t Directim: A statement of multiple use and other goals and 

objectives, the manag-t prescriptions, and the associated standards and 

guidelines for attairhg them. 

Managerrsl tm@las is: The primary focus of a multiple-use managmt 

prescription or of an alt-tive. 

A managenent problem recpirhg resolution. 

791 
Mmag€lnen t Indicator spec ies (MIS): A wildlife species wfmse population and 

-trend in a certain habitat type indicates the population and trend of other 

species that are also dependent on that habitat typ. 

Mmag€lnen t Intensity: The managemat practice or canbination of managanent 

practices and their associated costs designed to obtain different levels of 

gootls and services. 

Mmag€lnen t prescription: Management practices selected and scheduled for 

application on a specific area to attain multiple-use benefits and other 

goals and objectives. 

Market Outputs: Outputs “ally exchanged in markets as evidenced by 

.transactions. Timber, range, developed recreation, and minerals are market 

outputs pxduced on the Inyo. 

Maxi” Modification (W): 

Mean Annual Increnent: 

divit3k-g the volume of the tree by its age. 

Mineral Developnen t: 

Mineral mtry: 

claim the rights to minerals it contains. 

See Visual Guality Objectives. 

The average yearly gravth of a tree, calculated by 

The preparation of a pmen deposit for mining. 

Filing a claim to hold or purchase public land in order to 

Exploration: The search for minerals on lands open to mineral entry. 

Mineral Pruduction: Extraction of minerals. 

Mineral Withdrawal: The withholding of an area of federal land fm mineral 

entry or developnent in order to res- the area for a particular public 

purpose or program. 

Minerals, Leasable: Minerals which are develop4 (explored, mined, 

extracted, etc.) by a permit or lease, in contrast with mineral developnent 

through claims staking. Congress has specified the following as leasable 

minerals: coal, oil, gas, potassium, scdim, mte, oil shale, native 

asphalt, solid and semisolid bitumen and bit” rock, geothermal 

resources, and deposits of sulfur in Louisiana and New bkxico. Locatable 

minerals on acquired land are leasable. 

Minerals, Locatable: Minerals on public &main lands which are mined and 

processed to recover intrinsically valuable substances such as gold and 

copper and chemical grade limestone and asbestos. May include any solid, 

nat~zal inorganic substance occufiing in the crust of the earth except for 

mineral materials and leasable minerals. Developed through a claims 

location and patent process. Locatable minerals on acquired land are 

leasable. 

Minerals, Salable: Minerals that OCCUT in high-volume, low-unit-value 

deposits and have 1y3 distinct or special ecomnic value over similar 

materials. Disposal is auhrized through a sales system, by the Materials 

Act of 1947. Examples are sand, gravel, stone, and rxmmn clay. 

792 
Inplanentation ts (MIR): The manag-t requirements which 

are necessary to ensure a "I level of public acceptance. 

Ml."MaMgemen tResuiremen ts (M): Constraints or activities necessary 

to maintain viable wildlife ppulations and to prevent permanent wnnent 

.. 

of the pmctivity of the lax 

M"xJ Claims: That portion of the public estate held for mining purposes in 

which the right of exclusive possession of locatable mineral deposits is 

vested in the locator of a deposit. 

Mitigate: Actions to avoid, "ize,, reduce, eliminate, or rectify the 

adverse impacts of a managexat practice. 

Modificatim (W): 

Mcslitming and Evaluation: The periodic evaluation on a sample basis of 

manag-t practices prescribed by the Forest plan, to determine hau well 

objectives have been mat, ~KW closely managexat standards have been applied, 

and whether actual envi"mta1 mnsequences are similar to those predicted. 

Miltiple Use: The manag-t of all renewable surface resources of the 

National Forests so that they are utilized in the canbination that will best 

meet the needs of the American people. 

.. 

See Visual Quality Objectives. 

N 

- NPB: 

NEPA: 

F: 

NFMAS: 

See Net Public Benefit. 

See National Environmental Policy Act. 

See National Forest Management Act. 

See National Fire Management Analysis SyStem. 

NES: 

_. ": The benchmark which "izes Present Net Value (W) with a 

recxmnmdation that m Ruther Pl- Areas kcme wilderness. 

NNL: - National Natural Landhnarks. (See National Registry of Natural 

Landhnarks.) 

See National Forest System Land. 

- NRT: 

National Ehvircmmsntal Policy Act (NEPA): The 1969 Act of Congress that 

represents a basic national charter for protection of the environment. 

National Fire Managan=n t Analysis System (NFMAS): 

fire managers in fulfilling their planning and analysis roles. 

consists of: (1) Fire Management Analysis, and (2) Budget analysis. 

See National Recreation Trail. 

A broad process to assist 

The system 

793 
National Forest mna- t Act (NFMR): A 1976 Act of CBrgmss that amends 

the 1974 Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Plannirg Act (FlPA) . NFMA 

lequires the preparation of Regional and Forest plans and guides their 

developnent. 

National Farest System (NFS) Land: 

of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Lands administered by the U.S. DepartnEnt 

Naticmal Recreatim -1 (NRT): A trail designated by the Secretary of the 

Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture under the National Trails System 

Act. National ramation trails are designed-to provide a variety of outdoor 

recreation uses in or reasonably accessible to urban areas. 

National Reg ister of Historic Places: A 1isti.q maintained by the U.S. 

Deparb-nent of Interior, Naticnal Park Service of areas that have been 

&ignated as historically significant. The National Register includes 

places of local and state significance, as well as tbose of value to the 

Mkbl in general. 

National Regis- of Natural Lancamarks: A register of areas pssessing such 

exceptional values ur qualities for illustrating or inteqraticg the natural 

heritage of OUT nation that they are considered to be of ~tional 

significance. Sane examples are significant ~Wal landforms, land or 

aquatic ecosystms, and geolcgic fomtim. 

National Wild and soenic River ~ys ten: Ri~withoutstandingscenic, 

recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, culWal, or other 

similar values-and kignated by Congress under the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act for preservation of their free-fl- ccoldition. 

National Wilderness Preservation System: All lands covered by the Wilderness 

Act (1964) and subsequent wilderness designations irrespective of the 

depabwnt m agency ham jurisdictim. 

Net Public Benefit (NPB): The overall value to the nation of all outputs and 

positive effects (benefits), less all associated inputs and negative effects 

(costs), whether they can be quantitatively valued or not. Net public 

benefits are measured by both qualitative and quantitative criteria rather 

than a single measure or index. 

Nodeclining Yield: 

prcduction does not fall below the previous decade's production. 

Timber scheduled for harvest so that any given decade's 

Outputs: Forest outputs not normally exchanged in markets. In the 

Forest Service, the follawhg resource outputs are classified as Mavnarket 

Outputs: dispersed recreation, wildlife and fish user days, water. Although 

mt normally exchanged in markets, the Forest Service calculates and assigns 

mnetary values to these outputs for analysis purposes. 

794 
0 

- OW: See Off-Highway Vehicle. 

- osv: See Over-Sm Vehicle. 

Objective: 

pre-established goals. 

Objective Fimction: A term used in linear prcgramrkg referr- to the item 

to be maximized (or "ized) in the problem's solution: such as maximize 

PNV, maximize timber. 

Off -nighway Vehicle (OHV): 

mads. Examples include 4-wheel &rives, dune buggies, and sane motorcycles. 

over-snow Vehicle (W): 

Older seral Stages: Age classes of trees or shrubs that have passed the 

pericd of YOLU-XJ, vigorous growth. Many wildlife species are dependent on the 

older seral stages of forested errclironments; these stages include large trees 

generally exceeding 50 feet in height with a total tree canopy of 40 percent 

or greater. Connercial timher stands are typically harvested before reaching 

older seral stages. 

opening: An area of land fran which timber has been harvested (generally 

us- even-aged manag-t). The maxinnnn size of openings is 5 to 40 acres 

for forest types on the Inyo. ?in apening is IXJ lower considered an opening 

when a specified nunhr of trees per acre within a specific forest type and 

site class have reached 4.5 feet in height. 

mty Cost: The value of the benefits foregone when a managemnt 

alternative is chosen. 

- 

A time-specific statement of measurable results that respond to 

Vehicles that can be operated off of "Ictd 

Over-4low tracked or ski vehicle. 

Outputs: Goods, services, or on-site uses prduced fran forest and rangeland 

resources. 

Overstory: That portion of the trees in a forest which fom the upper or 

layer. 

P 

- P: Primitive. (See Recreation opportunity Spectrum.) 

- PAGT: See P--At-One-Time. 

PILT: 

- PNV: See Present Net Value. 

- PRO: An Alternative which has been eliminated from the Forest Plan. This 

Alternative's objective was to determine the Forest's ability to meet timber 

targets fran the Region's high-prductivity Alternative. 

Payment in Lieu of Taxes. 

795 
- m: see Preferred Alternative. 

- p9): 

- PSW: 

Partial Retentim (Vpo): 

Fwxamial Stream: 

mth. 

Rmnittee: An individual or organization that anducts activities on 

National Forest land unds the Stipulations of a Forest Service permit. 

Examples of permitted activities are grazing, ski area operation, resort 

operation, and hydxelectric plant operation. 

Persons-At-One-Time (PAIn'): The unit of measure for recreatim capacity 

defined as the number of people that can use a facility or area at one time. 

PfrFicgraphic prwince : A region having a particular pattern of relief 

features or land forms that differs cignificantly frun that of adjacent 

regim. The Irryo National Forest lies in two physicgraphic pmvinces--the 

Sierra Nevada and the Great Basin. 

piagi: 

it defoliates Jeffrey pine trees by eating the needles. 

native foods of the Paiute/Shoshcoli People. 

Planrring Period: One decade. The the interval within the plannirtg horizon 

that is used to show incremental charges in yields, costs, effects, and 

benefits. 

Planning Records: A system that documents data collections, a-mlyses, 

interdisciplinary teain decisions, and activities that result frun the process 

of developing a Forest Plan, revision, or significant amendment. 

Plantation: 

an area. 

See Prevention of Significant Deterioration. 

Pacific Southwest (Region 5 of the Forest Service) 

See Visual Quality Objectives. 

A stream that flows throughout the year and fran source to 

The lamal or caterpillar stage of the Pandora moth Wing which time 

Piagi is one of the 

A stand of trees resulting fran planting or artificially seeding 

Preferred Alternative (PRF): The Forest Plan Alternative which emphasizes a 

"2 of cxzlmdl 'ty and amenity resoucce outputs to optimize Net public 

Benefit (NF'B!, 

Prescribed Fire: Intentional use of fire under predetennined weather and 

fuel conditions to achieve specific objectives such as rejuvenating or 

type-canverting vegetation. 

Prescription (-1: The set of managarat practices applied to a specific 

area to attain specific objectives. Region 5 distinguishes between FORPLAN 

prescriptions and management prescriptions. FOWLAN prescriptions are sets 

of "pure" management activities withaut spatial allocation or standards and 

guidelines. Management prescriptions are written as a result of allocating 

FOWLAN solutions to specific lands areas (Management Areas) and imposing 

standards and guidelines. (See also Management Areas.) 

796 
Present Net Value (PNV): The difference batween the value of discounted 

benefits derived frun all outputs to which mpletaq values or established 

market prices are assigned and the total discounted costs of managing the 

plarmirg area. 

Pre-tion (VQO): 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (FSD): A planning and management 

process of the Clean Air Act for allocation and use of air re-ces. 

Productive Red: A category of land that is capable of pnxhcirg 

cannercial timber proaUcts but has been q-ed fm the managed timber base 

by congressicmal or administrative designation (such as Wilderness or 

Research Natural Areas). 

Public Issue: A subject or question of widespread public interest identified 

through public participation relatiq to managmt of National Forest System 

lands. 

See Visual Quality Objectives. 

R 

- R: Rural. (See Recreation Gpprtumty Spectnrm. ) 

RARE 11: See Roadless Area Review and Evaluation 11. 

- REA: Rural Electric Association. 

- RGN: The benchmark which maximizes danestic livestock g-razing for five 

decades. 

- RIM: 

- RM: Roaded Wfied. (See Recreation Opprtunity Spectrum. ) 

- KN: Roaded Natural. (See Recreation opportunity Spectrum. ) 

- RNA: 

- Res: 

RpA: The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. 

Also refers to the national assessment and recamded program developed 

every five years to fulfill the requirements of the Act. 

RPA Progr am: The national direction (under EA) for long-range management of 

renewable resoucces on National Forest System lands. This direction serves 

as the basis for the Regional targets assigned to each Forest. 

- RVD: 

- Rx: See Bscription. 

See Recreation Infonnation Management. 

See Research Natural Area. 

See Recreation opportunity Spectrum. 

See Recreation Visitor Day. 

797 
aimary range - includes areas which are readily accessible, have 

available Water and will be used before livestock significantly graze 

other areas. 

Secondary range - areas less preferred by livestock which will ordinarily 

mt be grazed significantly until the primary range has been used. 

Suitable - land that is or can be made accessible to livestcck, that 

proauceS forage or has inherent forage-prcducing capabilities, and that 

can be grazed on a sustained yield basis under given managment goals. 

Transitory - land teqmrarily suitable for grazing, but transient over 

time and/or location. For example, grass may cover an area for a perid 

before be- replaced by qrmb (such as trees) ncit suitable for 

livestock ansmption. 

Unsuitable - area that should not be grazed by livestock because of 

unstable soils, steep topgraphy, or inheren t low potential for forage 

prCdllCtiOIl. 

Ran@= Allotmst: 

of livestock. 

An area designated for grazing a prescribed number and kind 

Range Pennittee: An individual who has been granted written permission (a 

grazirg permit) to graze livestock for a specific perid on a range 

allotment * 

Ranger District: 

District Ranger who reports to the Forest Supervisor. 

Rarespec ies: One that, although not presently threatened with extinction, 

is in such small nlrmbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if 

its envimment mrsens; the "rare" category is a State category, not a 

federal one. 

Reach: A cantinwus unbroken stretch of a stream with knqeneow 

characteristics; anextrerm. 'ty of a stream; a specified portion of a stream. 

F&coveq: 

plant or animal species. 

Recreatim Ekper ience Level: A classification (using a scale of 1 for 

primitive to 5 for de?m) of the level of devel-t in camp and picnic 

sites pertaining to the types of recreation opportunities and ircdifications 

in the envimment that can be expected. 

Reneatim Information Managmsn t (RTM): The Forest Service system for 

recording recreation facility "htion and use. 

An adninistrative unit of a National Forest supenrised by a 

The achievement of viable populations of threatened or endangered 

798 
Recreation opporhdty spectrum (RCS): A means of classifying and managiq 

recreation opprtwu 'kes based on physical setting, social setting, and 

managerial &%king. The six different ROS classes briefly described are: 

a. 

b. 

C. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

g. 

Primitive (P) - An area three miles or mre fran conventional 

(two-wheel drive) mads, generally 5,000 acres or more in size, with 

an essentially unmodified natural environment. Users will probably 

experience a high degree of isolation, closeness to nature, 

traraquility, and self-reliance. 

Semi-Primitive bbn-Wtorized (SF") - An area mre than 0.5 mile but 

less than 3 miles fm conventional mads, 2,500 to 5,000 acres in 

size, with only subtle modifications of an otherwise natural 

settug. Users will have expriences similar in kind (but to a 

lower degree) to those found in the Primitive ROS class. 

Semi-Primitive Pbtorized (SEW) - Same as Semi-Primitive 

Kon-Wtorized but with motorized use of primitive roads and trails. 

Users would have experiences similar to those in the SPNM class, 

with the addition of mtor vehicles. 

Roaded Natural (RN) - An area accessible by conventional roads; 

resource modifications and structures are evident but hanmru 'ze with 

the natura environment. Users would experience isolation and 

interaction with other parties in roughly equal pmprtions. 

Wded Modified (RM) - Same as Roaded Natural, except that resource 

modifications ami structures are mre evident and the probability of 

interaction with other parties would be mch higher. 

Rural (R) - The setting is accessible by conventional road and 

substantially modified with structures or other cultural 

modifications. Users would experience much interaction with others: 

there would be little wrtunity for isolation. 

Urban (U) - The setting 1s strongly dcminated by structures, 

highways and streets. Users would not consider this setting 

attractive for ccolventional forest recreation. This category 

applies to privately-owned land on the Forest. 

-tion Visitor Day (m): Twelve hours of recreation use in any 

ccmbination of persans and hours such as one person for twelve hours or three 

persms for four hours. 

Recruitmnt: Replenishment. In tenns of wildlife biology, to achieve 

successful reproduction or to replenish a supply of habitat elements, such as 

snags or dawn logs. 

Reforestation: 

artificial methods. 

Reestablishing a crop of trees on forest land by natural or 

Regeneration: Same as reforestation. 

799 
Regenerati= Cutthq: Hmesthg timber stands so that new crops can be 

planted. This metbod is usually applied to stands which cannot econanically 

be managed for carmercial prcduction because of poor stocking, health, 

thrift, quality, or species "psition. 

Region 5: The Pacific Southwest Rsgion of the Forest Service, including 

primarily the National Forests in California, with mall amtional acreage 

in Oregon and Nevada. 3 

Regid Forester: The official responsible for administering a single 

Region of the Forest Service. 

Regulation Classes: 

Replation Class I silvicultural prescriptions are even-aged mgmt 

prescriptions for existkg timber stands with full timber yields expected. 

These represent harvest regimes on lands not otherwise constrained that 

result in optimnn timber prduction in volume and/or value. Practices in 

this class are: 

a. Clearcutting without thinning (nonintensive harvest in FORPLAN) 

b. Shelterwood witbout thinnhg (nanintenSive harvest in FORPLAN) 

c. Clearcutting with thinniq(s) prior to harvest. 

Regulation Class I1 silvicultural prescriptions address "special conditions" 

for existing timber stands. These 

represent harvest regimes on lands designated to meet nontimber objectives 

that result in a mean rotation longer than qtinnnn for timber prcduction. 

Generally other values are accounted for by constraints on West rates, not 

by mdificatim to yield tables: the exceptions are group selection (item e) 

and specialized prescriptions (item f) . 

Reduced timber yields wuld be expected. 

Practices in this class are: 

a. 

b. 

C. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

Clearcutting without thinniq (nonintensive harvest in FORPLAN) 

Shelterma2 without thhurtg (conintensive harvest in FORPLAN) 

Cleaxmttjng with thinning( s) prior to harvest 

Shelterxcd with thinnhg( s) prior to harvest 

Group selection (harvest openings less than two acres in size) or 

single tree selection 

Specialized prescriptions that contain unique yield tables and/or 

collstraints on harvest rates such as deer winter range prescriptions 

with wider spacing and no release. 

800 
Regulation Class I11 prescriptions are for existirg Stands which are 

equivalent to the former "marginal timber yield" categorization. Timber 

outputs resultirg fran prescriptions in this class will be regulated as a 

separate, non-inhrchaqeable capnent of the allawable sale quanti%. 

Practices in this class are: 

a. ~e"l of single trees or mall groups of trees for sanitation, 

salvage, or hazard reduction (assume yields based on past 10-year 

experience) 

b. Stand maintenance along zones to maintain the vigor of the stands; 

yields are often linked to $other harvest in adjacent areas; 

generally this practice is used for streamside and highway zones if 

not otherwise managed by indepndent sales 

c. prescriptions for marginal prductivity (lands prcducing less than 

20 cubic feet per acre per year) and/or disputed regeneration 

d. Group selection (clearcuts less than two acres in size or single 

.tree selection. 

Rejuvenatirm: The treatment of vegetation (by burning or chemical. or 

mechanical means) so that vigorous, young gmxth is stimulated. 

Relicted Land: The land that has been expsed by the dec1iru-g level of Pbrn 

Lake and which lies between the elevation of 6,417 feet and Mono Lake as it 

varies fran day to day. 

Research Natural Area (RNA): An area established specifically to pres- a 

representative sample of an ecological cc"ity; primarily for scientific 

and educational purp3ses. 

Resident Trout: Trout that live year-round and reproduce in a stream or lake 

(mtrasted with trout raised in a fish hatchery, planted, and removed by 

angle=). 

Retention (m): See Visual Quality Objectives. 

Right-of-way: An accurately located land area within which a user may 

conduct operations approved or granted by the landawner. May also refer to a 

psmut, easement, lease, license, or NemrandLnn of Understanding (Mou) used 

to authorize the land use. 

Riparian Area: Geographically delineable areas with distlnctive resouTce 

values and characteristics that are cmprised of the aquatic and riparian 

ecosystems. 

Riparian areas on the Inyo National Forest consist of: (1) as a "t, 

areas that are a 1oO-foot horizontal distance fran the edge of standiq 

bodies of water, lakes, and perennial streams, and (2) all wetlands, 

including all ephemeral or intermittent streams which supprt riparian 

vegetation, wet madaws springs, seeps, and bogs. See Streamside Managanent ~ Zones for ephemeral and intermittent streams not included in wetlands. 

801 
Riparian Araa-Dependen t Resources: Water-depenaent vegetation, wildlife, 

fish (and other aquatic animals), soil, and water. 

Roadless Area: As defined by the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE), 

an area of undeveloped Federal land within which there are m iq~med rcads 

or roads maintained for use by motorized vehicles; generally 5,000 acres or 

larger dess adjacent to an exi- wilderness. 

Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE) 11: The assessment of roadless 

areas within the National Forests as potential wilderness areas as re&?=ed 

by the National Wilderness Act. This refers to the second such assesgnent 

which was documented in the Final Envim” tal Inpact Statement of the 

Roadless Area Review and Evaluation precess, January 1979. 

Roads: 

greater than 40 inches in width. 

A general term demtjq a route for purposes of travel by vehicles 

Roads are functionally classified as: 

a. A.rterial Roads: Typically two-lane, surfaced mads serving large 

land areas and usually mectirg with public highways. 

b. Cnll~3~~ Roads: Single-lane or dauble-lane roads which are 

mically surfaced and s- smaller land areas. They usually form 

a link between arterial and local mads. 

c. Local Roads: Typically native surface, single-lane mads accessing a 

s-le resource terminal facility such as a log landing, a 

campground, a trailhead, or ski facility. 

IUX Class: See ReCreatian OppMty Spectrum. 

Rotation Age : 

tree stand and its final cutting. 

The leng-th of time between the fonnation or regeneration of a 

SAOT: See Skiers-at---time. 

E: southern California Edison. 

SHPO: State Historic Preservation Officer. 

SIA: See Special Interest Area. 

E: See Stream Management Zone. 

- SPM: Semi-Frimitive-hkbrized. (See Recreation Gpprhmity Spectrum. ) 

SPNM: Semi-Primitve-Nzed. (See Recreation Opprtunity Spectrum. ) 

E: See Soil Resource Inventory. 

- SSR: See Stream Chamel Stability Ratiq. 

a02 
Salvage: 

worthless. 

Sanitation Harvest: The renrnral of dead, diseased, insect infested, damaged, 

or otherwise law vigor txees to minimize losses fm pests. 

sediment: Solid material, both mineral and organic, that is suspended in or 

being tranqorted by water. 

Selection Cutting: 

Sensitive Spec ies: Species that have appeared 111 the Federal Register as 

proposed additicms to the endangered or threatened species list, and those 

that arf? on an official state list or are recognized by the Regional Forester 

as needing special managenent in order to prevent them from bx"J 

endangered or threatened. 

Sensitivity Level: 

scenic qualities of the landscape. 

Seral Stage: The develop-ental or successional stage of a biological 

Comrmnity (related to age class). 

Shelterwood Cutting: Cutting a timber stand in two or mre stages. The 

first cuttiq leaves some mature trees which provide shade to help sedlirgs 

get established. The sheltelwood system is a form of even-age3 timber 

management. 

Dead or deteriorating trees often cut before their timber becanes 

See Group Selection and Single Tree Selection. 

A particular degree or measure of viewer interest in the 

Silviculture: Generally, the science and art of cultivating forest tree 

crops. 

Silvicultural Systen: The entire process by which forest stands are tended, 

harvested, and replaced. A silvicultural system includes all cultural 

practices perfomxd during the life of the stand such as regeneration 

cutting, fertilizatiun, thinnhg, improvement cutting, and use of genetically 

improved som of tree seeds and seedlings to obtain multiple-resource 

benefits. 

Single Tree Selection: The cutting metbod in which individual trees are 

remxred to provide a stand with trees of different sizes and age classes on 

the same site. 

Site Prepar ation: The preparation of an area for regeneration, lnwlving the 

ramval of slash and/or cmpting vegetation and usually the evposure of bare 

mineral soil. 

Size Class: 

intervals of tcee stem diameter used for classification of timber. 

Silvicultural systems are classified as even- or uneven-aged. 

This method results in an uneven-aged stand. 

For purlxxses of Forest plamirg, size class refers to the three 

Seedlirg/Sapling: less than five-inch diameter. 

Pole Timber: five to eight-mch diameter. 

Sawtimber : greater than eight-- diameter. 

803 
skiers-At-One-Time (SAOT) : A measure of ski area capacity represented by the 

nurnker of skiers that can -py the ski area at once. 

Slash: The residue left on the gruund after timber cutting or after other 

disruptions such as storms or fires. Slash includes unutilized logs, 

upmted s-, braken stems, branches, twigs, leaves, bark, and chips. 

-1 Game: 

snag: 

have fallen. 

Soil 'vie: The natural capacity of a soil to proauCe a specified 

plant species or sequence of species under a specified system of managmt. 

Soil Resource Invenrtcnry (SRI)/Soil Survey : The systematic examination, 

description, classification and mapping of soils. 

Soil Scnveys : The systematic exa"tion of soils 111 the field and 

laboratory, incluw description, classification, and mappiq of soils, and 

the inteqretation of soils acmrdirg to their productivity and behavior 

under use and managment. 

Birds and snall "nab normally hunted or trapped. 

A starx3.q dead tree fram which the leaves and mst of the branches 

order 1: Very intensive investigations used for site-specific work, 

such as individual building sites, experimental plots, and 

irrigatim and drainage studies. 

Intensive investigaticas used for project level work. 

Intermediate level investigations used for forest planning 

purposes on lands subject to heavy recreational use or 

timber management. 

Planning. 

order 11: 

Mer 111: 

order Iv: Broad re" 'ssance investigations use for forest-wide 

Special Interest Area (SIA): Areas established and managed for their unique 

or outstandirag natural values, such as lxtanical, geological, scenic, or 

historical features. 

Special-Use Pennit: 

Forest land in the manner specified. 

A permit auhrizirg the cccupancy and use of National 

Species: A fundamental category of plant or animal classification. 

Staging &ea/mlding Area: An area in which mule deer gather during 

migration, typically while waiting for weather to clear or s~low to melt 

before maring to higher elevations. 

- Stand: A Ccmrmnity of trees or other vegetation types that is sufficiently 

uniform in mqositiun, constitution, age, spatial arrangemnt, or wndition 

to be distinguishable fran adjacent cn"ities and to thus form a managmt 

entity. 

804 
Standard Service: Manag-t of recreation facilities which provides for 

vegetation management, full maintenance of facilities, appropriate toilet 

cleankg and garbage pickup, and infomtion and interprebve services for 

the recreation area. 

Stocking Level: The d-ee to which land is occupied by trees (measured by 

basal area and/or Nsnber of trees by size and spacing), canpared with a 

stockiq standard which establishes the stccking -red to fully utilize 

the gmdh potential of the land. 

Siram A three-part timber category based on .tree species, age class, and 

stmkirg level. 

Stream Channel Stability Rating (SSR): A mthcd for evaluating stream 

channel stabilitv was develoced to evaluate the resistance of mxlntain stream 

channels to .the detach"; of bed and bank materials and to provide 

information abut the ability of streams to adjust to and rewver frun 

potential changes in flow and/or increases in sediment production. ll-e 

system was developed to be used in conjunction with other hydrologic analyses 

to augment silvicultural prescriptions and impruve watershed management. A 

brief description of the items rated and the mxlifications employed in this 

study area included below. 

The stream channel stability evaluation procedure involves subjective field 

evaluation of fifteen items. The channel cross-section is divided into three 

canpnents: upper banks, lower banks, and channel bottcm. upper banks are 

rated for slope, mass wasting, debris jam potential, and bank protection by 

vegetation. Lower banks are rated for ChaMel capacity, bank rock content, 

obstructicaS, cuttiq, and depsition. channel hottans are rated for rock 

angularity, brightness, consolidation, scourmg and depsition, and clmgiq 

aquatic vegetation. 

Each item is given a rating value which is weighed in terms of its importance 

as an indication of streambank stability. For instance, scouring and 

deposition of the channel bttcm, which is an Unportant factor, is heavily 

weighted, ranging from 6 to 24. In contrast, channel capacity, rock 

qlarity, brightness, and clingmg aquatic vegetation are all less 

important, and have values ranging only from one to four. 

After a stream reach has been rated, values for the items are totaled. A 

score of less than 38 is considered "excellent", indicating a stable, 

erosion-resistant sham. A score of 39 to 76 is considered "gccd": a score 

of 77 to 114 is cco7sidered "fair", and a score of 115 to 142 is considered 

"poor". It is important to note that a low score indicates stable streambank 

conditions, while a high score indicates unstable, ercded streambanks. 

st" Managenen t Zone (SMZ): An administratively designated zone designed 

to call attention to the need for special management practices aimed at the 

maintenance and/or impmement of watershed res0UTce.s. May include 

floodplains and wetlands, riparian areas, inner gorges, perennial streams, 

and intermittent streams sbwmg signs of recurrent annual scour or 

deposition. 

805 
Successicn: The gradual changirg of a biological c5nnunity over time 

(including the replacement of one a"ity by another) until that change 

cones to a halt and the climax "ity is reached. 

Successirmal Stage: A phase in the gradual ckqjng of a biological 

ccmnuLty (same as seral stage). 

Suitability: The appmpriateness of applying certain resource managerent 

practices to a particular area of land, as determined by an analysis of the 

econanic and envi."mtal consequences and the alt-tive uses foregone. A 

unit of land may be suitable for a variety of-individual or dined manage 

Suitable Timber Land: 

Suppression: 

Sustained Yield: 

See Tentatively Suitable Tmbx Land. 

Actions taken to extinguish or confine a fire. 

See Long-term Sustained Yield Capacity. 

T 

TBR: 

T&E: Threatened and endangered species. (See Threatened Species, wered 

Species. ) 

TSI: See Timber Stand Imp"ent. 

Target: 

stated time period. 

Tentatively Suitable Tinker Land: 

mial timber managmt must meet the following criteria: 

The benchmark which maximizes timber proaUction for one decade. 

A statement used to express planned results to be reached within a 

Lands tentatively considered suitable for 

a. 

b. 

C. 

d. 

e. 

Presently forested, currently producing or capable of producing 

crops of indus-trial wood. 

Not withdrawn frcm timber proauction by Congress, the Secretary of 

Agriculture, or the Chief of the Forest Service. 

For which techry3logy and -ledge exist and are available to ensure 

timber prodituction without irreversible damage to soils, 

prductivity, or watershed wnditions. 

Where there is reasonable assurance that adequate restcddng can be 

attained within five years after final harvest. 

Where adequate information is available to project responses to 

timber management activities. 

Term Permit: 

period of time, but which has a termination date. 

A grazing permit or a special-use permit issued for a specified 

806 
!l%hniy: (xltting timber to improve the quality and gravth of the trees that 

remain. In cnnnercial thinnhg, merchantable tinker (timber of salable 

quality), is cut. In preaxmrcial "g, m-"ntable trees are cut. 

lhceatened spec ies: Any species which is likely to becane an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future and which has been designated in the 

Federal Register as a threatened species. 

Tiering: Refers to the practice of analyzing general alternatives and 

envi"enta1 consequences in broader bironmntal Impact Statements and 

mre detailed alternatives and consequences in site-specific envimmtal 

documents. The mre specific enviromtal document is then tiered to the 

analysis found in the mre general one. 

Timber Producticol: The growing, tending, harvesting, and regeneration of 

- regulated crops of trees to be cut into logs and bolts for industrial or use. Does not include fuelwood. 

Timber Stand Improvemen ts (TSI): The use of mncorrnnercial Wnnmng, 

Clem, weeding and intermediate cuttings to eliminate or suppress less 

desirable vegetation and improve ccenposition, condition, structure, or growth 

of a stand. 

Trade-off: The impact on an output or cost caused by chargu-g mther output 

or cost. 

.. 

Trailhead: The parking, signing, and other facilities available at the 

beginnkg of a trail. 

hampling and chiseling: A measure of the dqree of livestock utilization 

and the extent of livestock damage along a stream reach. Trampling is 

defined as hoof marks, soil disturbance, soil canpaction with evidence of 

hoof marks: tare soil with evidence of hoof marks, and trampled vegetation. 

Cattle trails bordering the stream or crossing it are included in this 

concept only when basal vegetation has been r-ed and bare ground has been 

exp3sed. Chiseling is identified by arc-sha@ cuts in streambanks caused by 

cattle or sheep hooves. 

Tuff: A type of light-colored volcanic rock cx"nly found on the Inyo 

sonal Forest north of Bislaop. 

Type Comrersicm: 

another, such as shrub to grass or sagebrush to bitterbrush. 

The conversion of one vegetation type or plant species to 

U 

- U: Urban. (Sea Recreation Opprhmity Spectrrum. ) 

USES: United States Forest Service, Deparbent of Agriculture. 

USM: 

USGS: United States Geological S-y. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 
unde?=story: LaW-gJn%ug ' vegetation such as grasses, shrubs, or small trees 

mirg under a stand of trees. Also, that portion of trees in a forest 

stand below the werstory. 

Uneven-aged P4magm~1-1 t: Managanent of forest stands which results in trees 

of several or many ages ping together. Cutting methDds pxfiucirg 

uneven-aged stands are single-tree selecbon and group selection. 

-lamed Ignition: A fire started at randm by either natural or human 

causes or a deliberate --set fire. 

unsuitable Timber Lands: Refers to land which is mt suited for timber 

prcduction according to the criteria listed awe under Tentatively Suitable 

T- Land. 

0. 

- VAC: 

- VQI: 

- VQO: 

Variety Class: A classification System with three visual landscape 

categories: 

See Visual Absarption Capability. 

See Visual Wity Index. 

See Visual Quality Objectives. 

a. Distinctive (Variety Class A): unusual and/or outstanding landscape 

variety that stands out fran the ccm" features in the landscape. 

b. Canmn (Variety Class B): Prevalent, usual, or widespread landscape 

variety; also refers to ordinary or undistinguished visual variety. 

M"al (Variety Class C): Little or no visual variety in the 

landscape; mnob- or belaw average acmpared to the coIlppcn 

features in the landscape. 

.. C. 

Viable EQml atims: Reproducing populations of plants or aruinals of 

sufficient nunbers and distribution tn assure indefinite perpetuation of the 

species. 

Visual Absorption Capability (VAC): The ability of the landscape to 

withstand management marupulation witbut significantly affect- its visua 

character. Rated as high, mderate, and low. 

Visual Ccolditian: The state of visual alteration measured in Wees of 

deviation fmm the natural appearing landscape. 

Visual Quality Indev (WI): A numerical rating of scenic quality that 

reflects both the condition of the landscape and the acreage of land in each 

of the six visual condition levels rargirg from Type I (appears to be 

untouched by human activities) to Type VI (appears to be drastically 

diSturM). 

808 
Vid Wity Cbjectives (Vpo): A set of measurable maxi" levels of 

future alteration of a characteristic landscape. These levels are: 

a. preservatics: Ecological change my. 

b. Retentim: €iuman activities are not evident to the casual Forest 

visitor. 

c. Partial Retention: Hman activity may be evident but mt remain 

subrdinate to the characteristic landscape. 

d. Pkdificatim: Human activity, may dnninate the characteristic 

landscape but must, at the same time, follow naturally established 

form, line, color, and texture. It should appear as a natural 

occurrence when viewed in foreground or middleground. 

Maximum Pkdification: Human activity may daninate the characteristic 

landscape but shnild appear as a natural occurrence when viewed as 

e. 

background. 

Visual Resource: The canposite of basic terrain, geologic featLues, water 

features, vegetative patt-, and land use effects that typify a land unit 

and influence the visual appeal the unit may have for visitors. 

w 

WFHR: - 

WEUD: 

- WHR: Wildlife Habitat Relationships. (See Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Relatiunships . 

- WIN: 

WLI: - A Forest Plan Alternative which has been eliminated. It recormnends a 

substantial amount of quality acreage for wilderness while maintaining or 

increasirg corrmodl 'ty outputs through intensified manag-t of lands outside 

wilderness. 

- WLN: 

Planning Areas as wilderness. 

Watch List I: Those plant species which the California Native Plant Society 

lists as neding more information before their legal status can be 

determined. 

Watch List 11: 

has listed in the past, but are currently delisted. 

Water Rights: 

See Wildlife and Fish Habitat Relationships. 

See Wildlife and Fish User Day. 

See Watershed Improvement Needs. 

The kenchmark which maximizes present Net Value (PNV) with all Further 

Those plant species which the Califorma Native Plant Society 

The legal right to use water. 

809 
Water Yield: 

a watershed, over a given pi& oftime. 

Waters&& The entire area that cantribut- water to a drainage system or 

stream. 

watershed Inp"en t Needs (WIN): An inventory of neadcnu cmplexes on the 

forest wbich have a history of being used for grazing. This inventory 

determines their ccoldition of being either healthy, damaged or threatened. 

Erosion (gullying or headcutting) has been documented for over 25,000 acres. 

Wild and Scenic Rim: A river set aside under the 1968 Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act to preserve its M~WX~ erd" t and water quality. The 

following are the subcategories of wild and scenic designation: 

The total amxlnt of water caning fnm an area of land, cxn"ly 

a. "Wild River Areas: ThDse rivers or sRctions of rivers that are free 

of ts and generally inaccessible except by trail, with 

watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters 

unplluted. !rhese represent vestiges of primitive America." 

b. "Scenic River Areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are 

free of -ts, with sbrelines or watersheds still laryely 

prMtive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in 

places by roads. " 

c. "Recreational River Areas: ThDse rivers or sections of rivers that 

are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have sone 

develapnent along their shorelines, and that may have underyone sone 

inpuncbmt or diversion in the past." (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1273 (b)) 

Wild Trout Stream: A stream designat& by the State of California to managed 

exclusively for the propagation of wild trout (those hatched in the wild); 

such streams are not stocked with hatchery-stocked trout. 

Wildermss: 

a. 

As defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964, wildemess: 

is undeveloped Federal land witbut permanent irrrprwements or human 

habitation; is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural 

oonditions; 

hasoutstandingopporhlIll 'ties for solitude or primitive recreation; 

has at least 5,000 acres or is of sufficient size to make practical 

its oonditicol; and may contain features of scientific, educational, 

scenic, or historical value, as well as ecologic and geologic 

interest. 

b. 

c. 

Wildfire: An unplanned ignition. 

Wildlife and Fish Habitat Relationships (WFHR): A system for organizing 

information abut wildlife and fish species, their habitats, and the 

relationships between than that is used- in land and resource managmt 

PlW. 

810 
Wildlife and Fish User Day (WFUD): 

wildlife or fish (primarily hunting and fishing). 

Withdrawal: Withblding an area of F&al land frcm settlement, sale, 

location, or entry allowed under the general land laws to reserve the area 

for a particular purpse or program. 

Twelve hours of recreation use involving 

Yield Table: 

under a specified set of conditions. 

A tabular statement of resource outputs expected to be proauCea 

Zane of Influence: The geographic area surrounding and intenniqled with 

National Forest lands wherein people live whose lives are mst directly 

impacted by Forest management decisions and activities. 

811 








Inyo National Forest 

Pacific Southwest Region USDA Forest Service 

Land and Resource 

Management 

Plan 

1988 

DENNIS W. MARTIN 

forest SuDervlsor 

PAUL F. BARKER 

Regional Forester 

@ ...... 

This Forest Plan establishes the management direction and 

-associated 

lnyo National 

long-range goals 

Forest for the next 

and 

ten to 

ObJeCtiVeS 

fifteen 

for 

years. 

the - 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Chapter Page 

1 . Introduction ..................................... 1 

Relationships with Other Envlronmental Documents ................. Purposeof the Forest Pian ..................................... 1 

1 

Plan Implementation ...................................... 1 

Amendments. Revisions. and Appeals .......................... 2 

Plan Organization .......................................... 3 

I1 . Issues and Concerns .............................. introduction ............................................ Forest Plan Response to Original issues and Concerns ............... Economic Assessment ................................... Social Assessment ................ ............... Air Quality .......................................... Cultural Resources ................................... Diversity ............ ... .............. Energy ....................................... Facilities .................................... .... Fish ............. ... .............. Further Planning Areas ........................... Geology . . ....................................... Lands ............................................. Minerals .......................................... Pest Management ......... ..... .............. Protection ........................................... Range ........................... ......... Recreation .......... ............... Research Natural Areas ................................. Riparian Areas ..... ....................... Sensitive Plants ...................................... Special interest Areas .... ............ .......... Timber ............................................... Visual Resources ............................... ... Watershed .. ....................... Wild and Scenic Rivers ................................. Wilderness .................................... ... Wildlife . ..................................... 

4 

4 

4 

5 

5 

5 

6 

6 

7 

7 

9 

9 

10 

11 

11 

12 

12 

13 

. 13 

15 

15 

16 

16 

17 

18 

18 

19 

19 

20 

111 . Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation ..... 22 

Introduction ............................................. 22 

Social and Economic Environments ...... .............. 22 

Sphere of Economic influence ....................... ... 22 

Population ........................ .............. 23 

Employment ....................................... 23 

Role of the inyo National Forest ......................... . 23 

i 
Future Trends. . .................... 24 

Economics in Forest Planning ..... .... .... 24 

Sphere of Social Influence. ................... 24 

Social Groups ........ .. ................. . 25 

Resource Environment .......... ......... 27 

Air Quality ......................... 27 

Cultural Resources ........................... 28 

Diversity .. 30 

Energy: Geothermal . ........ ........... 31 

Energy Hydroelectric .................. 31 

Energy: Wind Power ....................... 32 

Facilities ........................ ..... 32 

Fish ........... ... ... .......... 34 

Further Planning Areas ...................... 36 

Geology .................. .. .......... 37 

Minerals: Leasable (Geothermal Energy) . ......... 40 

.............. 

Lands . ......................... 38 

Minerals Locatable ......................... . 40 

Minerals: Mineral Materials ... ... .............. 41 

Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area. ......... 42 

Pest Management. ....... .. ........... 42 

Protection (Fire Management) ................. 43 

Range .............. .............. . 45 

Recreation: Developed ........................ 47 

Recreation: Alpine Skiing ............ ........... 47 

Recreation Dispersed ........................ 48 

Research Natural Areas. .............. 49 

Riparian Areas .. .................. 50 

Sensitive Plants ................ .. ..... 51 

Special Interest Areas ........................ 52 

Timber .......................... 53 

Visual Resources ...... ............ 54 

Watershed - Soils .................... . 55 

Watershed - Water. ... ................ 56 

Wild and Scenic Rivers ................... ........ 57 

Wilderness ..... ..................... 58 

Wildlife .................. .. . 59 

IV. Management Direction ............................ 65 

@traduction ... .................. 65 

Forest Goals ................ ........... 66 

Forest Objectives .............................. 70 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines .................... 74 

Air Quality .............................. . 75 

Cultural Resources . . ...................... 75 

Diversity 76 

Energy. ............ ... ................ 77 

Facilities .......................... .... 77 

Fish..... .................................. 78 

Geology ....... 80 

Hardwoods ........ .... ..................... 80 

Lands .................................. ..... 80 

Recreation: General ................. 46 

................................. 

........................... 

ii 
Minerals .......... ...... ................. 82 

Pest Management .......... ...... ......... .. 83 

Protection ...... 84 

Range . ............................... ...... 84 

Recreation ..... ................. ....... 86 

Research Natural Areas. ..... ...................... 89 

Riparian Areas ...... ........................... 89 

Sensitive Plants .......... ..... ............ 91 

Special Interest Areas ..... ...... ................ 92 

Timber. ........ ................ ........... 92 

Visual Resources ........ ....................... 93 

Watershed ......................... ......... 94 

Wild and Scenic Rivers ..... ......................... 97 

Wllderness ..... ................... .......... 97 

Wildlife . ............ ....... ................. 98 

Management Prescriptions .................. ....... . . 106 

Designated Wilderness (#1) ........................... 107 

Proposed Wilderness (#2) ........... ................ 113 

Mountain Sheep Habitat (#3) ............ ........ 116 

Mule Deer Habitat (#4) .................................. 117 

Research Natural Areas (#5) ....................... 119 

Mono Basin National Porest Scenic Area (#6) ....... ........ 122 

Ancient Bristlecone Forest(#7) . ...... .............. 123 

.......................... 

Wild and Scenic Rivers (#E) ............................ 126 

Uneven-aged Timber Management (#9) ...................... 130 

High Level Timber Management (#lo) . ................ 132 

Range(#11) .................... .............. 134 

Concentrated Recreation Area (#12) ........... ....... 136 

Potential Alpine Ski Area (#14) ............ ....... 140 

Developed Recreation Site (#15) ....... .............. 143 

Dispersed Recreation (#16) .... .............. .. .145 

Semi-Primitive Recreation (#l7) .... ............... 147 

Multiple Resource Area (#la) . ...... ....... ..... .149 

Mono Basin (#1) ............... ......... .... 152 

Lee Yining (#2). ...... ....... ................. 155 

June Lake Loop (#4) ......... .................. 164 

Glass Mountain (#S) ...... ...... ....... ....... 170 

Plzona (#6) .......... ....... ........ . . 175 

Upper Owens River (#7) ......... ...... ........ 179 

Mammoth Escarpment (#E). .......... ......... . . 184 

Mammoth (#9) .......... ................ ...... -190 

Reds Meadow-Fish Creek (#lo) ................... ... 196 

Convict-McGee (#11) .............................. 200 

Benton-Casa Diablo (#12) ..... ...... ............... 204 

White Mountains (#l3) .................... ....... 208 

Rock Creek-Pine Creek (#14) ........... ................ 213 

Bishop Creek-Buttermilk (#15) ...... ....... ........ 217 

Coyote (#16) ................. ................ 221 

Owens Valley Escarpment (#17) ... .................. 225 

Alpine Ski Area, Existing and Under Study (#13) ............... 138 

Management Area Direction. ......................... 151 

Walker-Parker (#3) .............................. 160 

iii 
lnyo Mountains (#18) .............. ................ 229 

GoldenTrout(#19) ................................ 233 

South Sierra (#20) ..................................... 238 

V . Monitoring and Evaluation Requirements .............. 242 

Monitoring Process ................................... 242 

Evaluation Process ...................................... 343 

Monitoring Plan by Resource ......................... 245 

VI . Glossary ...................................... 258 

VI1 . Index ........................................ 293 

Appendixes ........................................ 298 

AppendixA-ResourcePlans ................................. 298 

Appendix B - Research and Technical Data Needs ............. 307 

Appendix C - TentativeTen-YearTimber Sale Action Plan ............. 312 

iv 
VICINITY MAP 

Inyo National Forest 

INYO NATIONAL 

Forest Uses 

V 
CHAPTER I 
CHAPTER I. Introduction 

Purpose of the Forest Plan 

The purpose of the Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan is 

to provide integrated, rrmltiple T~SOUTCB management drrecticol for all Forest 

resources for the next decade (1988-1997). The Plan has been developd 

through a p1armi.q and envirarmwtal analysis process that is documented in 

the a-ing- tal Impact Statement (EIS) . This Plan details the 

Preferred Alt-tive analyzed in the EIS. 

The Plan prescribes mgaent direction for the most suitable canbination of 

management practices, sets ten- to fifteen-- objectives, provides for the 

mtiple use and sustained yield of gods and services, "izes long-term 

net public benefits, ~oposes enviromtally sound management, and respnds 

to major public issues and managmt czo"s. 

In September 1984 congress designated the Mmo Basin National Forest Scenic 

Area which enompasses approximately 116,000 acres of land within the Inyo 

National Forest boundary. Resource and developnent planning for the Sc5-u~ 

Area is being conducted in a separate planrug process. The new 

canprehensive Management Plan for the Scenic Area will be incowrated into 

the Forest Plan. 

Relationships with Other Environmental Documents 

The Plan will supersede all existing plans for individual resources or land 

units. These existing plans will be treated in one of three ways: (1) 

inwrprated into the Plan without revision, (2) ixorprated with direction 

to be revised or updated, or (3) replaced by the Plan. See Appendix A for 

the list. 

In addition to replacing and/or inmrprating earlier plans, the Plan calls 

for the developnent of several resource implementation plans during the 

caning decade. 

The Plan and its Environmatal Impact Statement will sme as mbrella 

docsuments for all future planning on the Inyo. Wst mdividual projects will 

still require an environmental analysis before implementation, but these will 

be tiered to the EX. For those projects that require additional analysis, 

only that information needed for site-specific decisions will be addressed. 

Those new planing requirements are listed in Appndix A. 

Plan Implementation 

The Final Plan incorporates many of the Corments received fm the public in 

response to review of the Draft Plan. The Final Plan and hvi-ental 

Impact Statement will be approved with a Record of Decision signed by the 

Regional Forester. The approved Plan will becane effective m less than 

1 
thirty days after publication in the Federal Register of a Nokce of 

Availability of the Final EIS. When that process is mnplete, direction in 

the Plan will be inplmated. 

Implementation of the Plan will man a change fm current manag-t 

direction, includjng the annual budget and objective ~nograms, to reflect 

resou~ce aphsis shifts. Current management is represented by the No Action 

Alternative (CUR) in the Ek"mm tal Impact Statement; the Plan prcgram is 

represented by the Preferred Alternative (PRF). cllapter 111, Sumnary of the 

Mysis of the Manag ement Situation, canpares both prcgrans. 

Plan managmat direztl 'on is described in chapter IV. In some cases, new 

activities are Koposed; in others, dinxtl 'on calls for a &age fran current 

managmat. In the former case, proposed actims can begin imnediately. In 

the latter, a prid of adjustmnt may be needed. 

Changes in management direction will be inplemented through the annual 

bumeting and work planning processes. These pmcesses allow for adjus-ts 

to reflect current priorities. The degee to which this Plan will be 

implemented depends to a large extent on the appropriation of funds by 

mss and allocation to the Forest th?xugh bum& procedures. 

When the Plan is inplemented, subject to valid exis- rights, all 

outstandirag and future permits, contxacts, cooperative agreements, and other 

i"ents for Forest land use and occupancy will conform to the Plan. The 

Plan will be used by the Forest to direct management activities in 

mjunction with other documents that provide plicy directi on. These 

include Forest S&ce Manuals and Handhooks and the Pacific Southwest 

Regional Guide. Direction fm these other sources is repeated in the Plan 

only where it is necessary for purposes of errrphasis. 

The National Forests are managed under a variety of federal laws which are 

documented in the code of F-al Regulatims (CFR). All Forest S&ce 

activities must adhere to these laws. 

Amendments, Revisions, and Appeals 

At intervals specified in chapter V, Mxatoring and Evaluation, Forest 

activities will be molitored to determine whether the goals and objectives of 

the Plan are bemg met. The Plan can be amended at any tlme if mmitorirg 

results indicate that it is needed. An am"t will require an 

envircovnental analysis to detennjne whether the amendment represents a 

significant change fran the Plan. If the change is significant, preparation 

of an miz"En tal Impact Statement and formal public irnrolvement are 

required. If mt, the kind of public irrvolvement and the documentation that 

is needed will be by the type and magnitude of the proposed 

change. 

The Plan will ordinarily be revised every ten years or at most every fifteen 

years. Revision may also be propxed in the interim if conditiuns have 

changed enough to affect Forest-wide prcgams set forth in the Plan. A Plan 

revision always rquires a change to this tal Impact Statement, 
mcorpratiq public involvement procedures as required by the National 

Envrronmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

The Rez~~.cmal Forester's decision to approve the Plan and its nnrironmen tal 

Impact Statement is Subject to the public's rights of a&inistrative appeal. 

preliminary precess decisions are not subject to appeal [See 36 CFR 

211.18(b)(ll)]. 

Plan Organization 

The Plan is organized into chapters as follows: 

Chapter I. Jnizducticm. Thls chapter describes the purpose of the Plan, 

its relationship with other plans and envimnmntal documents, haw it will be 

implemented, and procedures for amendment and revision. 

Chapter 11. Issues and UHlCerns. This chapter Sumnarizes the issues and 

concerns that were identified in this planning mss on the Inyo National 

Forest and discusses the ways in which the Plan respcolds to those issues and 

CoIICems. 

chapter 111. SLmnary Analysis of the Mwaganen t Situation. This chapter 

describes Forest resoucces in terms of current direction, the opgmrhmities 

for charge, supply and demand, and the Plan's manag-t emphasis for each 

resource. 

UIapterIv. This chapter describes in detail haw the 

Forest wlll be managed during this pl- period. This lncludes Goals, 

Objectives, Forest-wide Standards and Wdelines that will be applied when 

managing each resource, Management F'rexn 'ptions that give specific direction 

for enphasizmg ind~.vi&al resources, and Managanent Area Direction. The 

Forest is divided into twenty management areas. Each area has a different 

set of manag-t prescriptions that apply to it, and each has specific 

direction. Map of each area with prescription baundaries are lncluded in 

this chapter. 

Chapter V. Monitcning and Evaluation. This chapter describes and schedules 

the activities that will be needed to -tor and evaluate the Plan's 

direction considering outputs, ObJeCtiVeS, and en-tal impacts. 

chapter VI. Glossary. 

ManagElRxl t Direction. 

ChapterVII. Index. 

Appenaix A: Resource Plans 

pspenclix B: 

Appenaix C: 

Research Needs and Technical Data Needs 

Tentative Ter-Year Timber Sale Action Plan. 

3 
CHAPTER I1 

Gordon Wdfs,e 

- Issues an Concerns- 
CHAPTER 11. Issues and Concerns 

Introduction 

This chapter discusses the issues and cmxen~~ that were identified in the 

original public involvement precess for this Plan. Public issues and 

special aqhasis in Forest p1anwh-g. The issues and ccolcerns collectively 

indicate the scope and nature of the analysis needed for the Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

The Irryu National Forest identified public issues by interactirg with 

mdividuals and organizations that expressed interest in this planning 

process. Management wncems of the Forest Service include me fm 

national, regional, and Forest levels. The Final Plan was develop3 in 

response to comnents received on the Draft Plan, suhtted to the public for 

review in October 1986. Forest Service respco7ses to these comnents are 

displayed in the Public Response Appmd~~ ' in the hvixonmntal Impact 

Statement Appendix document. 

Not all public issues and management co"s related to Inyo National Forest 

managextent are appropriate for inclusion in this p1anru.q process. Those 

that have been selected for consideration address wncems that can be 

resolved by the Forest Service at the Inyo National Forest level, rquire 

land allocation decisicms or broad management direction, have long-term 

importance, and have not been resolved in other recent decisions that were 

made with significant public involvement. 

Each selected issue or wncem is representative of public cantent, 

legislation or litigation decisions, manag-t evaluatmn of resoconflicts, or supply and demand analyses. In mt cases, both the public and 

managenent have expressed interest m each general resource subject. Issues 

and cc"s have, therefore, been consolidated and identified as 

"issue/concems". 

Tlus chapter only displays those issues and mcems that were identified 

prior to distribution of the Draft Forest Plan. he carments that were 

received in respcolse to the Draft Plan are mrprated in the public 

Respcolse pppendix and are answered in detail by the Forest Service m that 

document. 

management COXSXnS are -'tS Of MtLlral =Source IlBnagelliSlt that dve 

Forest Plan Response to Original Issues and Concerns 

The follcmng list represents those public issues and managmt mcems 

that were identified in the original public involvement scoping process. 

Public issue/concems are indicated by (p); -managelliSlt by (m). The Forest 

Service respsnses are located in the documents as noted. Econarcic and social 

issue/concerns are addressed first, followed by natural resoissue/concerns. 

4 
Economic Assessment 

1ssue/Calcern: How can the Forest proauce gooas and services to " ' 'ze 

eooMmic efficiency? 

- Thoroughly disms discount rates and value of "-market gwxk and 

sernces slniing the possibilities of different results under diffewlt 

==wti- (P) 

~ay can long-term and short-term ecananic benefits be balanced? (p) 

(Ecca" 'c Analysis of the Managmt Situation) 

- 

(EIS CAapterS 11, IV) 

- Do Forest Service help maintain e"ic stability and employment 

inlocal caT"ities? (p) 

(EIS Chapters 111, VI) 

~espanse: The analysis of Farest Plan alternatives emphasizes 1q-term cost 

efficency and the maintenance of ecananic stability for recreation-based 

Eastern Sierra cannunities. 

Social Assessment 

Issue/cOnCern: 

the local social environmnt and lifestyle? 

- Which s-ts of the population and which "unities might be *acted 

by Forest management policy? (m) 

HOW does the management Of the InyO Naticml Forest influenCe 

(EIS Chapters 111, IV) 

- Where dces the Forest have an influence on the public and cxnnnmity? (m) 

(EIS Chapters 111, IV) 

Respanse : The relationship of Inp National Forest activities to local. 

groups is inlztducd in Chapter 111 of the EIS and the wnsequences of 

different alternatives on thDse groups is detailed in Chapter IV of the EIS. 

The Plan respcolds to the identified needs of key social groups. 

-- Air Quality 

Issue/Concem: 

- Dust, &e, and regional haze are the & serious air quality problems 

What can the Forest do to influence air quality? 

on and near the Forest. (m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Ckndelines, Plan Chapter IV) 

Resporw2 : The Forest-wide Standards and Ckndelines direct ocmpliance with 

state and federal procedural requirements, and coordination of Forest Service 

activities with the Air Pollution control District. The Forest will work 

with permittees and contxactors to meet air quality standards. 

5 
Cultural Resources 

Issue/-: How should the Forest manage cultural resoucces and provide 

for the use of Forest lands by American Irxhans for traditional practices? 

- Archaeolcgical sites should be inventoried and protected, including 

restricticols on mtorized access. (p) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan Chapter IV) 

- Native American religious and Ceremsnial sites should remain inviolate. 

(PI (Forest-mde Standards and Guidelines, Plan Chapter IV) 

- Cultural resource interpretive actrvlties on the Forest are very well 

attended. (PI (Forest-wide Standards and Guidelmes, Plan Chapter IV) 

- Local American Indians wish to use Forest land for trahticmal cultural 

and religious practices. (p) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelmes, Plan chapter IV) 

- There is a need to effectxvely integrate the managmt of cultural 

resouTces mth the management of other resources. (m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidel-, Plan Chapter IV) 

Response : The Forest-mde Standards and Guidelines mlude &rection that 

respond to expressed ~0”s. The -is IS on -lying with state and 

federal law in an efficient and effective manner, provlduag for public 

€rIJOyment and understanding of cultuzal values, and cooperating with local 

American Indian groups. 

Diversity 

Issue/Conern: What is a desirable level of vegetative diversity for the 

Inyo National Forest, and what should the Forest do to maintain or achleve 

that level? 

- Manage ~t~al forces (such as insects, disease, and fire) to maintain 

diversity in the long term wiule nurunuzirg the disruptive effects of 

those forces in the sbrt term. (m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Prescripticols, Plan Chapter IV) 

Respond to the demand for land uses (such as hydroelectric and geothermal 

developnents, road and utility corridzs, mqqmmds, timber manag-t, 

and mineral extraction) that threatm to reduce diversity. (m) 

(Forest Objectives, FOESt-mde Standards and Guidelines, PreSCriptiOnS, 

- 

Plan Chapter IV). 

- Riparian areas and coniferous forests suitable for timber managmt have 

the greatest potential diversity and are the mst threatened by manag-t 

activities. (m) 

( Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan cllapter IV) 

6 
- Full cimtrol of wildfires reduces diversity. (m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Prescriptions, Plan Chapter IV) 

Respcnse: Managenlent- ’on in the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines 

and h-escriptians guides vegetative managcmsnt so that seral stage diversity 

and special habitat elements are majntained or enhanced. Output tables in 

the Forest Objectives indicate the degree to which the Forest is respdhg 

to the demand for land uses that could affect dimity. 

Energy 

Issue/Cc”: How does energy developwnt fit in with the overall resoucce 

manag-t -am on the Forest? Geo”al energy 1s addressed under 

Mlnerals . 

- Resolve cxmflicts between hydroelectric projects and water-dependent 

resources. (p & m) 

( Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan chapter IV) 

- Resolve potential conflicts between wind farms and visual resources, soil 

stability, and other land uses. (m) 

(Fore&-Wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan chapter IV) 

- Keep enezgy developnent consistent with other resources, allowing ra 

irreparable damage. (p) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan chapter IV) 

- Encourage I.rya-roelectric use outside wilderness and Further Planning Areas. 

(P) 

(Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan chapter IV) 

- Consider energy resources such as wind, solar, wood fuel. (p) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan chapter IV) 

Respmse : The Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines acknowledge the principle 

of treat- energy prcducticm as a Forest resoume, while establishing the 

limits to which such developnent can acceptably affect other resources and 

env-tal values. 

Facilities 

Is.sue/Canzern: 

to Support Forest manag-t objectives? 

- 

What level of facility construction and maintenance is needed 

Eliminate the bacMog of building and utility maintenance to meet health 

andsafetycodes. (m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan chapter IV) 

- provide for the expansion of adhninistrative facilities where needed. (m) 

(Forest Objedives, Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan Chapter 

Iv) 

7 
- There is a need for a materials manageiwnt and developnent plan. (m) 

(zlppendix A, Plan) 

- There is a need to coordinate with 1- fire districts when plstzuctural developnentS on the Forest. (m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan Chpter IV) 

- De- ’ the feasible mass transit options on the Forest. (m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan chapter IV) 

- There is a need for mre roads for recreatimal access. (p) 

(Forest objectives, Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Prescriptions, 

Managemnt Area Direction, Plan chapter IV) 

- There is a need to reduce ma& to prevent -tal damage. (p) orest st-wide Standards and Guidelines, Managemstkt Area Direction, Plan 

chapter IV) 

- c3nwtrUc.t roads only where - tal damage can be ”Lzed. (p) 

( Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan chapter IV) 

- There is a need to regularly examine agreements between the Forest Service. 

and Inyo and Mono Counties regard.3-g the maintenance. of roads that ccme 

under both jurisdictions. (m) 

(Forest-mde Standards and Guidelines, Plan chapter IV) 

- There is a need for more trails and better maintenance of existing trails. 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Managmt Area Direction, Plan 

(P & m) 

chapter IV) 

- The need for trails specifically includes nordic skiing, hilcing, OW, and 

handicapped-access trails. (p & m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Prescriptions, Plan chapter IV) 

- There is a need to locate, design, and oonstxuct trails to provide the 

desired expsrience while minimizing resource dmage. (p & m) 

( Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan chapter IV) 

- The need for new trails is greatest in mmtrated recreation use areas 

and nordic ski areas. (m) 

(Prescript”, Plan Chapter IV) 

Response : Managwent direction throughout the Plan addresses facility 

developnent. The Forest Objectives indicate total miles of road and trail and 

numb=r of adninistrative facilities projected for construction. The 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines address maintenance and construction 

priorities and measures needed to protect soil, water, vegetation, and other 

resources. Managwent Prescriptions describe the kinds of facxlities needed 

and set limits on the kinds allowed under the specified managemnt emphasis. 

Managwent Area Direction deals with site-specific oonsiderations. 

8 
Issue/Carern: How should fish habitat on the Inyo National Forest be 

manag&? 

- protect stream habitat fm grazing, reGIeation develmt, and water 

diversions. (p) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Prescriptions, Plan Chapter IV) 

- Improve stream habitat quality for resident trout. (m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Prescriptims, Plan Chapter IV) 

- Meet the increasiq demand for fi-. (m) 

(EIS Chapters 111, IV; Forest Objectives Plan, Chapter IV 

- Assure population viability of all resident fish Species. (p) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan Chapter IV) 

- Protect lands ' streams and lakes with the potential for 

classification as wild bmut waters. (p) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan chapter IV) 

- Address the inpact of snall hydro developnent on fisheries. (m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan Chapter IV, EIS Chapters 

111, IV) 

- Manage habitat for the recwery of threatened Paiute and Lahontan 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Managemat Area Prescriptions, 

cutthroat trout. (p & m) 

Plan Chapter IV) 

Response : The FOrest-wide Standards and Guidelines address the ways in which 

adverse effects on fish habitat can be "ked. They establish the need to 

manage for the recwery of threatened trout. Managemat prescriptim and 

Management Area Dire3Lon address fish habitat restoration and/or enhancement 

opprtunities. Chapter I11 of the EIS identifies pmjeded demand for 

fishing; output tables in the Forest Objectives (Plan, chapter IV) indicate 

the degree to which the Iny~ will try to met that demand. chapters I11 and 

IV of the EIS analyze the effects of various alternatives on fish habitat. 

Further Planning Areas 

Issue/rXmce~~ 

- There is a need for mre wilderness. (p) 

How should Flrther Planning Areas on the Forest be managed? 

(EIS Chpters 11, IV, and pppendur . C) 

- There is m need for mre or mt much mre wilderness. (p) 

(EIS Chapters 11, IV, and Appendix C) 

- Consider watershed values when ' wilderness. (p) 

(EIS Appendix C) 

9 
Resist the pressure frun -try to hmdiately "road" tbse areas made 

available for mn-wilderness uses by the California Wilderness Act (thus 

precludkg possible future wilderness -tions). (p) 

(Prescription #17, Plan Chapter IV) 

Resist the pressure frun wilderness advocacy groups to manage 

non-wildemess areas as "de facto" wilderness. (p) 

(Prescriptxon, Plan Chapter IV) 

Make well-considered -tiom for the wilderness or mn-wildemess 

managmt of Further P1anrrh-g Areas. Consider the suitability and 

manageability of each area for wilderness and the trade-offs between 

wilderness designation and other resources and activities. (m) 

(EIS Chapters 11, IV, and IIppendlix C) 

There is a need to mrdinate Inyu National Forest wildemess 

reccmnendatims with BIM reccmnendatiolls for adjoining lands. (m & p) 

(EIS Chapter 11) 

Response : A detailed analysis of mdividual Further Planning Areas in terms 

of wilderness and non-wilderness values is documented in Appendix C of the 

EIS. A raqe of wilderness remmnendations, rqiq frun all wilderness to 

IM new wildemess, is displayed in the BenchmKks and Alternatives described 

in Chapter I1 of the EIS. The overall effects of various alternatives on 

Further Planning Areas on the Forest disCuSSed II~ Chapter IV of the EIS. 

Effects on individual areas are discussed in ' C of the EIS. 

Prescription #17 enphasizes retairh-g the Semi-primitive character of an 

area. other prescriptims allow for the c"ction of roads for various 

purposes. There are m roads scheduled for construction during ths planning 

period in Further P1amu-q Areas. 

Plan wildemess nxammdabons are preliminary achuustrative 

rwm"hiaons that mll receive further renew and possible modification by 

the Chief of the Forest Service, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the 

President of the United States. Fmal decisions on wilderness designation 

are made by Gmgress. 

Geology 

Issue/Concem: what is the role of geologic resources and services in the 

overall Forest manag€"t nog gram? 

- is a potential demand for gruundwater as a hstic water so- for 

"mth Lakes. (m) 

(EIS Chapters 111, IV) 

- There is a need to assess groundwater resources on a Forest-wide basis. 

(m) 

(Plan pppendur A) 

10 
- There is a need to remgnize and make allowance for the risk to planned 

Forest projeds posed by geologic precesses such as landslides, 

earthquakes, and volcanic events. (m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan Chapter IV) 

- There is a need to protect outstandrng . geologic features that are 

vulnerable to damage or destructicol. (p & m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan Chapter IV) 

Response : The possible need for hxest~ 'c groLmdwater in the Mamnoth Lakes 

area is discussed in Chaptas I11 and IV of the EIS. The need to assess 

groundwater supplies and to protect those geologic features that are 

candidates for Special Interest Areas are identified in the Forest-wide 

Standards and Guidelines. The need to consider risks frun geologic processes 

is handled in the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines. 

Lands 

Isme/-: What land use and landawllershl 'p adjusbmnt policies and 

pr"s are needed to respcold both to local crmnunity needs and to the 

demands of regional and national publics? 

- Should National Forest lands adjacent to grcnVirag Ccmrmnities be available 

(through excharge) for private devellopnent ~nograms? (m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan chapter IV) 

- As the Mammth and June Lake cnmumities expand, there is an increasing 

demand to locate camnmity dce facilities on public land under special 

use pxmit. (m) 

(FO&-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan Cham IV) 

- Electric energy ccmveyors have expressed their need for a future utility 

corridor paralleling the major north-south interstate Pacific Dc Intertie 

transnission line. (m) 

(Farest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan U~~pter W) 

Respcmse : Wiorities for land acquisition, land disposal, special use 

mts, rights-of-way, and utility corridors are established in the 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines. 

Minerals 

Issue/carern: Hm can the Forest best mineral (includjng 

geothermal) exploration and developnent while protecting surface resource 

values and other lard Uses? 

- To what extent should National Forest land be available for geoth"l 

exploration ami power plant developnent? (p) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan Chapter IV) 

11 
What effects would geothermal developnent have on the -tand on 

the recreational attractions that mpprt the local . (P G. m) 

(EIS Chapter IV) 

What are the long-term effects on surface resources and on groundwater of 

r-q geothennal fluids? (p & m) 

(Plan Fppendix B) 

Consider the impact of additimal wilderness and/or additional mineral 

withdrawals on mineral activities. (p) 

There is a need to address the impads of mineral exploration and 

developnent on surfaca resources such as visual quality, soil stability, 

vegetation, and wilderness values. (m) 

(EIS chapter IV) 

(EIS Chapter IV) 

ResFnmse : The ForeSt-wide S- and Guidelines eStabllsh the to 

which nunera1 activities can acceptably affect other resources. The analysis 

of potential effects of mineral activity on other resources and the effects 

of plamirg alternatives (includirg wilderness remmmdations) on 

activities is documented in Chap- IV of the EX. Manag-t Frescriptions 

and Managment Area Direction in Chapter IV of the Plan set specific 

standards and guidelines for mineral activity under different manag-t 

emphases and on specific areas of land. 

Pest Management 

Issue/-: what is the appropriate pest managanent strategy for the 

IW? 

- It is desirable to use cultural, biological, or mecham 'Cal mntr0lS 

instead of chemical pesticides. (p) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan Chapter N, EIS Chapter 111) 

Respcmse : T~B Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines set guidelines for the 

ch~ice of pest manag-t techniques. 

Protection 

Issue/collcern: what is the appropriate fire managenat stxategy for the 

InyO? 

- Allow natural fires to bum in approFoiate areas. (p) 

(Prescriptions, Plan Chapter IV) 

- There is a need to deteme the most cost-effective fire organization for 

the Inyc National Forest, depending largely on the cabmation of fire 

suppression strategies imple"t&. (m) 

(Prescriptions, Plan Chapter IV) 

12 
Requlse: TheManagement prescxiptions prwide for the suppression 

strategies of omfixnment or ccsltairment to be applied where life, property 

and resource values would not be adversely affected; detailed guidelines for 

fire suppression will be developed as part of the Fire Management Action 

Plan. 

Range 

Issue/Ck”: How should the Inyo balance the needs of the -e prcgram 

(- ‘c livestock and wild horses and burins) with the need to protect 

and/or @E. other resources? 

- ~ull fire mtml contributes to declinjrg range forage outputs. (p) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Prescriptions, Plan Chapter N) 

- Cattle overgraze riparian areas and key wildlife wintering and faareas, resulting in increased erosion and loss of vegetation for forage 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Prescriptions, Management Area 

Direction Plan, Chapter N) 

and -. (P) 

- The grazing prcgram should not be reduced or prevented fran increasing a 

a result of the issues listed above. (p) 

(Forest Objectives Plan, Chapter N) 

- How many animals are appropriate for a wild horse or burro mnagement 

territory. How is the rqe resource equitably apportioned to wild horses 

and burros, native wildlife, and danesla ‘c livestock? (p) 

(Chapter I, exi- plans are inmrporated, and Qqem3.x ’ A) 

- There are many factors 1imiti.q the ability of the Forest to meet the 

President’s target for red meat prcduction (46 percent increase over 

specified base level). (m) 

(EIS Chapters I11 and IV) 

Response: The Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Managmt 

Prescriptions, and Manag-t Area Direction in Chapter IV of the Plan 

address the degree to which 1ivestoC)c grazing will be modified to protect 

other resources. Chapter I11 of the EIS discusses the limit* factors with 

regard to the range resource. The full range of fire suppression strategies 

is considered appropriate for lands with a range tnanag-t emphasis. 

Most wild horse and burro herds are managed under plans that have been 

developed with significant public invol~t. There is one additional plan 

to be develOpea on the Forest. 

Recreation 

Isw/collcern: What is the best recreational opp3rtunity prcgram for the 

Inyo (considering supply, demand, other resource management and developcent 

opprtunities, and ernrirmrmental proteticm needs)? 

13 
- Recreation developwnt is of con- to many people, and of vital conto some, especially to 1- area residents. (p) 

(EIS Chapters I1 and IV, Forest Objecbves, Plan Chapter IV) 

- The public is collectively mterested in the entire range of developwnt 

options. (p) 

(EIS Chapter I, Forest-mde Standards and Guidelines, Prescriptions, 

Plan Chapter IV) 

- The resource values that attract recreationists to %s area are extremly 

important and should rarely be canprarused. (p & m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Prescriptions, Management Area 

Direction, Plan Chapter IV) 

- The public is dissatisfied with the reduced use seasons and deterioratmg 

facilities they have encountered in recent years. (p & m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan Chapter IV) 

- The supply of Overnight facilities is falling behind demand. (m) 

(EIS Chapter 111, Forest Objectives, Plan Chapter IV) 

- Day use facilities, such as trails and intemetive sites, are 

mfficient to meet needs. (m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Prescriptions, Plan Chapter Iv) 

- There are major potential wnflicts between recreational developnents and 

mall hydroelectric developat, gedhemal developwnt, and timber 

harvest in the red fir forest east of San Joaquin Ridge. (m) 

(EIS Chapter IV, Prescriptions, Plan Chapter IV) 

- Should more land be made avalable imnetfiately for added alpine ski area 

capacity? (P) 

(Wescriptiom, Managwent Area Direction, Plan Chapter IV) 

- Alpme ski area potential should not be canpranised by other management 

activities on identified potential ski areas until the demand for skiing 

begins to level off. (m) 

(Prescriptions, Management Area Direction, Plan Cbpter IV) 

- Alpine ski areas have lmpacts on visual quality, soil stability, water 

quality and quanbty, transprtation pattems, safety, the 1- 

ccmnunity, andl-ppattems. (m) 

(EIS chapter IV, Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Prescriptions, 

Plan Chapter Iv) 

- camrunity growth in respnse to increased alpine skiing could negatively 

affect s"er recreation sites on Forest lands near grming rxmnunities. 

(m) (EIS Chapter IV) 

- There is a need for more oprtumties for OHV use. (p) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Wdelmes, Prescripbom, Managemnt Area 

Direction, Plan Chapter IV) 

14 
- There is a need for mre restriction on OW use. (p) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, prescriptions, Managenent Area 

Direction, Plan Chapter IV) 

- Rwe OW routes fran -itive areas. (p) 

(Forest-mde Standards and Guidelines, Managetent Area Direct~on, Plan 

Chapter IV) 

Response : The demand for recreation on the Inyo and the concerns of local 

residents for the recreation prcgram are discussed in Chapter I11 of the 

EIS. Chap- I1 of the EIS explores a wide raqe of recreational developwnt 

options. Chapter IV of the EIS documents the analysis of irrpMcts on 

recreation by other resources and activities. The Forest Objectives in 

Chapter IV of the Plan display pjectea recreation outputs by type over the 

planning period. Management direcb 'on in the Plan provides for the 

protection of recreation values and for a broad and &verse raqe of 

develop3 and dispersed s"sr and Winter recreation opprhmities. 

Research Natural Areas 

Issue/-: What atribution shDuld the Inyo make to the M~XOM~ and 

regional systems of Research Natural Areas (RNAs)? 

- Research Natural Areas should he identified and established. (m & p) 

(EIS Chap- 111, FOrest-wi& Standards and Guidelines, Plan chapter IV) 

- The Inyo sbould &ixm the fact that all botanical RNA targets assigned 

to the Forest have ken met. (m) 

(EIS Cham 111) 

Response : Chapter I11 of the EIS displays the r-qional Research Natural Area 

targets for the Inyo and shows how these taryets have been met. The 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines call for the establishment of 

recormended Research Natural Areas. 

Riparian Areas 

Issue/conCern: What is the significance of riparian areas on the Forest, and 

kw &uld riparian area-depenaent resources be maintained, enhanced, and/or 

restored? 

- MaintainandjncEax? riparian vegetation. (p) 

(Forest-wide Standards ad Guidelines, Plan Cham IV) 

- Livestock grazing, recreation, and water diversion have impacts on 

riparian areas. (p) 

(EIS Chapter IV, Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan Chapter IV) 

- hergy developnents, mal activities, and timber harvest represxmt 

actual or potential conflicts with riparian area-demt resources. (m) 

(EIS Chapter IV, Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan apt= IV) 

15 
- Accelerated erosion in wet meadows (includirag active streamhanks and 

channel degradation) is of special "cam. These problems are mxt 

severe in the white Mountains and on the Kem Plateau. (m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Management Area Direction, Plan 

chapter IV) 

- The Current plicy of full wildfire control prevents the use of unplanned 

ignitions to eliminate wcdy vqetation enumachirg on wet me-. (m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, prescriptiuns, Managanent Area 

Directim, Plan Chapter IV) 

Response: Chapter IV of the EIS documents the analysis of the erd"m tal 

consequences of Various activities on riparian areas. The Forest-wide 

Standards and Guidelines and Managanent Frescriptions in chapter IV of,% 

Plan provide specific measures for the protection of riparian areas. 

Manag-t Area DMim highlights --specific riparian area protection 

or restoration needs. 

Sensitive Plants 

Issue/O" Haw should the Forest manage %bitat for sensitive plant 

species? 

- aotect threatened and endangered species. (p) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan Chapter IV) 

- Consider the effects of Forest managanent on all native plant species. (p) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan Chapter IV) 

- What is the best overall approach to managjng the sensitive plant program? 

(m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan Chapter IV) 

- How should potentztal conflicts between the needs of sensitive plants and 

other resources and actztmties be mitigated? (m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Gclldelines, Plan Chaptex IV) 

Response : The impacts of altemahves on sensitive plants are discussed in 

Qlapter IV Of the EIS; standards and gUi&llneS for p"te&chg sensitive 

plant habitat are found in the Forest-mde Standards and Guidelines. 

Special Interest Areas 

Issue/Co": Should the Forest consider establishkq any additional 

Special Interest Areas? 

- Establish special areas to protect archaeological sites, threatened and 

endangered species, botanical, geological, and visual quality areas. (p) 

(EIS Chapter 111) 

16 
- The Forest is directed to identify candidates for geologic Special 

Interest Areas. The Inyo has marry outstanding geologic features. (m) 

- The Forest needs to evaluate National Natural Landmark ncminees nop posed 

by the Department of Interior and to consider naninating other outstar&@ 

features on the Forest for National Natural Landmark listing. (m) 

(Plan pppendix A) 

(EIS Chapter 111) 

Response : The subject of evaluating candidates for National Natural Lanchnark 

listing is discussed in Chapter 111 of the EIS. Geologic Special Interest 

area candidates are also listed there. The need to evaluate and reccmnend 

selected Special Interest Area candidates and National Natural Landnark 

noninees is identified in the Forest-wide S- and Guidelines. 

Timber 

Issue/conCern: What is the best balance between tmbr (mcludirg fuelwood) 

productian, other resource managemat and developllent oppxhmities, and 

envimmtal protection needs? 

- Establish a regulated forest to meet lc?ng-~ sustained yield on all 

avalable, suitable timber land. (m) 

(aescripticols, Plan Chapter IV) 

- Integrate silvicultural practices with other resource values. (p & m) 

(Prescriptions, Plan chapter IV) 

- Determine the size of the "aged timber base, res0lvj.r~~ conflicts between 

timber and other resources. (m) 

(Prescriptions, Plan cllapter IV) 

- Provide public-use fuelwood to meet demand. (p) 

(Forest Objectives, Plan chapter IV) 

- Mamtain the opprhmity for active managerent of pinyon-juniper. (p & m) 

- Consider the conflict between public fuelwood gathering and other values 

such as wildlife habitat and unique or outstanding vegetation types. (m) 

(Prescriptions, Plan Chapter IV) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan Chapter IV) 

Respcmse : The assignment of Managemat PreSQ-iptions in the Plan resolves 

conflicts between timber and other resources, establishes the size of the 

managed .t;lmber base, and provides for a regulated forest on lands with a 

prmaq timber -is. The content of those prescriptions integrates 

silvicultural practices with other resowce values. 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines deal with potential ocolflicts between 

fuelwood cutting and other resource values. The output tables for Forest 

Objectives in Chapter IV of the Plan lndicate projected fuelwood outputs over 

the planning period. None of the proposed Managmt Prescriptions would 

preclude future opportunities for active pinyon-juniper management. 

17 
Visual Resources 

Issue/ccolcern: What role dces vlsual quality play in the overall resource 

management program, and kcm can that quality be protected and enhanced? 

- Maintain and manage for visual quality. (p) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Prescriptions, Plan Chapter IV) 

- Resolve conflicts between visual quality and other resources. (m) 

(prescriptions, Plan Chapter IV) 

- Maintam or enhance current visual resoucces and scenic attractions. (m) 

(prescriptions, Plan Chapter IV) 

ResFCnse : The Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines set the stage for 

managwent of visual resources. Each management prescription includes an 

assigned Visual Quality Objective (W). 

Watershed 

Issue/Ccncxn: How should the Forest re@ to the needs for water quality, 

increased water yields, water rights for Forest resource management, and 

healthy watershed cor&tion? 

- Soil proauctivlty is declinirag. (m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan Chapter IV) 

- There is a need tn rehabilitate damaged or deteriorated watersheds. (m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Management Area Direction, Plan 

Chapter IV) 

watersheds. (m) - Adopt policies in timber management, grazing, and recreation that enhance 

(Prescriptxons, Plan Chapter IV) 

- There is a lack of legal "L 'm for obtainkg water rights for 

"wptive water uses (those demt on water in place). (m) 

(EIS Chap- 111) 

- There is a public demand for mre water yield and avalability. (p & m) 

(EIS Chapters I1 and 111) 

- There is ccnptition between wrsmqtive and "mmptive water uses. 

(m) 

Response : The Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines establish clirech 'on that 

address the lq-term prductivity of the soil, water quality, watershed 

rehabilitation needs, and the need for lnstseam flow to supprt 

"mptive uses. Management Prescriptions lndicate the. watershed 

management direction anpatible with different manag-t aphases. 

Managwent Area Direction hghlights priority watershed improvement needs. 

Chapter I11 of the EIS discusses the questmn of water rights for 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan cllapter IV) 

18 
nomnsunptive uses. Chapter 111 also discusses opprhmities to increase 

water yield. The "nn water yield bencznnark presented in hpter 11 

&splays the maxi" potential to increase yield. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Issue/Ccncenx What reamwdakcns sbuld the Forest make for the 

manag-t of candidate wild and scenic rivers? 

- Potential additions to the wild and Scenic rivers system should mt be 

threatened. (p) 

(Prescripticns, Plan Chapter IV) 

- Preserve free-flowing rivers unspoiled in their mal state and consider 

for wild and scenic rivers system. (p) 

(Prescripticms, Plan Chapter IV) 

- Assess candidate rivers for inclusion in the wild and scenic rivers 

system. (m) 

(EIS Chapter 11) 

RespZmse : The Plan assesses the wild and s-c river candidate on the 

Forest and recomnends it for desiption. This is a prelinunary 

administrative recomnendation that will &ve further review and pssible 

mdification by the Chief of the Forest Service, Secretary of Agriculture, 

and the President of the WM States. Cmgnsss has the authority to 

designate rivers to the Naticmal Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

The Managment PreSQiption for wild and scenic rivers applies to the 

recQrmended wild and scenic river, thus protecting it until final 

designation. EIS Chapter I1 discusses the reasons that the Forest applies 

this prescription to the same river secpents in all alternatives. 

Wilderness 

~ssue/ccmcern: 

wilderness on the Forest? 

Is there any need for change in the managmt of designated 

- Examine existing wilderness manag-t plans for consistency and 

respcolsiveness to current cxmditicns. Provide for the needed changes in 

the Plan. (p & m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan Chapter N) 

- There is a need to establish direcb 'on for wildanass designated by the 

California Wilderness Act of 1984. (p & m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan Chapter IV) 

Response : The Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines calls for the examination 

and a"ent of existing plans and the developrent of new plans as needed. 

19 
Wildlife 

Issue/Ccmcern: How, where, and to what degree should wildlife habitat be 

other resource mgemnt and develapnent opprhml 'ties on the Forest? 

- what is a desirable level of diversity, i"t, and distribution of 

maintained and enhanced, and how should wildlife needs be c"3na . tedwith 

wildlife habitat? (p & m) 

(FOreSt-wide Standards and GuidelineS, Plan Chapter IV) 

- what relative -is should be given to habitat for the various wildlife 

species? (p & m) 

( ForeSt-wide Standards and GuidelineS, Plan chapter IV) 

- How should wildlife needs be balanced with the needs of canpting 

resources? (p & m) 

- Nl control of wildfires reduces habitat for wildlife dement on early 

seral stages. (m) 

(Prescriptions, Plan Cnapter IV) 

(Prescriptions, Plan Chapter IV) 

- What cwntributim can management make to the growing demand for 

wildlife-related recreation (hunting and nature study)? 

(EIS Chapter 111, Forest Objectives, Plan Chapter IV) 

- ~eer "hrS have declined over the past twenty to thirty years. (p & m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Prescriptions, Plan Chapter IV, 

pppendix B) 

- The Forest must analyze the apportunites for meeting the 1980 RPA proSram 

goal of increasjng mle deer nunbrs 20 percent. (m) 

(EIS Chapter 11) 

- Sage gmuse populations are declining. (p & m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan Chapter IV) 

- Blue grouse habitat should be ptected. (m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Plan Chapter IV) 

- There is a need to manage emlargered species on the Forest (bald eagle and 

peregrine falcon) for species recwery. (m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and GUldelineS, Plan Chapter IV) 

- How many goshawk nest sites are needed to maintain population viability? 

How many of these sites should be maintained m stands of suitable timber? 

(m) 

(EIS Chapter 11) 

- Sierra Nwada mnmtain sheep should be reintm%ced into historic range. 

(P m) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelmes, Plan chapter IV) 

- The management of Nelson mnmtain sheep should be emphasized. (p) 

(Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Prescriptions, Plan chapter IV) 

20 
- protect habitat for sensitive and special interest species not addressed 

in specific issues or concerns. (m) 

(FOrest-wide Standards and GUidelineS, Plan Chap- IV) 

- Maintain enough snags, down logs, and -all habitat diversity to ensure 

p3pulaticm viability for mag-dependent species. (m) 

(Forest-wide Stanaards and GUidelineS, Plan Chapter IV) 

- The Forest would have difficulty meting the 1980 RPA program goal for 

cavity-nesting birds while meting the RPA timber target. (m) 

(EIS Chapter IV 

- Manage riparian habitat to ensure the viability of riparian-dependent 

wildlife. (p & m) 

- Manage Great Basin shrub habitat types so that the viability of wildlife 

dewt an early seral stages is ensured. (m) 

(ForeSt-Wide Stanaards and Guidelh, Plan Chapter IV) 

( FOreSt-Wide Shldi3Xk and GUidelh, Plan ChaptW IV) 

Resgcrlse : wildlife habitat protation needs are a&ssed by species, or 

group of species, in the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines. The 

interacticm of wildlife needs with other resources is handled in various 

Manag-t Prescriptions. Wuntam sheep and mule deer habitat are the 

primary emphases of two Management Prescriptions. Needed immtnries and 

iniplexntation plans are listed in Appendk A; research needs are listed in 

Appndix B. The demand for hunting is presented in chapter I11 of the EIS, 

and the potential of the Forest to pmvide hunting is analyzed in the 

Benchmarks and Alternatives in chapter 11. The output tables in Forest 

Objectives (Chapter IV of the Plan) Hcate the hunting outputs projected 

for the planning period. problems with meting RPA goals are addressed under 

CansequsnCeS of the RPA Alt-Wve displayed in Chapter IV of the EIS. The 

full range of fire suppression strategies are considered appropriate on many 

Forest lands. 
CHAPTER I11 

Summary Analysis of 

the Management 

Situation 
- CHAPTER 111. Summary of the Analysisof the Management Situation 

Introduction 

This chapter is a “nary of the Analysis of Managment Situation (AMs) 

document. The cmplete AMs has not been reproduced in these planning 

documents, but is in the process records at the Forest Supzvisor‘s office in 

Bishop. The AMs is the preliminary to the Draft Forest Plan. It reviews 

current managanent and its long-range implications, supply and demand 

projections, public issues and management concerns, and opportunities to 

establish or change -tion. The Plan reflects these factors. 

The chapter is dimded into two sections: (1) Social and Ec”u ’C 

~wonments and (2) Resource Bwh”mt. 

Social and Economic Environments 

This section provides a general ovennew of the mial and ecamnic factors 

that are relevant to Inyo National Forest managmt. 

Sphere of Economic Influence 

The Inyo National Forest contains 2,046,346 acres. 1,931,115 are in National 

Forest System ownership. These lands are located in seven counties. Five 

counties are 111 California, two 111 Nevada. 

The primary zone of econanic influence for the Inyo National Forest is in 

California‘s Inyo and Nnm Counties. Nearly 85 percent of the Forest lies 

withrn those counties, and mre than 95 percent of the Forest lies within the 

State of Califorma. Ninety percent of Inyo County, the second largest 

county in the state, and mre than 75 percent of IvL3no county are a-stered 

by the fedt-xal government. currently, all timber harvesting conducted by the 

Inyo National Forest and more than 90 percent of recreational activity take 

place in these two counties. Recreational activitxes on the Forest are ’ closely linked to the tourist earany of these counties. 

In contrast, the Forest has a relatively limited ecoxmic impact on the 

California counties of Ware, Madera, and FYem and on the Nevada -ties 

of Mineral and Esmralda. This ecCamnic situation is not expected to change 

in the foreseeable future. 

Residents of Southem California, primarily tbose fm San Diego, Los 

Argeles, Orange, Ventura, Mverside, and San Banxdmo Counties, make heavy 

use of the Forest‘s numerous recreational facilities and resources, such as 

alpme ski areas, campgrounds, and wild-ss. The demand for recreational 

opp3rtunitles by Southern Californians has an ec”6c impact on the Forest 

and on many of the unmunities near the Forest. The impact of the Inyo 

National Forest on Southern California is, however, negligible. 

22 
Population 

Population growth in Inyo and P4n-a Counties &ring the past twu decades has 

been substantial. ”o County grew by mre than 113 percent between 1970 and 

1980. Ws ranked the County second amoq the fastest growing counties in 

the state. This rapid growth rate can be attributed to the recreaticmal 

importance of the Mamnoth Lakes area. 

During the same decade, the Inyo County ppulatim pw 15 percent, lmer 

than the state average of 18 percent. Most of this growth took place in and 

around the ccmmmity of Bislmp, which serves as a service center for the 

twu-county area. Major employers in the area are local, state, and federal 

governments. 

Emdoyment 

The ewrany of the area reflects the importance of recreation, tourism, and 

the public sector. The three employment categories of services, retail 

sales, and govenvnent together accounted for nearly three quarters of the 

total wages and salary for mrkers in 1980. The empl-t base has grmn by 

nearly 75 percent in the past decade. The services and retail sales 

categories have enjoyed healthy eqloyment gains, while government employment 

levels have taped off and recently recorded scme declmees. 

The high unemployment rates Cnmrmly found in tourist-oriented eccomnies are 

found in the Inyo-Mcaro area. Rapid ppulatim growth, a broad- of the 

work force, the lack of di-ificabon in the rural econany, and the 

se- nature of the tourist industry have resulted in unemployment rates 

generally bigher than the state average. 

Role of the Inyo National Forest 

The Forest makes a direct contribution to the area ecancmy -ugh 

expenditures m the private sector, the generatim of jobs, recreatimal 

opprtunities, and payments into county revenues. Forest expenditures for 

payroll and procurements in Fiscal Year 1982 were $8.55 million. 

Payments into county revenues are fm twu sou~ces: Payment in Lieu of Taxes 

and Receipts Act payments. Payment me Lieu of Taxes payments ccmpensate 

counties for the loss of property tax revenues represented by nontaxable 

federal land witlun the county. In 1980, the total Payment in Lieu of Taxes 

payment to counties by the Inyu National Forest was $165,180. 

Receipts Act payrents are based on fees collected for use of Forest lands and 

resources. ’Itrenty-five percent of dollars received by the federal .treasury 

fm activ?ties such as timber sales, special use pennits, and campground 

fees are &stributed through the Forest Service to the counties to offset 

school and road costs. Total Inyo National Forest Receipts Act payments for 

Fiscal Year 1980 munted to $385,003. 

The Forest also provides indirect ecodc henefits to the public by 

supplykg certain gads and Services at prices below established or estimated 

23 
market values. Exanples include cutdoor recreatian 'ti- and FareSt 

lands for the use of carmercial enterprises such as livestock prcduction, 

apiaries, "ral and energy exploration and developnent, and water 

paroauctian. 

Future Trends 

Econanic growth in the area is expected to continue much as it did in the 

1970s, increasing overall. As econmic growth continues, the resident 

population and the pres- for mre semices will increase. Larger 

"mnxities such as June Lake and Lcole Pine will be stimulated to cco7sider 

incapration. Flrhmmre, it IS expected that an increased local 

mation could stabilize the fluctuatirg tourism ewrnny of the 1970s. 

Howarer, unless the "nuriixes actively seek econanic diversity by 

attracting manufacturing industr ies to the area, little charge is foreseen. 

The econcmic foundation of the area will remain closely tied to increased 

recreation use and tourism. An increased dgnand for all Forest resources and 

services, especially those related to recreation, can be expected. The. 

greatest *acts on Forest mgmt are likely to be found in the areas of 

1- 'p adjustments and land uses, scenic quality, and the Forest's 

mle in pmvidiq a variety of recreational opportunities. The demand for 

energy prcd~ction and water yield are also likely to increase with increases 

in mation, both locally and elsewhexe in California. 

Economics in Forest Planning 

National Forest land is public land, and its value accrues to the public. 

The value of Forest land and resources is of two kinds: pmducts with 

econanic value and those that do not lend themselves to eccMmic 

quantification, such as appreciation of the visual re-. The need to 

manage Forest lands and resources in a way that will provide the greatest net 

public benefit, taking both kinds of values into mideration, is bth a 

public issue and a manag-t concem. 

Ecn"uc efficiency analysis detw"s the effects of different mgmt 

skategies on the rxodc values of Forest resources, using the measure of 

present Net Value (PNV). The benefit canponents of PNV are the "nfhty 

values of recreation (including wildlife and fish-related recreation), water, 

energy, tunber, and grazing. The cost ccmponents of PNV include such factors 

as Forest mg-t expenditures, resource losses, and the opportunity costs 

of prcducq con-priced benefits. opportunity costs are thDse values that 

are lost by cbxing one resource over another. PNV plus a11 m-pri& 

benefits represent net public benefit. 

Sphere of Social Influence 

Inyo and i%m Counties ocanprise the primary zone of social influence for the 

Forest. The lifestyles, quality of life, and social values of the 

mdividuals in this area are to vaxyiq degrees depenaent upn Forest 

re- and facilities. 

24 
Bath ~nyo and Wnn Camties are rural and sparsely mated, ranking 57th 

and 55th respedively in papulation density amcolg the 58 California 

ccnmties. Population increases for these counties, in terms of total 

nmbzs, are insignificant when ccmpared to state-wide totals. Nevertheless, 

I4n-m CBunw ranked second in the state in percent population increase between 

1970 and 1980. Over the past twenty years, population growth for the two 

ccnmties averaged about 630 people per year with net in-migration making up 

more than 30 percent of the total papulation gains. This growoh rate is 

expected to subside gradually and to level out by the year 2020. 

The median age for the two-county area is about 34.5 years, well above the 

30.8-year median age for the state. This fact is due, in part, to the area's 

recreational ~rtunities which attract retired senior citizens. Persanal 

mcome averages abut $14,300. The area is over 90 percent White (of which 

5.6 percent is of Hispanic backgx~und), and 7.3 percent American Indian, with 

Black, Asian, and other races together making up less than 3 percent of the 

total ppulation of the area. 

Paramxlnt to the quality of life is the sense of open space, rugged terrain, 

scenic qualities, clean air and water, and the abundant recreational 

oppxhmities which the Forest prwides. The natural resource attributes of 

the area are coupled with the social attcibutes of low population densiw, 

slow growth, simple lifestyles, mall camumities, limited services, and a 

prevail- feeling of self-sufficiency and individualisn. 

As the primary zone of Forest influence, the Irry0-Pb-o area is expected to 

receive direct, identifiable, and measurable benefits and mipacts fmm the 

Forest's "g-t and policies. The two counties have important ties to 

grazing, fuelwood supplies, fire protection, timber pmduction, and 

recreational opprtunities. 

Southern Califorma is a secondary zone of social influence for the Forest. 

Southern California's demand for recreation affects the Forest and many of 

the cannunities in the primary zone of influence. The social impact of the 

Forest on Southern California hayever, while it may be important, is lost in 

that area's large size, huge metropolitan ppulation, and broadly di-e 

mial structure. 

the Forest through 'p patterns, land uses, energy production, 

Social Groups 

Management di??S&l 'on and resource outputs of the Inyo National Forest affect 

several local social groups, each of which places different demands and 

values on Forest resources. Six major social groups have been identified 

w~thin the primary zone of influence. Those groups are: long-time residents, 

regional mreationists, seasonal enployes, special use permittees, American 

Indians, andretirees. 

Social groups are categories of people based on shared activities, interests, 

and concerns. They are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may belong 

to mre than one group. Hawwer, the wnsequences of Forest management and 

policies are similar for individuals within a group and -what dissimilar 

between groups. Altbugh not expxted to describe all individuals within a 

25 
given group, the follmug group characteristics are expected to apply in 

general tenns for the purpose of evaluating the social impacts of Forest 

decisions in the Forest p1arm.q precess. 

Long-tune residents are a diverse group of people identified primarily as 

havxg lived in the area for ten years or longer. This large group is found 

working in every sector of the local ecoq mcluding mining, retail sales, 

ranching, logging, recreation, and services. 

The long-time resident tends to be strongly self-reliant, believes in the 

importance of hard work, holds to traddmnal values, and wants to live in a 

rural area. Because the Forest holds abundant opportunities for minbg and 

prospectug, offers much graziq land, and provides over five million visitor 

days of recreation mually, Forest policies potentially affet many of the 

long-time residents in the primary zcme of influence. 

Regional recreationists are attracted to the area to enjoy a recreationoriented lifestyle. This pup includes seconc-kme owners and those wb 

enjoy the area for fll~~ner vacations and weekend winter skiing. The latter 

group is particularly important to the ec"y of the area. 

Recreational visitors place great demands on the area and have high 

expectations for their recreational pursuits. These dviduals fuel a major 

portion of the wmter tourist ecoq and a substantial portion of the sum~er 

econcmy as well. Wle Wus social gruup is cmpsed of many subgroups, its 

members have some cam" values. They want to enjoy themselves, and they 

value the broad range of recreational opportunities and the s-c 

attractions of the area. 

SW-m owner^ doubled in "rber between 1970 and 1980. Increased 

speculation and real estate inveshmts drove housing and rental costs up 

substantially driq this time wid. There has been a recent slaving in 

sW-m investments; however, as interest rates decline, as amtional 

skiing is developed, and as c" over patential volcaruc activity 

subsides, expansion will probably resume. 

Seasonal employees wb reside in the area are typically y0u-g individuals 

with a primary goal of pursuing an outdoor lifestyle. Earning a living is 

often a secondary goal. If they are not able to obtain full-time employment, 

they are dement upcol the large seasonal employment market in the area. 

There are currently 972 special use pernuts on the Inyo National Forest, 

govembg land uses on 34,960 acres of Forest land. Special use permits are 

issued for a variety of pucposes, including agricultural, industr 

recreational, research, transprtation, and water uses. Special use 

permittees are especially important to ccmnuuties such as Mammth and June 

Lake, both of which have alpine ski areas on Forest land under special use 

permit. In 1980, the 546 recreation special use permits alone brought mre 

than $1.29 million to the federal treasury, 25 percent of which was retumed 

to local county govemmnts. The Forest ranks first in the nation in 

revenues received fm recreation special use permits. 

Nearly 2,000 Paiute-Shod Indians live on reservations in the Big Pine, 

Lone Pine, and Bishop areas of Inyo county. The Indian way of life, beliefs, 

26 
and VahSS are htWXOVell with M-, the -t, and the mxlntb Of 

the area. Many Indian religious sites, spiritual areas, and traditional 

fd-gathering areas are located on National Forest land. The Indian usually 

favors pt&m Of the Forest; however, because Of their lcolg hiStCUy of 

residence in the area, they -times feel that their rights derived fm 

traditicmal use skuld exapt them frcm certain regulation% Increased 

pressure on Forest ~~SOUCC~S will mtjnue to briq about management 

limitations and potential conflicts with traditional American Indian uses. 

Senior citizens, a segment of the ppdation whxe nmbrs are inmasing, 

are attracted to the area because of its recreational opprtunities, relaxed 

pace of life, and mal errvironment. Many retirees ccme to the area fm 

South- Califomia. 

As retlrees ccme to the area because of its mal and natural apal and 

recreational oprhmities, this group supports protection of many of the 

recreational and visual resources. Many retirees do, haiever, want vehicle 

access to the Forest and are only selectively supprtive of issues such as 

wilderness -tiom. They are also often "xned about policies 

such as lw-of-stay limitations in developd campgrounds. 

Because their inwme is not closely tied to market outputs, retirees are 

unlikely to have a strong intaxst in timber or grazing pm3ction unless 

recreahonal or visual resowcs are directly affected. One exception, 

however, 1s the availability of fuel-, which is used by the majority of 

people in the area to defray high energy oosts for hane heating the 

winter. 

Resource Environment 

Each resource is discussed under the subheadings of current managenat and 

opprtunities for change, supply and demand if appropriate, and Plan 

managemnt aphasis. Current management and supply and demand are expressed 

in tenns of 1982 as a base year unless otherwise indicated in the text. 

Air Quality 

Current Direction and Opporbn 'ties for Chnge 

Air quality on the Inyo National Forest is currently managed so that 

activities on National Forest land meet state air basin objectives. Dust 

fm urpaved roads and smke fran prescribed burning or wildfire are the 

Forest activities that receive the mst enqhasis in terms of air quality 

miderations. However, 

Air wity Related Values and their indicators need to be determined for 

areas designated as Class I for "itariq purp3ses to assess the possible 

need for charge in managemat. In addition, &e managmt plans need to 

be develop3 in conjundian with Fire Managemat Action Plans and 

Em' 

There is m evident need for change in manag-t. 

tal Assessnents for prescribed burning. 

27 
Air quality on Inyo National Forest lands meets or exceed3 state air basin 

objectives mre than 99 percent of the time. There are sone days, howevar, 

on which air quality drops below objectives due to events on neighborirg 

off-Forest lands. Windbome dust fran dry lakes and agricultural lands and 

&e fran wood heating in local rxmmmities are the most cc”n sources. 

The demand for clean air as a recreational attraction on the Forest and 

througbut the Eastern Sierra is 

Plan Managenen thphas is 

CSurent management direction will wntinue. In addition, Air Quality Related 

Values and their indicators will be developed for Class I areas, and &e 

management plans will be developed in mnjunction with fire management 

PI-. 

high. 

Cultural Resources 

Cl”t Direct<- and Opporhu ‘ties for chmge 

ivk~st cultural resource invento~~ and evaluation on the Forest OOCU~S in 

preparation for actions that have the potential to affect cultural values. 

Nun-project inventory has occurred primarily through the efforts of outside 

researchers. In the past, 95 percent of the inventory took place in timber 

canpartments. The timber base is ~3w approximately 90 percent inventoried 

and mandatory historic preservation canpliance work undertaken in support of 

timber activities involves re-entry into areas that have received extensive 

surveys. As a consequence, much less actual inventory is being acocmplished 

than in the past--appraximately 1,ooO new acres per year. 

Ccmpliance requirements for project implementation rely primarily on surveys 

to locate cultural resources and subsequent avoidance of impacts to those 

resources (protection). Skate Historic Preservatxm Officers in 

California and Nevada, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the 

Keem of the National Register are consulted in accordance with 36 CFR 800. 

Other consulting parties as defined in 36 CFR 800, especially Native American 

groups, are consulted as appropriate. Formal site evaluation, includirg test 

excava-hons, and nutigation of adverse impacts where necessary are used to 

meet ccmpliance requiremen.ts. Copies of all site and survey documentation 

are supplied to the State Archamlogical Inventories. 

The Forest has taken steps to replace the traditicmal site-specific, 

project-specific approach to canpliance requirements. “nda of 

Understandxg (Mou) between the Forest and the California State Historic 

Preservation Officer regarr3u-g --the-- loggirg and “m effect“ projects 

are IMW in effect. Formerly, canpliance requirements entailed project by 

project consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the 

Cc~uncil. With these Menasranda of Understandiq, ocmpliance requirements on 

many projects are mt with an annual report. Additionally, the Forest has 

ccolcluded a prcgramatic agreement with the California State Historic 

preservation Officer and the Council for the trea-t of piagi pn”t 

28 
sites. Again, mandam c"ltatim has been mduced fran a 

project-by-project basis to a bi-al report. This agreenent also reduces 

the nunbex of acres taken out of timber prcxiuctim for cultural resmres 

pmte&ion. 

€kqramatic tz-eatmnt plans am being developed on a Regicmal level for such 

site types as railroad logging sites, sparse lithic scatters, bedrock 

mrtars, and historic dumps. The Forest is irrvOlved in the preparation of 

these treatrent plans and will benefit fmm their implementation. 

'ty to replace the current site-specific apFapach to 

ts (which is time-ccanrming and labor-intensive) with a 

There is an apporturu 

cxmpliance nxpimwn 

mre efficient --of-site and type-of-undertaking canpliance pnxss 

involviq pngramnatic Memsranda of Agxement with the aplnopriate state 

offices. 

Wtural resource interpretation on the Forest is canducked at a rudimentary 

level under the inim.-pretive services p?xg?xn. Protecticol and enhancement of 

historical and archaeological sites wauld benefit fmm increased public 

awaTeness of cultural resources and Of the laws pmte3xq . them. 

Current research indicates that eastem California and westem Nevada have 

been o=cupied for at least the past 10,ooO years. The most recent 

prehistoric inhabitants include the Northern Paiute, Sbshone, Mimk, Wash, 

Kawaiisu, Tubatulabal, Koso, and Monache. The Euro-Americans wtm arrived in 

the early 1900s used the Forest primarily for timber harvest, mining, and 

ranching. 

The density of cultural sites on the Inyo National Forest averages 1 per 59 

acres (contrasted with 1 per 105 acres on the Angeles National Forest and 1 

per 245 acres on the Taboe). It is estimated that the Forest mtahs 35,000 

or mre sites. 

As of odober 1, 1983, 97,000 acres had been inventoried, nrast of that in the 

Jeffrey pine forest on the northern third of the Forest. Appmxma ' tely 1,500 

prehistoric and 200 historic sites had been identified. Of the sites 

identified, 45 had been formally evaluated for the National Register of 

Historic Places. Fourteen were determined eligible and/or actually 

"hated. These sites are listed below by state i=rixm.ial or by name: 

Mono County: Ca-W-11, -34, -446, -471 H, -529, -542, -823, -1644, 

-1645. 

Ashram. 

Inyo County: CA-Iny-1308, -2285, Lon Chaney's Cabin, Tuttle Creek 

The "ining sites need to be evaluated in order to meet legal 

mquimwmts. hraluation of prehistoric sites will be based on the research 

needs -sed in the 1978 Prehistoric Overview and on subsequent work &ne 

in the region. %e Overview and trpst regional research is guided by the 

theoretical paradigm of human cultural ecology. There is a -zed need 

to refine regional chronologies, establish settlaent/subsistence models, and 

to pursue loq-range research on questions such as the trans-Sierran trade, 

29 
the developnent of irrigation and fox3 prduction in the Owens Valley, and 

the rise of qlex social organization. Evaluation of historic sites will 

be greatly facilitated by rxnipletion of an Historic overview. 

National Register properties need to be maintained so that their integrity is 

pre-ed. This can be &ne through a program of “arrested decay“ to prevent 

further natural deterioration as well as the prevention of vandalism. 

National Register mes provide gccd oprhmities for interpretation. 

Appmxmately 1.9 million acres on the Forest need more intensive inventmy. 

Details are displayed in the Forest Cultural Resource Manag-t Atlas. 

Plan MaM- tEinphas is 

Pmgrannatic treatment plans will contmue to be developed at the Regional 

and Forest level. Canpliance measuces other than the traditional protxtion 

mode will be carr~ed out 111 consultation with State Kistoric Preservation 

Officers and other appropriate entities as mre land is needed for managanent 

acbvibes. Cultural resources interpretation will be developed within the 

context of the total Forest recreation program. -t opprtun2ties 

will be pursued in association with bth the interpretive program and the 

preservation of significant sites. 

Diversity 

Current DireCticm and ‘ties for Change 

Vegetative divf.?rsiw is currently affected by Forest Service manag-t 

activities associated with timlx?r and range prduclaon, wildlife habitat, 

watershed managemmt, energy and activities, recreation, and fire 

SUppresSion. 

The best opp3rtunities on the Inyo to increase vegetative diversity witbut 

conflicting mth other resources are in the shrub and pinycm-juniper 

vegetation types. 

apply and DeMnd 

Diversity is much nwre than the juxtapsition and tvpeS of vegetation 

ccmmnmities. It is a “bination of physical and biological phexmna that 

ccmprise habitats and the species that cccupy these habitats: plant species, 

seral stages, crown closure, vegetation structure, slags, dam lcgs, 

physiographic features and a myriad of other paramters. 

ming the last 150 years, the location and species canposition of ecosystemS 

on the Forest have changed little, altbugh the seral stages, relative extent 

and condition of th0f;e ecosystems have changed considerably. Diversity 

appears to be slowly decreasing Forest-wide. 

Vegetative diversity on the Inyo National Forest has been changed fran 

natural levels prmarily through water diversion, affecting the extent of 

riparian areas; past overgrazing, affecting the conditim of riparian areas 

and wet meackws; fire suppression, reducing the seral stage diversity of 

brush and allawing woodly vegetation to encroach on meadaws by preventing 

30 
natural fire-caused rejuvenatim; and cannercial tmber management, reducing 

the extent of older seral stages of ccolifemus forests. 

The demand for diversity on the Forest focuses primarily on riparian areas 

for their vlsual, recreational, wildlife, fish, and grazjng values; on the 

ccoriferous forest for its wildlife habitat benefits; and on diversity of 

bmsh seral stages for livestock and wildlife forage. 

Plan tmphas is 

Vegetative diversity will be managed under specific direction m the Plan. 

Diversity of seral stages and the maintenance of key ccmpcolents, such as old 

growth, riparian areas, and mags will be managed to prescribed levels. The 

effects of fire suppression on seral stages of brush will be offset by a 

program of vegetation treat"t for raqe and wildlife benefit. prescribed 

fire and the suppression strategies of confinement and contaumat will be 

used where appropriate. 

Energy: Geothermal (SEE MI~~ERALS: LERSABLE) 

mrgyadroelectric 

(Lnrent Direction and Opporbm 'ties for Change 

Small hydroelectric licenses are issued by the Federal Eheqy Regulatory 

&mission (FERC) . Special use pmits for snall hydroelectric devel-ts 

on National Forest land are issued by the Forest Service. Each special use 

permit application is handled individually. An emrirarnnentaz analysis is 

conducted to estimate envinavnentiil impacts, and mitigation of potential 

inpacts is prescribed. It wxld be desirable to establish specific 

wnditicm that mst be met whm hydrcelectric projects are developed. 

DireCtian of that sort would imprWe consistency of txeatmnt and facilitate 

the evaluation of individual projects in light of the amiulative impacts 

lepr-d=d by many Fnojeds. 

su€ply and DBMnd 

The Inyo National Forest has a significant potential snall hydroelectric 

rsource. inc1udk-g the two major carrpplents necessary for Iqdm developnent: peremial water flaw and rapid change in elevation. Six snall hydroelectric 

projects are currently operating and fifteen additional applicaticm have 

been suhnitted for fifteen s.treams on the Forest. Major hydroelectric 

projects affed four streams on the Forest. 

The demand for energy has increased in recent years as a result of the 

national desire for enagy self-sufficiency and the search for an 

inexpensive, nonpolluting energy source. There is, however, scme question 

whethex the demand for snall lqdnelectric projects as an energy source will 

prwe cost-effective when all resources are considered. 

31 
Plan " thpbas is 

The Plan establishes specific diredl on for the protectim of riparian 

vegetation, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, visual quality, and 

ccolditiolts necessary for evaluating snall hydruelectxic applications. 

recreaticmal opprbnities. That dkcecb 'm Colledively provides the 

Enerqy: Wind Power 

Current Direction and 

Wind fanns would also require both a license from the Federal 

Regulatory Carmission and a special use permit from the Forest Service. 

%re is no specific direction gowrmq ' wind farm evaluation, except the 

policy that energy prduct~on be considered a National Forest resource. 

ties for olanse 

Sqply and DeMnd 

The suitability of Inyo National Farest land for wind per is not well 

knam. A wind farm application has been received for a site in the Sherwin 

Grade area, and industq representatives estimate that the Forest cauld have 

the potential for two a&tional sites, probably at higher elevations in the 

White or Inyo Mnmt-. Preliminary studies indicate, howarer, that wind 

patterns on the Irryo may not be suitable for power generation. 

The demand for energy is well established and expected to increase, but the 

demand for wind as an energy source is just beginning to emerge, and its 

cost-efficiency on the Forest is unlawnm. It is difficult to predict a 

future trend at this time. 

Plan "gaE¶ tmphas is 

The Plan aclamwleages energy as a National Forest resource. IncEvidual 

projects will be evaluated in t- of established Visual Quality Objectives, 

soil stability, other affected resource values, and the management direction 

for the lands on wi-nch the propsed site is located. 

Facilities 

Current Directitm and Oppxhnu 'ties for Umnge 

Current direction for Forest adninistrative sites calls for e1i"ix-g 

maintenance backlogs, c0nsfzuctu-g additional facilities where needed, and 

considering the relocation of facilities where problems have been 

idenhfied. (xlrrent direction is adequate and should be incarprated intact. 

Airstrips on Natxonal Forest land are managed under special use permit. 

Although thm are sane problems with existing pennits, current &ection is 

adequate to handle them. 

32 
Dam~ on the Forest are either ovnaed by the Forest Sarvice or operated under 

Special use pnnit. Darns are main- regularly to e"-a that they pse 

m safety threat. There is M need to establish or change diredi on. 

Forest Highways are designated and maintained Farest roads under the 

juriscliction of a public authority such as State or county. Current 

direction for their managment is adequate. 

Mass transit is ccolsidered an option where road capacity is limited or where 

wncenkated vehicle use threatens to damage natural resources. Details are 

addressed on a case-by-case basis. There is m need for chaqe in this 

direction. 

Roads on the Forest are operated and maintained either by the Forest Service 

or by the state or county in agreement with the Forest Service. Although 

tkse agreements need to be reviewed regularly and adjusted in individual 

cases, the overall cwrectl 'on for d0i.q so is adequate. Forest roads are 

maintained to assigned maintamme levels and recortstruded on a programed 

basis. 

The Forest trail system Currently emphasizes wilderness Wls, which are 

managed under directr 'on in individual wilderness management plans. hails 

are maintained to assigned levels and rewolstructed on a prcg-ramed basis. 

There is, lxmever, a need for mre aphasis on m-wilderness day-use trails, 

incluw hiking, equestrian, qler access, bicycle, interpretive, and 

mrdic ski kailS. 

The Pacific Crest Trail and two Naticmal Recreation Wails (Whey Portal 

and Methuselah) cross the Forest. They are managed under individual 

management Plans. 

The subject of bo- sites is addressed under the heading of Minerals: 

Mineral Materials. 

The Forest has eighty-six buildiqs at seven administrative locations. Of 

these, all but one aze federally owned (the Forest Supervisor's office in 

Bi-p is leased fran a private party). Fifty of these buildings are in gccd 

condition, twenty-three are rated fair, and thirteen are rated poor. There 

is a minor need for additional capacity at existirig sites and the need to 

build a Visitor Center for the recently established WXE Basin National 

Forest Scenic Area. Gnce those needs are satisfied, demand is expected to 

stabilize. 

The existing airstrips in the area are adequate to meet current and projected 

demand. 

There are eighteen dams on Forest land. Three are owned by the Forest 

S&ce; fifteen by utility canpani es. Alhgh one of the proposed mall 

mlectric projects could include a mall dam, mst would divert water 

rather than impounding it. No new sites for major dams have been identified 

on the Forest. 

33 
There are thirteen Forest roads that are designated Forest Wghways. They 

are located throughout the Forest. 

There is one major mass transit system on the Forest and several analler 

ones. The demand for additional systems could mrease with increaslng 

recreation use of the Forest, as established mutes approach capacity and 

resource damage IS threatened m heavily used areas. 

The Inyo National Forest has 32 miles of arterial roads, 201 miles of 

collector roads, 741 miles of lccal mads, and an estimated 300 miles of 

uninventoried roads. These roads are used primarily for public recreation 

access, a&ninLstration, fire pmtectim, and ccmmrcial timber transport. 

Recreation use on the Forest 1s expected to increase: hwff, the current 

arterial/collector road systm shDuld meet the recreational demand for the 

next ten to fifteen years because most of the project& recreaticmal 

facilities will be built adjacent or close to these roads. 

No new -tmction is anticipated in Support of the Forest timber management 

program. Arterial/collector/lccal road -txuction that could be needed to 

support approved geothermal develapnent will be constmcted by the developer 

to Forest Service standards. An estimated twelve miles of road will be 

collstLucted if geothermal facilities develop in Lease Blocks I and 11. There 

is 110 reasonable estimate of the location or mileage of rrrrmng roads that 

wuld be bult. The existing prcgram of bringing roads up to appropriate 

standards for the reduction of soil loss will be ocmpleted wxI3-n.n the 

p1- perIcd. 

The Forest has 1,236 miles of mer and equestrian trails, of which 

approximately 705 rmles are in wilderness. The demand for trails will 

increase wxth "easing recreation use, primarily in cx"traW recreation 

areas and reca"fM wilderness. The demand for off-highway vehicle (OHV) 

and 110rdic ski trals will also inmease. Increased demand for trails in 

designated wildemess is limited by the trailhead quota system. 

current dixech 'on mtanues umhacged for mst aspects of facility 

management. However, the m-wilderness Wl system receives additional 

enphasis because of pmjectea increases in use at existirg canoentrated 

recreation areas, expansion of winter nkon opprtunties, wih3emess 

-tiarls, and increased interest in --primitive rmtorized 

recreation. 

Fish 

Current Direction and Gppximu 'ties for change 

Fish habitat management on the Forest currently ertlphasizes the protection of 

fish habitat quality through application of Best Managment pradices for 

water quality protection, the restoration of golden trout habitat on the Kern 

Plateau, and the "cry of threatened Paiute and Lakmtan cutthroat trout. 

34 
Potential conflicts between fish habitat needs and other activities arise 

wherever water quality or the munt of lnstream flow is reduced. Water 

quality on the Inyo is most susceptible to sedimentation frun livestock 

grazmg, concentrated recreation use, ski area developnent, and other 

facility developuent. The activities nnst likely to affect instream flow are 

hydroelectric developnent and “iptive water uses such as geothermal 

energy LkvelOpnent and murucipal use. 

The Management Indicator Species (MIS) concept is currently being aaoptea on 

the Forest. Management indicator species represent other species with 

similar habitat needs. Virtually all resident trout on the Forest are 

ccazsidered management indicator species. The msst sensitive reprcducing 

species in a given reach of stream is considered the managanent indicator 

species for that reach. 

supply and Demand 

Inyo National Forest fish habitat includes about 1,100 miles of sizean and 

several hundred lakes. Habitat condition m mst streams is rated medium to 

high. Streams rated medium or low either lack fish habitat due to physical 

characterishcs such as steep gradients, or they have been damaged by past 

livestock grazjng, heavy recreation use, and/or water diversion. Lake fish 

habitat quality is generally high. More than 90 percent of resident fish on 

the Forest are found in lakes. The r“d ’ er inhabit streams. 

Waters on National Forest land contain rainbow trout, brook trout, brown 

trout, Colorado cutthroat trout, Lahontan cutthroat trout, Paiute cutthroat 

western and Owens suckers and rainbow trout in the Kern Rim are the only 

native species lamwn to reside on the Forest. Repmducirg brown, brook, and 

rainbow trout are cxnntm. Golden trout and the suckers are limited in 

distribution, but where found. A few other native species inhabit 

neighboring Bureau of Land Managanent land and private land within the Forest 

trout, golden trout, western sucker, and Owens sucker. The golden trout, 

boundary. 

The demand for trout fishing on the Forest is high. Fishkg represented 

340,000 Wildlife and Fish User Days in 1982. This demand is expected to 

increase. Resident trout habitat enhancement alone is not capable of 

increasing fish prcduction to neet that demand. Much of the existing fish.lng 

load is borne by hatchery-stncked fisheries. 

Plan Managemen thphas is 

The Plan carries fomard the current fish habitat management emphasis. The 

Plan also directs that fisheries in ccolcentrated recreation areas be 

maintained or enhanced to provide rmre fishing opprhuu ‘ties and that 

selected stream reaches be rewatered as part of negotiations associated with 

the hydroelectric relicensing process. 

35 
Further Planning Areas 

(xnrent Direction and opportunz ‘ties for Chang? 

Further ~umniq Areas are UNOaded lands with identified wilderness 

ptential. Current direction is to evaluate these areas as part of the 

planning process and to make “wkhticms in the Plan for their future 

management as wilderness or ran-wilderness. 

The Forest needs to establish a management aphasis, either wilderness or 

m-wilderness, for all Further Planning Areas. No lands on the Forest are 

to remain in Further Planning status after the Plan is appnxred. 

The Forest has the opprturuty to recarmend additicmal acreage for wilderness 

designation. These recannendaticas are preliminary administrative 

-tions that will receive further review and possible modificatiun by 

the Wef of the Forest Service, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the 

President of the United states. Final hisicas on wilderness designation 

are the purview of czcrgess. 

slrpply and Demand 

The Inyo National Forest has 1,008,282 acres of land that were irnrentoried as 

roadless by the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE 11) study. Of 

those acres, 46,146 acres were designated wilderness by the California 

Wilderness Act; 338,319 acres released by that Act for m-wilderness 

manag-t; and 576,517 acres in the Further Planning category. In 

amtion, there are 47,300 acres of lllventoried rcadless areas in Nevada. 

Most Further Plannirg Areas on the Forest are substantially lower in user 

capacity and recreational attractions than existing wilderness. The supply 

of wilderness recreation opportunities on the areas is therefore low relative 

to the acreage available. 

The demand for wildemess recreation on the Forest is very high. Existing 

wildernesses are managed under a trailhead quota system, so that use dDes mt 

exceed established capacity and the quality of the wilderness experience is 

maintained. Quotas are essentially full during the sumner peak use season. 

The demand for mlderness designation on the Inyo as a means of protecting 

unique and sensitive ecosystem is also present. That demand focuses on the 

desirability of wilderness in the white and Inyo Pbuntains. 

There is also a demand for m-wilderness uses in Further Planning Areas. 

Some of the existing and potential uses that muld conflict with mlderness 

designation are: &spersed vehicle-based recreation, road access for mineral 

exploration and developnent, and vegetative maruplation for livestock range 

or wildlife habitat Improvement. 

Plan Managenen tmiphas is 

The Plan recormends approximately 172,600 acres (28 percent) of Mer 

Planning lands for wilderness designation and prescribes m-wilderness uses 

on the remaining 451,217 acres. 

36 
Geology 

Geology involves both resources (groundwatar, mineral materials, outsbndiq 

geologic features) and risks associated with geologic processes. The Forest 

has m current directiool guiding risk assessment, groundwater management, or 

geologic feature management. National and regional plm requiranentS 

call for the Forests to establish such directi on. The subject of mineral 

materials is discussed under the heading of Minerals. 

Geologic processes that are active on lands within the Forest include slope 

jnstability (such as landslides), seisnic activity (earthquakes), and 

volcanic activity. Occupation of lands involved in or affected by these 

prmesses involve scme risk to Forest persmnel, facilities, and projects. 

In some cases risks are high emugh to preclude occupation or use of these 

lands. Both the public and private landholders within the National Forest 

boundary occupy lands subject to the effects of these pmxsses. 

The existing Forest-Wide geologic T~SOUTCB inventory classifies land in terms 

of high, medium or law risk of impacts fran geologic processes, 

Approximately 453,600 acres on the Forest are classified at high risk fran 

landslides; 37,600 acres at high risk during an earthquake fran g”d 

shaking; 48,000 acres at high risk during an earthquake fran surface ruptme: 

373,000 acres at high risk during a volcanic emption fm lava flows; and 

631,400 acres at high risk during a volcanic emption fran airbme 

matexial. Slope instability processes (including tbse triggered by 

earthquakes) are the mst iqmrtant geologic events on the Forest in tenns of 

risk, primarily because of their relabve frequency. Volcanic events are the 

least htprtant due to their low frequency, despite the size of their 

potential impacts. 

The &at and quality of on the Forest are not kr”. 

Small-scale wells have been develop3 to serve campgrounds, ac’hrcinistrative 

sites, fire suppression units, and livestock and wildlife needs. Those uses 

currently total 43 acre-feet. Additional g”dwater, anknmtiq to 300 

acre-feet, is used to supply Mamnoth Fbuntain Ski Area. l”nere is m current 

m”ity use of gnnmdwater fran on-ForeSt sou~ces. 

The demand for gnnmdwatex to supply Forest Sdce facilities (including 

existiq uses, the replacement of existing surface water so-, and the 

developrent of smrces for new develop3 recreation sites) is estimated at 

247 acre-feet over the next twenty years. The demand for water to supply ski 

areas (including -sting use, new supplies to meet existing needs, and 

supplies for expanded ski areas) is estimated at 1,200 acre-feet over the 

next 25 years. The demand for gromdwater to serve canrmnity needs in 

Mamnsth Lakes is expected to reach app”te1y 6,000 acre-feet over a 

25-year period. It is also likely that gmmdwater would be needed to supply 

geothermal per plants in Lease Blocks I and 11. That developnent, if it 

cccurs, is unlikely to oxur before 1995. The amnmt of groundwater needed 

could be negligible, or it could be as great as 18,600 acre-feet, depending 

on the size and design of pmer plants. 

37 
The Forest has many outstandjng geologic features deservmg reccgnition 

and/or protection, s~ne of which muld qualify for Special Interest Area or 

Research Natural Area designation. The demand for protection of geologic 

features can be infexred fmn the fact that "textbook examples" of volcanic, 

metamorphic, and glacial geology attract large n"-s of students and 

scientists to the area. 

The Plan calls for considermg the risk to Forest projects posed by seismic, 

volcanic, and slope stability processes in planrug for and locatmg 

facilities and management activities. The Plan also raises the need to 

inventory groundwater resources and to evaluate geologic Special Interest 

Area candidates within the next five to ten years. Geologic Research Natural 

Areas will be evaluated as a part of the Regional RNA program. 

Lands 

Current Direction and Oppo rtunities for rRange 

The Forest lands program handles such activities as achinistrative boundary 

adjustments with the Bureau of Land Managemnt; landlme surveys and 

unauthorized cccupancy; tramprtation and uhlity easements, corridors, and 

rights-of-way; withdrawals: 1- 'p adjustments; and non-recreational 

special use permits. 

The California Wilderness Act of 1984 transferred the administration of 

approximately 23,000 acres of land within the newly designated Pbno Basin 

National Forest Scenic Area fmn the Bureau of Land Managemnt to the Inyo 

National Forest. The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are 

also currently eragaged in an aciministrative interne of federal lands. 

The Plan does not, however, address the implications of the land transfer or 

the interchange at this time. 

Landline surveys and unaulkorized cccupancy are handled on a case-by-case 

basis where needed to resolve -panties or to resolve mnflicts with other 

landowners or land uses. 

Rights-of-way for utility lines are consolidated wherever feasible with other 

linear land uses, such as roads, to linut the lmpacts of such lines on other 

resouTces. 

Power and mal withdrawals that limit options on withdrawn lands are 

available as a manag-t tool. Withdrawals on the Forest are currently 

being reviewed as part of a national prqram to determine whether exlscing 

withdrawals should be extendd, modified, or revoked. 

The aspects of current policy dviq the most emphasis relate to 

landownershl 'p adjusbnent and special use permits. Present direction is to 

reduce the existkg and potential impacts of private land uses on National 

Forest lands by working closely with local garernment entities to develop 

land exchange priorities. Land is made available under special use permit if 

the -sed use is cmpatible with the established multiple-use objectives 

38 
of the affected area and if m suitable private land is reasonably available 

for the use. Public uses have priority wer Semi-public uses, which are, in 

turn, considered before uses that benefit indiVi3uals. The Forest has the 

opportunity tn establish prioribes for 1- ‘p adjustinent and to 

develop criteria for considering special use permit applications. 

supply and Demand 

There are approximately 1,181 miles of property lines on the Forest, of wiuch 

thirty-one have been surveyed and posted to standard. The current target is 

to survey and post six miles of landlme per year. 

The Forest currently resolves an average of five occupancy .trespass cases per 

year. There are an estimated fifty unresolved occupancies Forest-wide. Many 

of these situations are long-standing and can be handled admmistratively by 

special use pnnit or resolved via the Small Tracts Act. 

Appmximtely 1,911 miles of utility, transp3rtation, and water transmission 

lines crofis the Forest under special use pennit. Hawever, ~3 utility 

corridors have been designate3 to date. The route paralleling the major 

interstate right-of-way for the Pacific Dc Intertie izansmission line has the 

highest potential for future designation as a utility corridor. 

Withdrawals on the Inyo Nabonal Forest total 758,876 acres, represenactions inikated by the Forest Service, by ccolgress, or by other federal 

agencies. Apgmxma ’ tely 565,100 of these acres are in wilderness. The 

Forest Service is currently reviewing the withdrawals it has initiated. If 

the needed objectives can be mt by a less restrictive management option than 

withdrawal, sone mthdrawals may be msdified or revoked. 

The Inyo National Forest boundary includes 2,046,346 acres, of which 116,591 

are in non-federal awnershl ‘p. In Inyo and McolD counties, Wch contain lmst 

of the Forest land, only seven percent of land with311 the Forest boundary is 

inotherownershl ‘p (more than half of that belorgs to the State of California 

or the City of IAS Angeles and lies witiun the recently legislated ”I Basin 

National Forest Scenic Area). 

The major source of demand for Inyo National Forest land is the rapid 

expansion of canrmnities associated with alpine ski-, several of which are 

withn or adjacent to the Forest boundary. These carrmunities are mterested 

both in land exchange so that more private land is available for developnent 

and in land uses under pemt to accamrodate ccmnunity servlce facilities. 

Since 1960 approximately 1,ooO acres of Inyo National Forest land have 

entered the private sector and 16,360 acres of private land have entered the 

National Forest. There are currently 977 m-recreational spcial use 

permits cwering 34,960 acres and 1,911 miles. 

Plan Managanen tEkphas is 

The Plan aphasizes the need for cmperative plannjng with 1- go”mt 

entities when developing a land exchange pxgram, establishes broad 

priorities for 1-’p adjustment and criteria for special uses, and 

sets standards and guidelines for other lands activities. In mxt cases, 

39 
direction has not changed but has been restated for emphasis. Wilderness 

re"r&ticms would represent the withdrawal of appraXimately 172,600 

additional acres fran new claims. 

Minerals: Leasable (Geothermal Energy) 

Cmrent Direction and Opprtmu 'ties for change 

Potential geothermal resources on the Irryo National Forest are (5uI'l^enty 

being explored. A nmbr of leases have been issued within the Nn-"kmg 

valley ~nown Geothermal Resource ma (KGRA). 

%-lease exploration activities are Sstered by the Forest Senrice. The 

Forest Service anpletes e"m tal Ckxumnts m conjunction with the 

Bureau of Land Management which address the potential effects of geothermal 

leasing. The Bureau of Land Managmt issues the geothermal leases. All 

post-lease activities are authrized by the Bureau of Land Managemnt with 

input and concurrence fran the Forest Service. Environmental documents are 

cmpleted by the Bureau of Land Managerent and the Forest Service which 

address the inpacts of all post-lease activities. Mitigation measures are 

applied as appropriate to lessen the identified -acts. 

supply and Demand 

Geothermal energy is a resource found on the Irryo National Forest. 

Approximately 260,000 acres of the 460,000 acre bbno-I.ong Valley Known 

Geothermal Resource Area are on National Forest land. Appmxmately 38,900 

acres are currently under lease by six separate entities. Although shallow 

sub-surface testing has occurred and four to five deep exploratory wells have 

been drilled, additional work is needed to better define the extent and 

qyality of the resource. 

Plan MaMganen tEinphas is 

The demand for geothermal energy is related to the national search for clean, 

m-pollukhq energy somces and national self-sufficiency. Changes in the 

cost of mprt%d fuels will influence the a"t of geothexmal activity on 

the Forest. Managerent direction for the affected management areas would 

influence any ~aoposed geothermal activity. 

Minerals: Locatable 

-t DireCtian and 'ties for change 

The Forest Service manages surface resources associated with locatable 

mineral activity through the developnent and approval of plans of operation. 

New mining claims cannot be located in wilderness, but valid existing rights 

may be exercised. Exlstlng hrection is adequate to manage surface resources 

associated with locatable mmeral activi+q. 
The Inyo National Forest has a I-, active histnry of mining. The Bureau of 

Mines lists twenty camtYh 'ties in 513 mineral prospects on the Forest. kbre 

than 3,000 "g, mill site, and tunnel site claims are recorded for Forest 

lands. There are approximately elm mines "ntly in proauctian on the 

Forest. The mast significant of these are the Un&co Pine Creek Mine III Pine 

Creek and the U.S. Pumice Mine in the i%m Craters. The latter proauceS mre 

than 10,000 tons of block punice each year. 

The mal potential of r~X~-wildemess lands on the ForeSt has been 

estimated on the basis of geologic formations and past mining activity. The 

apFnoximately 565,100 acres of designated wilderness has not been rated for 

mineral potential. A mineral potential ratjng of "high" has been applied to 

133,860 non-wilderness acres on the Forest, and a ratjng of "medium" has been 

applied to 209,021 acres. The remahiq 1,021,732 acres have been rated 

"low". categories is located in 

the Inyo i%untains and the lmer elevaticms of the White IWuntains. 

The largest acreage in the high and 

The Plan aclomwleages the potential importance of locatable mals on the 

Inyo. Wzlderness recarmendations were made ccolsidering the mineral potential 

of the land. The degree to which mineral impacts need to be mitigated is 

defined by the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines and Managmt Direction 

for specific Management Prescriptions and Managanent Areas. Mineral 

withdrawals are addressed under the headirg of Lands. 

Minerals: Mineral Materials 

Current Directicn and C@orhnu 'ties far Change 

Mineral materials are used by counties, private parties, and the Forest 

Service for construction projects. Materials sources on National Forest land 

are managed either by the Forest Service or by other parties under special 

use permit. Off-Forest sources are available for Forest Service use under 

use agreements with the appropriate land manager. The major need is the 

developnent of a minerals managanent and developnent plan. 

Of the fifty material sources lrrventoried in the area, twenty-eight are on 

National Forest lands. Cbcrent Forest Service demand, based on road 

constcuctim and re"ction, averages 40,000 tons per year. Estimated 

amounts of material in lawyn res- would be sufficient to provide for 

projected road construction and reconstruction for appr"ately thirty-four 

years. 

The need for materials to support other types of wnstzuction (e.g., 

recreation sites, ski areas, geothermal developnents, camunity developnent) 

would be added to the armunt needed for roads. The projected demand for 

these other uses would reduce the supply by approximately eleven years. 

41 
Plan Managanen tJ3nphas is 

The'plan wntlnues current chrection for the management of nunerd materials 

and calls for a mineral materials management and developent plan. 

Mono Basin National ,Forest Scenic Area 

(xrrrent Dir~~tion and 'ties for olange 

The Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area was established by CorQxss ln 

September 1984. The enabling legislation for the Scenic Area called for 

developnent of a canprehensive management plan. The Forest has managed the 

area under an interim management plan pena-Ln9 ccmpletion of the canprshensive 

plan. This plan is being develop3 in a separate plarmirg process. 

supply and Demand 

The MXXJ Basin National Forest Scenic Area enccmpasses approximately 116,000 

acres, of wh~.ch 45,832 are National Forest land. The ra"g acres include 

the lake surface itself and relicted lands (lakeshore created by the lowering 

of the lake level durq forty years of water diversion) owned by the state, 

and additional City of LQS meles and privately-med lands. 

Public interest in the area led to its establi-t by Congress. The Scenic 

Area is valued by the public primarily far its smc, ecological, and 

geologic features. 

Plan MaMgenen tnnphas is 

when approved, the Scenic Area -ive Management Plan will be tiered 

to the Forest Plan. 

Pest Manasement 

(xrrrent Direction and Opprhm~ 'ties for olange 

The Forest Service uses the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach to pest 

management. The Integrated Pest Management approach calls for the 

integration of pest manag-t activities (prevention, surveillance, 

detection, evaluation, suppression, and "itor-) into resource plarmirg 

and decision makhg. Pest infoIlnaticol will be considered, for example, in 

the developnent and implementation of silvicultural Fnescriptians. 

The goal of Integrated Pest Management is to prevent and/or reduce 

pest-related damage wnsidered unacceptable due to its impact on human 

activities or resource management objectives. In the selection of 

appropriate pest managmt methods, all techniques, including biological, 

mechanical, manual, and cultural are considered on a case-by-case, 

project-level basis. The preferred methods are selected on the basis of 

site-specific analyses of biological effectiveness, costs, and effeds on 

hman health and the envircaUnent. 

42 
Specific pest management activities camroily utilized on this Forest include 

“itorirg pest-related damage, treating fresh stmps mth borax to prevent 

anmasus root disease, and remJving hazard trees in recreation areas. In 

amtion, timber management prevmts or reduces @-related damage on 

managed lands by matkg stands of healthy, vigorous trees that are 

resistant to insects and disease. 

The Pacific Southwest Region is currently preparing an Fnvhmniental Impact 

Statement (EIS) on the subject of vegetation management m reforestation. 

The Preferred Altwmative of that EIS calls for ocoltinued use of 

site-specific analyses to make decisions ahout methods of vegetatlon conbl, 

and the consideration of all available methods when making those decisions. 

Herbicides will be selected on the Inyo only if their use is essential to 

meeting managemnt objectives. Herbicide use has historically been minor on 

this Forest, as the arid clmte limits the abundant and rapid growth of 

vegetation that would capte with tree seedlings in plantaticns. No 

herbicides have been used on the Forest in the past five years. Before that, 

less than three hundred acres per year were treated. Aerial application of 

herbicides is unlikely to OCCUT on the Inyo. 

sqqly aMz DeMnd 

The most important pest organisms on the Forest are: 

Diseases: Anmsus root disease, dwarf mistletoes, and wood decays. 

Insects: Jeffrey pine beetle, mnmtain pine beetle, California 

flatheaded borer, pine engraver beetle, pandora mth, and 

tent caterpillar. 

Vertebrates: Ground squirrel, pocket gapher, porcupine, and deer. 

Vegetation: Grasses and shrubs in tree plantations. 

Pest pliferation on the Forest is not-a serious concern. 

typically localized and fall within acceptable levels. 

Plan Marlagalen thphas is 

The Plan continues to utilize the Integrated Pest Management approach to pest 

managenent, inc1udi.q the guidance provide5 by the Regional E“mtal 

Impact Statement on Vegetation Managenent in Reforestation. The pj&ed 

high levels of recreation use and new recreation site developnent and 

proposed timber harvest volumes will provide increased opprtunities to 

iqlement Integrated Pest Management on the Forest. 

Protection (Fire Management) 

Cunxmt DireCticn and opportrau ‘ties for axallge 

detection, suppression, fuels management, and “a * tlon with the 

Pest problems are 

Fire management on the Forest includes the elements of planning, prevention, 

management of other resources, inchding the use of prescxibsd fire. 
There is a need to establish a Cost-effective fire suppression organizatim 

ccolsistent with overall fesource management objectives. 

The ores st also has a need to &tennine the appropriate fire supssim 

strategy for application on specific forest acres. The Interim Inyo Fire 

Management Plan provides for the use of t or "ent where 

these strategies are rmre appropriate than cnntrol. Many additional lands on 

the Inyo are well suited to ccolfinement ar cnntaiment strategies. 

confinement limits fire spread by the use of natural barriers; mtaiment 

utilizes limited fire lines; control employs an extensive firefigha 

effort. 

The Forest Service fire mission is wildland fire protection. The Forest will 

resp3nd to a structure fire only in an emergency situation upon the request 

of 1- fire agencies. When local firefighters have arr~ved in sufficient 

force, Forest Service units will withdraw from the structure fire and fm 

on prut&on of adjacent wildlands. 

As a member of the Cwms Valley Interagency Cannand Center, Inyo National 

Forest firefighters respnd to wildland fires off National Forest lands. 

They respond first if they are the appropriate firefightjng urut closest to 

the fire; they support other agency units when needed. 

supply and Demand 

Fmn 1972 to 1982, the InyO National Forest had 491 man-caused fires, 

(burning a total of 5,616 acres) and 715 lightning-caused fires (burning 

2,496 acres). The Inyu is typical of many Forests in Callfomia, ham many 

small fires and an occasional large, damaging fire. 

The risk of wildland fire ignition on the Inyo is rising due to increasing 

developnent of intemhgled and neighbring private lands. This growth is 

especially significant around June Lake, Mamma Lakes, and Qowley Lake. If 

energy (especially geothermal) sou~ces are developed, the risk of operational 

fires will "ease in pmprtion to the size of facilities and "nt of 

activity. 

The demand for aeqency responses to structure fires and the value of 

property at risk fm fires originatjrig on National Forest land are 

increasing with carmunity expansion. In addition, the inprtance of 

protectjrig timber plantations fm wildfire will increase as rmre acres are 

cut and regenerated. 

prescribed fire has been used on the Inyo National Forest for the past 

several years, primarily for timber site preparation. There are additional 

opportunities for prescribed burning to benefit wildlife habitat and dcmestic 

livestock range. prescribed fire has not been used to reduce fuels for fire 

managmt purposes on the Inyo. However, it could be utilized in identified 

high hazard areas. 

Plan Managauen tnnphas is 

The Plan identifies the fire suppression strategies that would be appropriate 

under each management prescription. Specific gudelines for the application 

44 
of thase strategies will be developed as part of the Fire Managanent Actim 

Plan. 

(larent Directicn and c)pporhnu ‘ties for olange 

Thedcmstl ‘c livestock grazing -am is mtly managed at a noderate 

level of intersity. Most range allotmnts have imp”ents, but they are 

rot sufficient to “ize forage utilizatim by livestock. Range managanent 

needs are documented in Allotmnt Management Plans and Annual Gpratirg 

Plans. The range permittee is usually respclnsible for the annual maintenanCe 

of stzuctural hprovmmts, while the Forest provides matexials for new 

cnnstn~ction. 

Range managanent includes the managenat of wild horses and burms-:. r\pprwed 

territory managanent plans for the White bbuntain Wild Horse Territory and 

the Saline Valley and Lee Flat Burro Territory are admate for the planning 

period. There is a need to develop a manag-t plan for the Montganery Pass 

Wild Horse Territory. 

Most vqetation treatment is handled by the Forest SarviCe. 

The cuspent graziq program supplies 41,400 Animal Unit bths (Am) per 

year of forage for danestic livestock and wild horses and bufios, and an 

unkrnm amxult for wildlife. It is estimated that, managed under single 

resource emphasis with unlimited capital hnxhent, a maximum of 75,900 

Animal Unit i”ths could be proauCea on the Forest by the end of five 

decades. 

Increases in forage waild cone primarily frun type conversion and 

rejuvenation of range species, and Seconaarily frun st~ctmal 

such as as water developnents and fenciq. The costs of increasing forage 

production and the need for multiple-resource managanent limit the degree to 

which pxduction will actually be “ized. The degree to which range 

outp~~ts can be increcsed is ultimately limited by precipitation, the 1erq-b 

of the growing season, water availability for livestxxk, and, in scme cases, 

wilderness designation. There are about 150 miles of fence, 39 miles of 

waterline, 145 water sources, and 50 miscellanm~~~ structures (cattle guards, 

gates, and corrals) on the Forest. 

The demand for grazing on the Inp is expected to ccmtinue at or abwe 

present levels, since National Forest sumner range. is essential for lmal 

ranch operations. The Forest assumes that if additional Awls were made 

available, they would be utilized by present permittees. 

The White lvlxlntain Wild Horse Territory (70 horses) and the Saline Valley and 

Lee Flat Burro Territory (112 burros) Papulatiom are within established 

managanent levels. The Pass Wild Horse Territsuy has mre animals 

than the range can support in the long term. The public demand for wild 

horse and burro protection is considerable. 

45 
Plan Manag6n3-I tEuphas is 

plan mamtains the Current level of forage prcduct” ~razlng on 

suitable timber land will continue at current levels for the next ten years, 

but will slawly decline as timber stockirg densities eventually crcwd out 

forage. Grazing on key deer wmter range will continue at current levels. 

Any increase in forage will be allocated to mldlife. Range managmt 

practices that vent cattle fmm affecting specific fa- areas will be 

encouraged. Grazjrg in riparian areas may be deferred or redirected where 

necessary to prevent or repair damage to riparian resources. Ekistirg wild 

horse and bucro plans will be inwrpxated intact, and a management plan for 

the Mmtqancy Pass Wild Horse Territory will be developed. 

Recreation: General 

I3rren-t Dkecticm and O&prtum ‘ties fur Charge 

Recreation is the mst significant resnxce on the Inyo National Forest, and 

is expected to ccmtinue in that role for the foreseeable future. The 

e”ic stability of all Eastern Sierra camnnuties rests heavily on 

recreation-based in-. Ivbst of the major attractions that bring 

recreationists to the area are located on Inyo National Forest land. On 

lands with potential for both recreation and other resources, current 

practice usually emphasizes the recrealaonal values. 

Although there 1s no need to charge direction, thexe is an opportunity to 

decide which areas ’mll be managed for varyirg recreational opportunities, 

how those opprhnuties w~ll be enhanced, and what types of resource 

mnagewnt are consistent with a recreation emphasis. 

SuFPly and DeMlld 

!&e demand for recreation on the Inyo National Forest is tied pr-ily to 

the ppulation of Southern California. Demand is already high wgh to 

exceed the exist- capacity of many on-Forest recreational facilities, and 

1s expeck3 to increase dux* the planning period. 

It is expeded that the current emphasis on destma ‘ tion-oriented camping on 

the Forest will continue. Recreation use of lands in all Recreaticm 

opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes is expcted to increase as a result of 

increasing demand. That use will be facilitated by the construction of new 

trals of various types, especially on lands in the Roaded Natural and 

Semi-F’rimitive Motorized classes. 

Then are currently 870,600 acres in the primitive ROS class; 392,600 in the 

Semi-Primitive Abn-Ivbtorized class; 189,200 acres 1~1 the Semi-primitive 

Motorized class; 383,600 acres in the Roaded Natural class; 35,100 acres in 

the Roaded NxNfied class; 11,600 acres in the Rural class: and 2,000 acres 

in the Urban class in private “ershxp. 

46 
Plan Managansn thphas is 

The Plan identifies both sum~er and winter existing and potential develaped 

and dispersed recreational opportunities. It prescribes the enhancement of 

opprtmities in s~ne areas and the protection of potential sites for future 

deve1opent. 

Recreation: Developed 

annslt Directicsl and ‘ties for Change 

Developed recreation sites are currently managed with low-standard 

maintenance and rehabilitation of degrade3 sites. No new sites have been 

constructed in the past ten years. There is an opprtunity to -ize the 

need for standard maintenance and to cconsider the developxnt of additional 

facilities to enhance recreaticmal opp3a.m ’ties on the Forest. On the Inyo 

National Forest, dispersed recreation depnds heavily on developed 

facilities. As the Forest is a day’s drive away fm the nearest cities, 

visitors need to spend the night on or near the Forest. Any increase in 

recreaticolal use, therefore, de- on an increase in Overnight capacity. 

With the limited ammnt of private land in the Eastem Sierra, most of that 

ad&itiaml capacity will need to be developed on public land. 

The Inyo National Forest supplied 1,848,500 Recreation Visitor Days (Rvns) of 

develaped recreation use in 1982. The current capacity of n@n-alpine 

develaped sites is 25,479 Persuns At One Time (PAOT). Alxxlt 98 percent of 

wcreatiaml developnents lie in ccolcentrated recreation areas. These areas 

cover 47,529 acres (two percent of the Forest land base). Potential 

developed site capacity is estimated at 44,034 PAOT and 3,292,200 RVDs. 

The demand for sumner recreation, as- that facilities are available, is 

projected to increase at a rate of bm percent per year through the next ten 

years, and to continue at the same rate for the follming forty years. 

Plan Managamsil thphas is 

The Plan mphasizes an increase in developed recreation use. New facilities 

will include campgrounds, trails, and interpretive sites, primarily in 

existing concentrated recreation areas. Both privately and publicly operated 

sites mll be considered. 

Recreation: Alpine Skiing 

Cwxent Direction and Opporbu ‘ties for aang2 

Alpine ski area develapnent is currently managed in close coordinatim with 

lccal (xl”l ‘ty planning. Ski area capacity pmjectiom for National Forest 

land are developed in crmjuncticm with comnunity projections of capacity to 

support the associated ppulaticm of skiers and support services. The 

Marmoth and June Pinmtain Ski Area plans are k, develop to capacity. There 

47 
is additional potential for ski area developnent in the She” * Bowl, Minare t 

Sumnit, Marmpth Knolls, San Joaquin Fcidge, and White Wing areas. 

Several of these potential ski areas at-e suitable for both timber hame&iq 

and developed recreation oppxhuu ‘ties. There is a need to establish a 

management aphsis for those lands. 

In response to the lurou> Cnunty/T” of Mamnoth preferences stated in the ”I 

of Mannwth Lakes General Plan, the Forest Service agreed to evaluate Sherwin 

Bowl first whm “sidering the dwelopnent of additional ski areas. It is 

currently being studied in a separate esrvirmnnental analysis that is not a 

part of this Planning p?xx!ess. 

sqply and Danmd 

The Inyo National Forest has two alpine ski areas with a canbined capacity of 

22,000 Skiers At One Time (SACYl’). They provided 1.6 million ski= visits 

during the 1981-82 season. Current plamiq will increase their capacity to 

approximately 29,000 to 31,000 SAOT. Other identified potential ski areas 

are: Sherwin Bowl, Mamoth KM311s, Minaret Sumnit, San Joaquin, and White 

Wing. The limiting factors on ski area developnent may be infrastructure 

factors such as water, sanitation, and 91ow remxral capability rather than 

the availability of land suitable for skiing. 

The demand of Southern Californians for alpine skiing appears to increase in 

direct proportion to lift capacity. Skier use on the Inyo has increased 

abut twelve percent per year for the past ten years. Demand is expected to 

continue increasing until the Forest has been developed to capacity. 

Plan mnagmE¶l thphasl ‘S 

The Plan acknowledges the importance of the Inyo National Forest as a soof alpine skiing for Southern Califorruans. prcrvisions are made for the 

management of potential ski areas so that their ski developnent potential is 

re-. 

Recreation Dispersed 

Current Directim and Gpprhnu ‘ties for Change 

The majoriw of disper;ed recreation on the Inyo National Forest represents 

day use in concentrated recreation areas by people who are stayq overnight 

in Forest Service c-. imphasis on &spersed recreation is 

therefore related to the enphasis on developed sites. There is an 

opprhmity to acknowledge that relatianship and to identify those 

developnents which would best enhance dispersed recreation opportunities on 

the Forest. 

About twenty percent of &spersed recreation use is generated by overmght 

developnents on private land and by lccal ca”ities. This percentage could 

increase, especially in the Lakes area. 

48 
apply ind Demand 

Dispersed recreatim in 1982 anKnmted to a total of 1,935,ooO Recreation 

Visitor Days (IivDs). Of this total, 540,ooO RvDs mmt& wilderness use; 

340,000 represented fishing, 25,200 represented deer hunting; and 25,800 

represented other wildlife-related recreation. The reminiq 1,004,ooO Rws 

represented such activities as driviq for pleasure, hiking, rim, 

dispersed cqing, and boating. 

The demand for dispersed sumner and wintar recreation is expected to increase 

in relative Kopsrtion. to the demand for developed sumner and winter 

recreation. 

Plan mnaganen thphas is 

The Plan recognizes the relationship of developed and dispersed recreation on 

them. Dispersedrecreation 

areas, and develop- (or enmuraging private parties to devalop) facilities 

that Support Ixxdic skiing. In addition, cextaul . lands will be managed with 

an “.sis on off-highway vehicle (OHV) reueaticm. OHVs em those vehicles 

capable of travel- off two-wheel drive roads, inclu&ng four-wheel drive 

and all terrain vehicles (ATVs) and mtorbikes. There is specific directI_on 

for s”bile use (over-- vehicle or 06v) . 

Research Natural Areas 

(xnrent Direction and opporturu ’ties for Change 

The Forest currently manages established Research Natural Areas (RNAs) under 

Forest Service Manual direction. Candidate RNAs are managed so that their 

natural ecosystm are prote3ed until the establishment pnxess is 

canpleted. The Forest has the opportunity to reccmnend the establishment of 

candidate RNAs in the Plan. 

The Forest is responsible for meeting RWL targets for eight vegetation types 

in two physicgraphic pmvixes. Once the two candidate RNAs are established, 

FOE& RNA targets will have been met. 

The current directicol rqxding potential geologic and aquatic RNAs is to 

defer mideration until Regional ‘on is finalized. 

supply and Delmnd 

The Inyo National Forest has five established and two candidate RNAs. 

Existing RNAs meet established targets for Jeffrey pine (Indiana Sumnit), 

lodgepole pine (Sentinel Meadow), foxtail pine (Last Chance Meam), 

bristlecone pine (White Mxntain), and unique ecosystans (Harvey “me 

Hall). Candidate RNAs meet the target for pinyon pine (Whippxrwill Flat) 

and alpine fellfields (Wee Meadow). The target for limber pine is met by 

stands in the Sentinel and Whippzorwill areas. 

There is public demand for RNAs, especially frun the scientific cumnmity. 

49 
Plan Managemen tEhphas is 

The Plan recorranends establishment of the Whippoorwill Flat and Mcnfee Meadav 

RNAs. 

Riparian Areas 

DireCtim and Opprtmu ‘ties for change 

Riparian areas are currently managed by implemmting plans for watershed 

iniprovmt and golden trout habitat restoration on the Kexn Plateau and by 

app1yi.q Best Managemmt Practices (BMPs) for water quality protection to all 

Forest activities. 

There is an opportunity in the Plan to address the management of all riparian 

areas on the Forest and to coordinate riparian values with the managmt of 

other resources. Such direction is especially important because riparian 

areas on the Inyo are limited m extent and vulnerable to inpacts fm many 

kinds of activities. Heavy recreational use, grazing, accelerated erosion, 

water diversion, and the encroachment of woody vegetation on wet meadows all 

threaten the a”t and condition of riparian areas. Both the maintenance of 

riparian condition and the restoration of damaged areas need to be addressed. 

Although wet meadows on the Forest have been adequately inventoried, and the 

amount of streamside riparian vegetation on the Forest is generally lamwn, a 

thorough Forest-wide inventory of the streamside riparian resource is 

needed. A ccmplete and accurate pi- of riparian habitat types, their 

extent and conditxon would contribute sipficantly to managing riparian 

values in concert with other potentially conflicting needs and demands. 

supply and Denand 

Riparian areas on the Inyu National Forest are in short supply and great 

demand. 

There are appraximately 37,000 acres of riparian vegetation (includirg wet 

meadows) on the Forest. That figure represents less than two percent of the 

total land base. The species canposition of a given riparian area is 

de- ’ by elevation, geanorrphic characteristics, and the amxult of water 

available. Approximately 80 percent of the Forest‘s riparian acreage is in 

wilderness. 

The limited supply of dase and prcductive riparian vegetation and its 

Contrast with arid “dug ’ s make it especially inprtant to wildlife for 

food and mer. Riparian vegetation is also an important ccmponent of fish 

habitat quality as overhargmg vegetation keeps the water -1 and roots hold 

soil in place preventing sedunentation. Cattle typically graze mre heavily 

in riparian areas than on the surrounding dry range. Recreationists seek 

these areas for shade and water as a relief fran the hot, dry surroundings. 

Finally, riparian vegetation provides scenic variety, as its lush green color 

contrasts with the surr0undir-g grays and browns. 

50 
The demand for riparian area-dependent resources is expected to increase 

dramatically, especially as riparian values serve as a recreatimal 

attraction and are subject to the jncreasing demand for recreation. 

Plan Managemen thphas is 

The Plan establishes direction for riparian area managemnt. Both the 

maintenance of exlsting values and the restoration of areas in pr “dition 

are addressed. Resources dependent on riparian areas receive priority over 

other resoucces where they are in conflict. The need for an inventory of 

streamside riparian areas is identified. 

Sensitive Plants 

Current Directioo. and ‘ties fa 

Sensitive plants are presently protected by suzveying project sites and 

granting a clearance before vegetation is disturkd. In most cases, project 

locations are mved as needed to amid k” populations. In a few cases, 

populatiom have bsen protected by fencing. 

While existing direction is not in need of change, a man managemnt plan 

is needed to set managanent priorities and to expand the scope of sensitive 

plant mamaganent beycold field survey and site avoidance on a case-by-case 

basis. 

supply and Denand 

There are twaity-two sensitive plant species on the Forest. Eight of these 

species are endemic to Inyo National Forest lands. None of these are 

federally listed as threatened or endaqerd; however, two plants are in 

Category 1 under the Federal Register which means the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service has emugh infomtion to Support a listing as threatened or 

endangered. Four sensitive plants on the Inyo are state-listed as rare. 

Although the condition of sensitive plant habitat varies by species and 

population, it is generally fair to excellent Forest-wide. 

The demand for sensitive plant protection arises fm public interest in 

maintaimng viable p0pulati.m of each species. The local chapter of the 

California Native Plant Society is especially ccolcerned about the ptection 

Of all native plank3 On the InyO. 

Plan Manam thphas is 

The Plan mphasizes current policy and calls for the developnent and 

inplemntation of a Forest sensitive plant -am management plan. 

51 
Special Interest Areas and National Natural Landmarks 

(xnrent DirectiQl and 'ties for Chnge 

The only established Special Interest Area on the Forest is the Ancient 

Bristleccole Pine Forest Eotanical Area. There are also eight candidate 

geologic Special Interest Areas. There is no need for change in management 

of the Botanical Area. The candidate areas need to be evaluated durirg 

inplexwkation of the Plan and "edations made to the Regional Forester. 

The Park Service has developd a pliminary list of twcslty-two psible 

Natirmal Natural Landmarks on the Forest. See chapter I11 of the EIS for the 

list. National Natural Landmark designation does not affect mg€¶Ient of 

the area, or wlm the responsible agency is. If any are designated, the 

Forest Service will contmue to manage them acxwrding to existing management 

plans or the prescriptions and Management Area Direction specified in this 

Plan. 

supply and DBMnd 

The Ancient Bristlewne Pine Forest encanpasses 28,887 acres in the White 

Wuntains. The prmary attraction of the area is a stand of exceptionally 

old bristlewne pine trees, including the world's oldest lamwn liVirag tree. 

The Botanical Area is internationally lamwn, and has been the site of 

significant der&"mlcgical (--ring dating) research. 

The follming candidate geological interest areas were selected fm a list 

of sixty interestiq geolcgic features on or near the Forest: the Pam 

Flat granitic intxusion; granitic domes in the Buttermilk area and Egypt 

Creek; Hot Creek; Starkweather Lake glacial polish; Ticga Tarns; the Inyo 

Craters area (includirg Inyo Cratexs, Deadman glass flm, Obsidmn Dme, and 

Devils punchbawl): EaWquake Fault; and convict Lake/lmer Corrvict Creek, 

including the moraines. 

There is a demand for Special Interest Areas on the Forest. The scientific 

a"ty m particular has identified a "ber of geological phe" that 

they consider deserving of special management. In mst cases, the demand is 

for protection of those @en", rather than for interpreting them to the 

public. It is, therefore, impwtant to choose carefully am~ng the special 

management designations available. 

Plan Managenen tmphas is 

(xlrrent mgment dnectl 'on will continue in the Bristlecone Pine Forest. 

Geologic candidates will be evaluated and selected areas recomnended to the 

Regional Forester. Until the evaluation mss is cmplete, candidates will 

be protected fm any activities that mld damage or destroy their potential 

as Special Interest Areas. 

52 
Timber 

Clmxnt Direction ad 'ties far alange 

current timber management mphasizes the regeneratian of Jeffrey 

pine,applyirg the silvicultural systan of --aged management. There is, 

however, an opportunity to experiment with uneven-aged management. Mast 

Jeffrey pine stands on the Forest are wdemkcked, as past practices relied 

heavily on intermediate harvest and natural regeneration. Wxt red fir 

stands on the Forest have not yet been entered for timber harvest. Red fir 

has not been in high demand on the wood prcducts market, and there has been s~ne question about the possibility of regeneraw that species. As both 

the market and regeneration success have hpmvd, red fir harvest has becane 

mre desirable. 

The carmercial timber base in the current timber management plan for the 

north half of the Forest is 91,500 acres: the annual yield on those acres is 

projected at 11.5 million board feet (WF). The estimated c."ial timber 

base on the south end of Dhe Forest is 10,500 acres with an estimated yield 

of 1.5 WF. 

Themisan- 'ty in the Plan to detd which lands will be managed 

with a primary enphasis on timber outputs. Lands with existing grazing use, 

high recreaticnal values, wildlife habitat values, and Scenic values need to 

be cansidered in terms of their availability for intensive timber 

management. when the size of the timber base is established, appropriate 

silvicultural methcds can be applied and the long-term sustained yield level 

of the Forest can be realistically assessed. 

Current timber managaent in ccolcentrated recreation areas consists primarily 

of ram6ng hazard trees. There is an opprhmity to prescribe silvicultural 

methods for tbose areas that would enhance the health and vigor of the forest 

withut detracting frun aesthetic and recreational values. 

Pinyon-junipr woodlands on the Forest are currently used for grazing, 

dispersed recreaticol, and public wccd gathering. It is desirable to learn 

mre abaut managemmt possibilities on those lands and to consider additional 

managemat options, if appropriate, in the future. 

supply and DeMnd 

The current timber harvest on the Forest is apprmrimately 10.5 IVMBF (million 

board feet) per year. The demand for sawtimber for the Forest c-t be 

predicted fran historical sales trends. Since all the timber offered for 

sale on the Forest durng the past decade has been sold, it can be assumed 

that supply has not exceeded demand. In addition, there is relatively little 

uncut volume under contract (less than years sell volume), and no sales 

have been tumed back. Recently, bid prices for timber have been three to 

four times greater than advertised rates. All these indicators lead to the 

canclusion that sawtimber frun the Inyo is in high demand relative to other 

National Forests in California. Sdlls in 'lle, Nevada and 

Layaltcol, California depend upn logs fmn the Inyo National Forest. The 

sawmill at Inyokem, California, on the south end of the Forest recently 

53 
closed. There are m local sawnulls or camunities that rely on Forest 

timber outputs for e"ic stability. 

Local cn"ties are almost entirely dependent on the Forest as a so~~ce of 

mercial and personal-use fuelwwd. The Inyo currently sells approximately 

4,000 cords of fuelwood per year to canercia1 operators and 6,000 wrds per 

year to the public. The demand for fuelwood correlates directly with the 

1mal ppulation. That demand is therefore projected to ~JXW with Comrmnity 

expansion. The supply of wood fran logging slash is expected to remain at 

current levels over the plamiq period. 

Plan mnagenen tnlphas is 

The Plan enphasizes uskg uneven-aged management techniques for all species 

west of U.S. 395 and even-aged management techniques east of U.S. 395. Pure 

stands of red fir west of U.S. 395 will not be entered during this p1annir-g 

perid and the Pbnache area is excluded fran harvest. The size of the 

"rexial timber base has been defined through axrdinated planning for all 

Forest resources. Lands on which other resource values are higher than 

tmbr values have been remwed €ram the suitable base, or timber management 

has been mfied. Slopes of greater than 30 percent wlll be harvested only 

if it is emmmically feasible to do so. The suitable timber base includes 

75,233 acres out of a tentatively suitable timber base of 110,700 acres. 

The public-use fuelwood program is unchanged. wood gather- above the 

8,000-foot elevation in the White and Inyo mtains oontinues to be 

prdnbited. 

Visual Resources 

Cwxent Divxtion and Oppo rtunities for Change 

Visual resouIu3es on the Forest are presently managed to meet irnrentoried 

Visual Quality Objectives (W). Managanent actinties are planned and 

mitigation measures are prescribed so that VaOs for affected lands will be 

met. The Mammth and June Lake Ccmrmnities and associated winter sprts 

developnent represent the mast significant visual inpacts within the Forest 

lxundaq. The Forest Service has m contml over developwnt and activities 

within ca"ities. 

Additional winter sports developnent and new hydroelectric and/or geothermal 

developwnts could cause major visual resource disruptions during the 

p1amj.q period. There is a need to establish direction for applying VQOs to 

such develapnents. 

supply and Demand 

The Inyu National Forest has an extraordinary visual reso-. That resource 

can be described in terms of variety class, sensitivity level, visual quality 

objectives, visual condition, and visual absorption capability. 

Variety Class A lands are distinctive. Forty-four mt oflands on the 

Forest fall into thls category. Variety Class B lands are "mn and 

54 
canprise 48 percent of the Forest. Variety Class C lands, representing 

variety, ciniprise 8 percent of the Forest. .. 

The sensitivity level of the landscape is a measure both of use (how many 

-le see it) and visual quality (what is seen and how close it is). 

Sensitivity Level 1 (mst sensitive) applies to 76 percent of the Forest, 

Level 2 applies to 9 percent, and Level 3 applies to 15 percent. 

Visual Quality Objectives (m) describe the degree to which the natural 

landscape can acceptably be modified, based on a cnnbmation of variety class 

and sensitivity level. The VQO of hreservation (no modification) applies to 

all Wildernesses and Research Natural Areas, or 31 percent of the Forest. 

The Retention VQO (modificatiom must not be visually evident) applies to 17 

percent. Partial Retention (mficatim must be visually subordinate to 

the natural landscape) applies to 34 percent. Modification (may be visually 

daninant, but must conform to natural character) applies to 14 percent. 

Maximum Modification (visually dcminant but not the primary fa pint) 

would be acceptable on only 3 percent of the Forest. 

Wstjng Visual Cundition (WC) describes the degree to which the natural 

landscape has already been altered. Evc Type I (untouched) describes 76 

percent of the Forest: Type I1 (changes unnoticed), 9 percent; Type I11 

(minor disturbances), 10 percent; Type IV (disturbances), 4 percent: Type V 

(major &sturbances), 1 percent, and Type VI (drastic disturbances), "e. 

Visual Absorption Capacity is the ability of vegetation and topqramy to 

screen disturban- fnm view. A high level of absorption capacity has heen 

estmated for 16 percent of the Forest; derate capacity on 39 percent, and 

low capacity on 15 percent. Wildernesses have not been inventoried for this 

quality. 

Supply can be identified rarmerically by using the ahove figures to calculate 

a Visual Quality Index (VQI). The VQI for the current visual situation on 

the Inyo is 142.07, which is extremely high. 

There is a high level of demand for scenic beauty on the Forest &e both to 

the high levels of recreation and to the fact the U.S. 395 is a major 

national travel route. It is therefore important to maintain visual resource 

values on the Inyo. 

Plan Managemen tmphas is 

The Plan emphasizes a continued high level of visual quality for its econanic 

and social benefits to local cannmities and to millions of annual recreation 

visitors. This -is is expressed by assigning VQ% to specific acres of 

land that are consistent with the overall managemnt 'on for that land. 

Watershed - Soils 

(xlrrent Directl 'an and 'ties fa change 

Soil resources are presently "ged by mitigatjng activities to minimize 

impacts. Where soil impacts are severe, watershed restoration projects may 

55 
alsobemderbken. Thereis 'ty to establish soil managmt 

direction in the Plan that goes beycola current managmt by tailoring 

direction to specific managmt areas. 

Soils on the Forest are variable in terms of parent material, physiosraphic 

position, Susceptibility to erosion, and capacity to supprt vegetative 

gTcJwth. Wt soils on the Forest are coarse-textured. The nnst cc"n 

parent material is granitic; the seccold-most camyxl is pumiceous. The 

basalt. Physiographic psition ranges fran flat tableland to gently slapins 

alluvial fans to extremely steep muntainsides. 

Most of the soils on the Forest are in optjmal or near-optimal condition. 

These soils typically suffer little or m accelerated erosion, are stable, 

and each soil type is proaucirag vegetation at its optjmal level. However, 

wet meadays grazed by livestock and alpine ski areas are especially 

susceptible to soil erosion, due to both soil characteristics and to the 

managemnt activities that OCCUT there. 

The demand for optimal soil condition is related primarily to the demands for 

vegetative growth (for timber, range, wildlife habitat, and scenic values) 

and for water quality. Stable and mctive soils are needed to meet the 

demand for most of the other resouTces prcdud on the Forest. 

Plan Flanagarpn tFmphas is 

Practices that conserve. soil prm&ctivity and reduce erosion are emphasized 

in Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines. Key watershed iq"nt needs are 

identified for specific managmt areas. 

remaining soils are derived fran li" I me- . --,and 

Watershed - Water 

Cwxent Dhecticm and 'ties for change 

Water quality is presently managed by applyins Best Managenat Practices 

(Ws) to all managenmt activities and implementing impmenat projects on 

damaged watersheds. 'IFE two alpme ski areas have develop4 and implemented 

Erosion prevention Plans. There is m need to change direction, but it would 

be desirable to emphasize existing direction and to provide for watershed 

mnitorq m the Plan. 

Water rights for a"ptive water use are abinistered by the state. There 

is a need to encourage the developnent of legal mecham 'sns for obtaining 

water rights for ma"ptive (instxeam) uses such as fish habitat and 

visual quality. The consumptive rights of other parties to water on National 

Forest land could easily conflict with the managenat of Forest resources 

dependent on instream flow. 

Water yield is presently managed by allowing storage and regulation 

reservoirs to be operated on the Forest. There is little, if any, 

56 
ety foradditional reservoir capacity or for increasmg water outputs 

by vegetation managmerit. 

supply and &"3 

Water quality on the Inyo is gccd overall. Established water basin 

objectives are met by mre than 97 percent of the water cnniq off the 

Forest. As bacterial, nutrient, and chemical problems are snall and 

localized, the main threat to clean water is sedimentation. 

The major existing sources of sediment are eroded wet meadows (damaged by 

pr range management III the past) and alpine ski areas. The greatest 

potential for additional sediment mction ccmes fran mirung, geothermal 

developnent, ski area developnent, and roads and wails. Timber management 

is not a major threat to water quality on the Iqo as long as it occurs on 

slopes and soil types similar to those currently under management. 

The demand for water quality is reflected in the fact that lllost of the water 

flowing fmn the Forest serves hnest~ 'c or municipal water needs, either 

locally or in urban areas. 

The Forest holds adquate water rights to meet its current and foreseeable 

c"@5ve needs. Tbse needs are expected to grbw m more than five 

percent over the next fifty years. 

Water flowvlg off the Forest a"ts to an average of 1,093,ooO acre-feet per 

year. The demand for water fm the Forest is expected to increase with 

inmasing populations, both in local cumnmities and in urban areas that use 

water fm the Forest. The demand for water m Mammth Lakes, in particular, 

is likely to grow quickly with additional ski area capacity, and possibly 

Clean water is also a recreational attraction. 

mth geothermal developnent as well. 

Plan XGlrIagalEm thphas is 

The Plan stresses the importance of ccmpliance with Best Manag-t Practices 

and & area Emsion Prwention Plans, and continuing implementation of 

Watershed Improvement Plans to protect and inprove water quality. 

The water rights situation remains unchanged; the Forest has adequate water 

rights to furnish water for projected consumptive needs. Changes would have 

to cccur legislatively at the state level in order to pmvide water rights 

for instream values. 

The psibilities of increasing water yield or availability for dcipal use 

will be studied on a case-by-case basis as demand incre as-. No FOreSt-tc~de 

opportunities to increase water yield have been identified. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Current D-im and Oppo &ties for Change 

The Forest is presently managing the Mime Fork of the San Jo@ River as 

a candidate Wild and Scenic River, protecting its wild and scenic qualities. 

57 
The San Joaquln flows between the Sierra and the Inyo National Forests. The 

Sierra has the lead responsibility for making a reamwdation to Cbrigess 

for wild and scenic designation for this river. 

supply and Demand 

The South Fork of the Kern and the North Fork of the Kern have recently been 

designated as Wild and Scenic Rivers by ccolgress. Advocates of Wild and 

Scenic Rivers have been outspoken at the ~tJ.0~1 level 111 their demand that 

free-flowing waters be protected. The Congressimal action that 

established the Wild and Sdc mver program reccgruzes that demand. 

Plan Manag6n3-I tEhiphas is 

The Plan prescri- managerent direction for all three rivers, based on their 

status. 

Wilderness 

Current Directim and opporhnu 'ties for Change 

The John W, Ansel Adarts (formerly Minarets), Homer, and Golden R-out 

Wildernesses are currently managed under hdindual wilderness managerent 

plans. Although overall wilderness direction is adquate for planning 

purp3ses, certajn aspects of wilderness managerent plans need to be corrected 

to improve consistency fran one plan to another. The Plan can facilitate 

this process. WilaemeSs managenwit plans are renewed pn&cally, and 

area-Fific changes are made as the need arises. 

The South Sierra Wilderness, which was designated in September 1984, does mt 

yet have a managerent plan. 5%~ additions to the Ansel Adams wildexness need 

to be incorporated into the Minarets wilderness Managenwit Plan, and that 

plan needs to be renamed. These planning needs should be addressed in the 

Plan. 

slgply and Demand 

The Inyo National Forest has approxunately 565.100 acres of designated 

wilderness; a-tely 30 percent of the Forest land base. The Plan 

feccmnends that approximately 172,600 additional acres be added to the 

mlderness system which would brq the total wilderness canpcolent of the 

Forest to 38 percent. Wilderness recreation on the Forest munted to 

540,000 FWDs in 1982. Tbam are 584.6 miles of vnlderness trail currently 

maintained to Class I standards and 29 trailheads with a capacity of 2,212 

PAOTS . The demand for wilderness nxreatJ.m exceeds the supply dmiq the sumner in 

the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wildernesses. Most of the wildexness 

trailheads on the Forest are managed under quotas that allm wildexness to be 

managed within established capacity limits. Most quotas are filled during 

the sumner mmths. Only the less desirable trails and sone mid- and 

early- and late-season days are left unfilled. 

58 
The demand for mlderness use is demt on the recreational appeal of a 

given area. Scenic attxactions, ease of access, lakes, campsites, 

destination pints, and sources of drinkable water are all important. The 

munt of non-wilderness roadless land on the Inyo with those characteristics 

1s limited. It is unlikely, therefore, that wilderness supply could ever met 

demand on this Forest unless demand were to decline. 

The Plan incorporates exi- wilderness management plans and recognizes the 

need for wntinuing examinatian and upaatiras of those plans with charging 

ocolditions. The need to develop management direction for new wilderness is 

also addressed. 

Wildlife 

Current DirectiQl and ‘ties for Chqe 

The Forest currently manages wildlife with an emphasis on threatened, 

endangered, sensitive, special interest, and hamest (game) species. 

Threatened and endangered species habitat is managed with the objective of 

restoring species viability. Habitat for sensitive species is managed with 

the intent of preventing the species fmn beocming threatened or endangered 

as a result of management activites. Special interest species have values 

for scientific study or recreational appreciation; their habitat is managed 

with a goal of maintaining or increasing ppulations on the Forest. Harvest 

species are managed primarily to @de recreational hunting opportunities. 

Habitat management plans have been developd on the Forest for sine of these 

species. 

Wildlife species that do not fall into one of the abwe mtioned categories 

have not benefited fmn specific habitat management actixnties. The Forest 

has the opprtunity to apply the concept of Management Indicator Species 

(MIS) in .the Plan. Managmt Indicator Species include threatened and 

mdaqered species, key sensitive species, key harvest species, and 

additional species that represent specific habitat types subject to the 

effects of Forest management. Management Indicator Species representing 

specific habitat types are intended to represent other wildlife species with 

slmilar requirements. As such, they are used to determine the population 

capabilities of different habitats and to evaluate management opprtunities 

to enhance habitat. Management Indicator Species representing habitat types 

can include species fmn mther category. 

supply and Damnd 

Others have to be developed. 

Management Indicator Species on the Forest, by category, are: 

Harvest 

Esldangered 

Sensitive 

Mule deer, Blue grouse, Sage grouse. 

Bald eagle, Peregrine falwn. 

Fishex, Sierra Nevada red fox, Goshawk, 

Pine marten, Spotted owl, Great gray 

59 
ail, Wolverine, Sierra Nwada mtain 

Special interest Golden eagle, Tule elk, Prairie falcon, 

Depndent on riparian area 

Depenaent on slags Hairy wxdpcker, Williamson sapsucker. 

Dependent on early-middle Sage grouse. 

sheep. 

Nelson mtain sheep, 

Yellm warbler. 

seral stages of brush 

Depenaent 081 Older seral stage Goshawk. 

of caniferaus farest 

Bald eagle: The Inyu has a mall a”t of bald eagle winter- habitat. 

Appnxhately 20 to 30 birds winter on or near National Forest land. Current 

information does not indicate whethex the nmbr is increasw or decreasing. 

Tule elk: There are app”te1y 600 elk in the Owens Valley. "hers are 

increasirKJ, and animals are rernnred for transplant. 

We deer: The current p3pulation of lrmle deer that relies on the Forest for 

sumner range, winter range, and/or migratory access is estimated at 20,200 

animals. Those deer that sumner and/or winter on Forest lands are estimated 

at 12,000 with a “I potential population estimated at 16,000. Althugh 

declines are perceptible over the past twenty to thirty years. The reasons for 

declining nW are not lamwn, but are being studied by the Deparhwrit of 

Fish and Game in mopration with other agencies, including the Forest Service. 

The California Deparhnent of Fish and Game has prepared deer herd manag-t 

plans for each of the eight herds that use Inyo National Forest lands. Those 

plans and the goals they envision are as follows: 

the deer population has remained fairly l3Jnstant over the past ten years, 

Buttermilk Herd: Maintain the ppulation near current levels (3,000 deer) 

to maximize recreational hunting opprhnu ‘ties by maintw the current 

quality and quantity of habitat and preventing deleterious lmpacts fm 

future land uses. 

Casa Diablo Herd: The 

goal is to increase that Fopulatiun to 2,245 deer by applying flexible 

harvest levels and by habitat and reducing capstition and 

disturbance on key m, interne& ‘ate, and winter range habitats. 

East Walker Herd: The 1984 pre-se- population was approximately 3,040 

deer. The goal for tlus herd muld be approxuuately 5,050 deer. Most 

increases would be adueved tbrough range enhanmt and reduced 

cangetition for forage on lands outside the Forest. 

Goodale Herd: The current population is estimated at 2,600 deer. Goals 

are expressed as buck, doe and fawn ratios for the northern and southem 

subunits. The northern subunit will be mtained to m-ze recreational 

huntlng opportunities. The southem subunit will be managed wlth eruphasis 

on older age-class bucks for viewmg and late-season quota hunting. 

Habitat goals are to maintain the current quality and quantity of habitat 

and to prevent deleterious impacts of future land uses. 

The current population is estimated at 1,500 deer. 

60 
Inyo-white PbuntahS Herd: Maintain current landownarshl 'p status, impmve 

habitat caditions where pssible, and prevent deleterious intpacts frun 

future land uses (there is insufficient census information for ppulation 

@S). 

Monache H&: The primary management goal is to develop and maintain a 

spring population of 8,000 to 9,000 animals (an increase of appraxlma ' tely 

2,000 deer over current levels). This ppulation could be achieved through 

habitat improvement and land use priorities that fawr deer. 

Wx-a Lake Herd: The current fall Fopulation is estimated at 3,000 deer. 

The goal is to increase that nmber to 4,000 animals by inproving key 

habitats, reducing anpetition with livestock and wild horses for forage, 

and imprwirag sex and age ratios through flexible harvest levels. 

SW Grade Herd: Mamtain the current Fopulation (2,300 to 2,400 deer) 

by restoring the quality of wintex range, acquiring key winter range 1y3w in 

private ownershl 'p, and impIwing the sex and age ratias. 

Deer rely mst heavily on Forest lands for winter range. Most spend the sumner 

at higher elevations and many of the r" herds sunnier west of the Forest 

lmundaq. The Inyo has 112,119 acres of key deer win- range, most of it 

betmen 4,500 and 6,000 feet elevation on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada. 

The demand for deer hunting in the Eastern Sierra is high and has been 

relatively stable frcm year to year. In 1982 deer hunting amounted to 25,200 

Wildlife and Fish User Days. This demand appears to be limited by supply, in 

terms of hunter success rates. If there were mre deer, hunters muld be mre 

successful, and the demand for hun- would be expected to increase. 

mine falcan: Although peregrine fal- existed on the Forest in earlier 

times, the nearest active nesting pairs are m €ound in Yosemite Valley and 

Hetch Hetchy Canyon. Eight fledglings were reintroduced on the Forest in 1983 

and 1984. There is potential nesting habitat for four nesting pairs. 

Fisher: llm recent reoords and a few unsubstantiated repwts exist for this 

species on the Forest. Dense forested habitat anprised of large trees are 

considered optir" habitat. West-side forests probably contain mre suitable 

habitats than east-side counterparts. 

Sierra Nevada red fox: A few substantiated sightings have been reported in the 

June Lake area. This species is found in open forest, alpine shrub and 

riparian habitats at higher elevations. Rock crevices and logs are required 

for denning. 

Goshawk: Goshawk surveys have located approximately twenty-five active nest 

sites on the Forest, fifteen of these m suitable timber. Wst surveys have 

been ocolducted in areas managed for timber. It is estimated that an additional 

twenty-five pairs have nest sites in wilderness or m-ccrrmercial timber 

areas. There is insufficient data to determine whether the goshawk population 

on the Forest is changing. 

Blue grouse : Blue grouse is a hanrest species typically found in forest and 

shrub habitats associated with riparian areas at high elevations in the Sierra 

61 
Nevada and Wte i"t-. There are m apparent conflicts between the needs 

of this species and the managmt of other resources. The demand for blue 

grouse as a game species on the Forest is light. 

sage grouse : The 

reason for this declme is not lamwn. It is suspected that certain livestock 

graziq practices and wildfire suppression have contributed to the increasiq 

density of sagebrush and a declining a"t of herbaceous Unaerstory which are, 

m turn, r&cq sage grouse habitat capability. Studies are underway to 

analyze these factors and to make habitat improvement recamwdations. Sage 

puse are m longer found in several areas on the Forest that they formerly 

occupied. 

The current mation of birds is estmated at 500 individuals, located 

primarily in the Lake C'mwley basin and the northern white i%". The 

"I habitat capacity of the Forest for sage grouse is estimated at 1,500 

birds. 

Sage grouse is considered an impco.tan t upland game bird in California. The 

demand for hunting the species is high and is expected to remain so. However, 

due to dec1mi.q numbers of birds, the California Department of Fish and Game 

closed the huntiq season for sage grouse in 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986. 

Pine marten: Martens are a relatively rx"n carnivore in dense stands of red 

fir and lodgepole pine at higher elevatmns. 

spottea owl and Great gray owl: There is little data on the occurre~lce of 

these species on the Forest. Altlaough two spotted owl sightings have been 

documented on the Forest, there have been m documentations of nest 

territories. The demand for spotted owl habitat is high, as it is decreasjng 

throughout the timbered areas of Califomia and the Pacific Northwest. Spottea owls require large tracts of old-growth timber. Ttus seral stage is also a 

prim potential source of wood prcductts. l'here is considerable concern that 

without special managerent spotted owls could becane threatend within the wrt 

fifty years. On the Inyo National Forest, red fir stands have the highest 

potential for spottea owl nestirg habitat. There are no timber harvests 

scheduled in these stands during this p1armi.q period. 

Great gray owl sightjngs on the Forest have not been verified. There are few 

potential conflicts between the habitat needs of that species and other 

resource managmt because most of the suitable habitat is in wilderness. 

Nelson (desert) MxlIltain sheep : Nelson muntain sheep are found in both the 

white and Inyo lulxmtains. It is estimated that there are approximately one 

hundred sheep in the White Wmntains, and the p3pulation appears to be 

increasirg. Little is lamwn about the Inyo herd, but the papulation has been 

estimated at thirty. 

There is a significant demand for Nelson nuuntain sheep for scientific 

research, recreational am, and (potentially) for hunting. Auctions in 

other states for permits to shoat a ram have raised bid prices exceediq 

$60,000. 

The population of sage grouse on the Forest is declmiq. 

This interest is expected to mtinue. 

62 
Sierra NeMda "tain sheep : Virtually all of the Sierra Nevada muntab 

sheep in California are found on the Inyo National Forest. There are five 

populations on the Forest. Two populations represent natural Chstributions: 

the rmainiq three have ken reintxcduced into historic range. Them is 

aational potential for reintroduction, as the Baxter herd is healthy and 

growing, and there is still suitable unrxcupied habitat an the Forest. The 

total emsting population includes approximately three hundred animals. If all 

idenkfied suitable habitat on the Forest were occupied, it could support as 

many as one thousand animals. 

The Sierra muntain sheep is in demand primarily for recreational obsemation 

and scientific study. 'I" wild sheep Societies and the California Department 

of Fish and Gams are especially interested in the managarent of n-ountain sheep. 

Ffiparian area-- tspeci es: Riparian vegetation covers appraximately tm 

percent of the Inyo Naticml Forest; the remaining lands are, for the mt 

part, arid and sparsely vegetated. The papulation and trend of riparian-area 

dement wildlife species has not been studied. The a"t and condition of 

riparian habitat is vulnerable to the inpacts of ground disturbance, vegetation 

manipulation, and/or streamflow reductiool. Marry types of resource managarent 

have the potential to affed riparian areas. 

Pppraximately 20 percent of hisbric Stream habitat in the Ivl3no and Cwaw 

Basins has been eliminated by water re"l, irrigation, and recreational 

activities. Eighw-eight mt ofall existing Stre= have been dim& to 

some extent. 

Maintainiq the quality of aquatic and riparian habitat is a critical wmcem. 

Since nearly all species are dependent on these areas at some time in their 

life cycles, activities that aaverSely affect these habitats have mxe 

potential for affecting the -all wildlife resource on the Forest than any 

other kind of Forest activity. For these reasons, the demand for riparian 

habitat on the Inyo is high. 

SMg-dependen tspec ies: Snag densities on the Inyo are low, due both to the 

slow rate of ~tural slag recIuitrnent and the munt of illegal public snag 

cutting for fuelwood. The population and trend of mag-depndent species is 

tlaought to be declining in areas accessible to the public and open to fuelwood 

gathering. Habitat for snag-de-t species declines wherever new roads are 

cr"&ed and lands ke" accessible to woodcutters. The demand for snags 

on the Forest is high. 

Snag-depndent species are depndmt on both standiq dead trees (slags) and 

down and dead lcgs. Dead and down wood is legally available to woodcutters and 

declines rapidly whersmr it is accessible by vehicle. 

Species depm&n t on early-middle seral stages of tnush: 

Species depzden t on older seral stages of dferous forest: see goshawk. 

See sage grouse. 

63 
Plan MaMgenen tmphas is 

Habitat management Stadards and Guidelines fcn "t IndiCalmr SpecieS 

and other emphasis species, needed managanent plans, and research and mm 

needs are addressed in the Plan. 

64 
Phil Collh 
CHAPTER IV. Management Direction 

Introduction 

This chapter documents how the Inyo National Forest vnll be managed during 

this planning pericd. It provides dj"x 'on to Forest land managers and 

explains to the public the rem why specific areas are managed for 

specific reasons and how that will be accanplxshed. 

The chapter is divided into five sections: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Forest Goals lists the resources of the Forest with their respective 

manag-t goals. 

inplementing the Plan. 

Forest Objectives lists outputs for each resource that will result fran 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines are the bases for all management 

activities on the Forest. Each resource has a set of standards and 

guides to that the resource is protected, maintained or developd 

in an emimmentally sound and ewnanically cost-effective way. These 

standards and guides apply to all areas of the Forest. 

w" t PresQliptiOns prescribe how areas on the Forest will be 

managed with a specific resource -is. For example, any Wildemess 

on the Forest no matter where it is located will be managed under 

Prescription #1 - Designated Wildemess. Each prescription describes the 

ObJeCtive of manag€inent and the area's resource -is. 

Manag5wn t Area D-im delineates boundaries of the twenty management 

areas on the Forest. Each of these has a different mix of prescriptions, 

but all are managed under the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines. 

National Forests are managed under a variety of federal laws rqirg fm the 

U.S. Minirq Laws of 1872 to the National Forest Managmt Act of 1976. 

Forest Semice iVamals and Handbooks and the Pacific southwest Regimal Guide 

replace the direction fran those sou~ces. 

Variance fran Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Prescriptions, or 

Management Area Direction may occasionally be needed due to unforeseen site 

dtions, unwnbmllable circmstances or unexpcted natural @"m. 

Where variance is unavoidable, it will be documented in an appropriate 

project envircarmental analysis. If necessary, the Plan can be ammded or 

revised. 

provide additional policy diredi on. The Plan suppll3litmts but does not 

65 
Forest Goals 

The multiple-use managevent goals that follow describ the desired future 

condition of the Inyo National Forest. These goals are derived fm laws, 

regulatiam, policies, Resources Plarming Act ("A) prosram goals, the 

Pacific southwest Regional Guide, and identified Inyo National Forest issues 

andwncerns. 

EcoNoMIC/socIAL 

The Forest is managed in an econcmically efficient and cost-effective manner 

while resKwding to the ecollcmic and social needs of the public and lccal 

"nuuties. 

National Forest System lands are "aged to maintain air quality that 

ccmplies with all applicable regulatim. The conduct of Forest managanent 

activities is cmied out in a manner "istent and cxmptible with the 

attainment of state and federal air quality objectives. 

aJIJ9.uRm - 

Identification, evaluation, protection, and interpretation of cmltu~al and 

lusbric resoutces are continuous and an integral part of managanent of the 

Forest. 

DIVERSITY 

The Forest has achieved diversity of plant and animal Conrmnities by 

poviding a threshold level of vegetation types and seral stages. 

ENERGY 

Mxhm public benefits are obtained fm the energy resources of National 

Forest system lands, while adverse e"iatal effects on other Forest 

resources from exploration, developnent and extraction are "Ized. 

Managanent operations on the Forest are energy-efficient. 

FACILITIES 

An efficient Forest txansportation q", administrative sites, and other 

facilities are in place and n!ajntained at least to the "I standards 

appropriate for planned uses and the pMon of resources. 

66 
FISH 

Fish habitat is managed to provide species diversity, to ensure that viable 

ppulations of native vertebrates are maintained and the habitats of 

management emphasis species are maintained or imprarea. 

GE0IxX;y 

Geologic resources, includhg gnnmdwater, are assessed. The risks to 

pem and projects fran potential geologic processes such as landslides, 

eartlquakes, and volcanic events are recognized and provisions are made for 

them. 

LAM)s: 

The Forest has a land and resource Mnagement structure and program with 

Wtible re1ati-p between National Forest System lands and adjacent 

m-federal lands. Specific activities to acccmplish this goal are: special 

use administration, electronic site management, utility corridor management, 

rights-of-way manag-t, withdrawal, 1a"nership adjustmnt, and prOperty 

boundary resuzvey and monumentation. 

Maxi" public henefits are obtained from the mineral (including geothermal) 

remces of National Forest System lands, while adverse f"ental 

effects on other Forest resources from exploration, developnent and 

extraction are minimized. 

PESTPest-related damage is maintained at levels that do not unacceptably impact 

land and resource manag-t goals and objectives. 

PROTEXXICN 

The Forest has a cost-effective fire management prcgram that minimizes 

reme losses and serious or Icolg-lasting adverse effects from wildfire. 

The Forest Service mission in fire managemnt is to use fire as a resource 

management tool. 

RAISE 

A sustained yield of forage is provided, ramp condition is inp.awed, and 

g~~~irg capacity is increased on suitable rarge, while other resource values 

are maintained or improved through cost-effective developnent and imprwea 

management. 

67 
RElcRERTIoN 

A broad range of develcped and dispersed recreation oppxtmities in balance 

with identified existing and future demand is pnxided. 

REsERRcliNA~ARERs 

All botanical Research Natural Areas are established and targets are met. 

All qualified aquatic and geologic candidates are identified and recQrmended 

for establishment. 

RIPARIANARERS 

Riparian areas are managed to protect or 5." riparian area-dependent 

resources while alla%lng for managanent of other cmpatible uses. 

SpEcIAL-ARERs 

Special Interest Areas (botanic, geologic, scenic, zologic) are managed to 

fulfill the intent and purpose for which the areas are established. 

"ED, "GEmD, OR SENSITIVE SPECIES 

The habitats of threatened or endangered animals are proteCtea or kproved to 

assist the recovery of the species in cooperation with state and other 

federal agencies. Sensitive plant species are pmbzted to ensure they will 

not becane threatened or endangered. 

TIMBER 

The timber resource is managed to provide a sustained yield of cannercial 

sawtimber, public fuelwood, and miscellaneous weed prcducts, while other 

resource values are maintained at or atme those mini" prescribed by law 

and/or regulation. 

vIsuRLREsouRcEs 

The quality of the scenic resource and viemi-g opprhmities are maintained 

or enhanced. 

la"D 

National Forest managwent activities are mnducted to maintain or inprove 

soil prductivity, to maintain favorable conditions of waterflaw, and to 

canply with water quality goals as specified in state and federal clean water 

legislation for the sustained benefit of a"ptive and I1o"ptive users 

of water. 

68 
WILDANDmcRIVER3 

The newly designated North Fork of the Kam and South Fork of the Kern Wild 

and Scenic Rivers are managed to protect their wild and scenic qualities. The 

Middle Fork of the San Joaquh is managed so as not to preclude its 

designation as a Wild and Scenic River. 

WILDClassified wildemess is managed to protect and perpetuate the wilderness 

character of the area: to provide opprhnu ‘ties for prjmitive recreation; to 

maintain wildlife and fish, scenic, and watershe3 values; and to maintain or 

enhance the quality of wilderness experiences. 

WILDLIFE 

Wildlife habitat is managed to provide species diversity, to ensure that 

viable ppulations of existiq native vertebrates and irnrartebrates are 

maintained, and that the habitats of managemat eqhasis species are 

maintahedor improves. 

69 
Forest Objectives 

Forest objectives are the qyantified resource and activity outputs for the 

10-year plannirag pricd (1988-1997). The following table displays the 

outputs or irrventcay fran the base year of 1982; the 1980 Resaurces Planning 

Act (FPA) targets for the years 1990 and 2030; and the outputs that will 

result €ran jmplementiq the Plan. They are displayed m this mer for 

canparison purposes. There are m FPA targets for many of the categories. 

Forest Objectives 

Average Annual Outputs for Decade 1 

FAcILIm 

Adminimtive Sites 

Forest S-ce owned (m. ) 

leased (no.) 

DamandReservoirs 

Forest Servlce (no.) 

State/- (m.) 

Private (no.) 

Roads (miles) 

Constructicol (total) 

recreation (site access) 

(interior) 

Remnskuction (total) 

timber 

recreation (site access) 

(interior) 

Maintenance (total) 

Trails (miles) 

cbnstzuctim (total) 

exis.tingwilderness 

recormended wilderness 

c”txa%rec. areas 

open National Forest 

w 

6 

1 

3 

4 

11 

0 

0 

0 

25 

15 

5 

5 

974 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8 

1 

3 

4 

11 

2.5 

0 

2.5 

15.0 

5.0 

5.0 

5.0 

977 

24.3 

0.7 

1.8 

9.0 

1.0 

1.8 

nOrdiC 0 10.0 

70 
Forest Objectives 

Average Annual Outputs for Decade 1 

__ 

Base 1980 Decade 1 

Resource Elements Year RPA Goals 

1982 1990 2030 (1988-1997) 

Trails (miles) (oant'd) 

Re"ction (total) 

existing wilderness 

recormended wilderness 

amcentratedrec. areas 

Open National Forest land 

OHV 

nOrdiC 

Maintenance (total) 

LANDSANDMINERALS 

Land acquired (acres) 

Landlines SULveyed (miles) 

Leasable ' IS 

power Plants) 

Locatable "xal s 

(operating plans) 

PixxEmItm 

Fel treatment (total acres) 

fire related 

timber related 

range related 

wildlife related 

mqected wildfire (total) 

(acres burned) 

Fire Intensity Level1 

Fire Intensity Level 2 

Fire Intensity Level 3 

Fire Intensity Level 4 

Fire Intensity Level 5 

Fire Intensity Level 6 

RANGE 

10.8 

9.0 

0 

1.8 

0 

0 

0 

1236 

60 

9 

0 

67 

18 

0 

18 

0 

0 

747 

13 

34 

53 

647 

0 

0 

320 408 

39.7 

12.6 

1.3 

4.2 

2.2 

16.2 

3.2 

1489 

54 

6 

1 

50 

243 

0 

93 

50 

100 

918 

9 

55 

64 

239 

551 

0 

Grazing (M ruffvls) 41.4 42.2 44.5 41.4 

71 
Forest Objectives 

Average Annual Outputs for Decade I 

Base 1980 Decade 1 

Resource Elements Year RPA Goals 

1982 1990 2030 (1988-1997) 

REcRFATm 

Developed Private (M RVD) 1635 

Developed Public (M RVD) 1201 3510 5100 

Dispersed (M RVD) 1004 2490 3120 

Wilckrmss (M RVD) 540 

TIMBER 

Allowable Sale m. (IVMBF) 10.5 16.8 19.8 

"od (M mrds) 10.0 

Lcng--- Yield(WF) 

Refcmstaticn (acres) 300 

Tinher Stad -t (acres) 328 

mInpmverrnt (acres) 100 

Quality (M ac./ft. at stds.) 1047 

614 718 

900 918 

180 200 

476 481 

Increased puantity (M ac./ft.) 0 

WILDLIFEANDFISH 

Mule deer (M animals total) 20.2 +20 percent 

(M animals on Inyo NF) 

Bald eagle** (winter nostmg . areas) 1 

-he falcm** (170. of pairs) 

12.0 

0 

Goshah in suitable tider 

(no. of pairs) 15 

Nelscnl "tajn sheep (no.) 130 

1914 

1578 

1191 

644 

7.1 

10.6 

14.5 

200 

374 

350 

1050 

7.0 

20.2 

12.0 

1 

2 

15 

140 

72 
Forest Objectives 

Average Annual Outputs for Decade 1 

Base 1980 Decade 1 

1982 1990 2030 (1988-1997) 

Resource Elements Year RPA Goals 

WILDLEE AND FISH (cont‘d) 

Sierra Nevada -lain (m.) 300 

Labontan cr +rout* (streall mi.) 

Paiute cr +rout* (stream mi.) 

Resident +rout (M lk.) 

Wildlife/Fish User Days (total) 

(M ms) 

mule deer 

resident trout 

Other 

Direct Ebbitat -t 

mule deer (M acres) 

resident trout (miles) 

other (M acres) 

Ii”- 

p=g=m (-11eeS) 

ToI.AL - (W) 

ToI.AL - (W) 

1 

3 

1632 

391.0 

25.2 

340.0 

25.8 

0.5 

0 

0 

39 

9.9 

10.3 

350 

.J 

1.3 

+20 percent 1640 

393.8 

25.2 

341.7 

26.9 

0.2 

0.4 

0.3 

14 14 39 

11.1 12.2 12.1 

13.5 

*Threatened, **Endalg&. 

73 
Forest - wi d e Standard s-a n dGu id e 1 in es 
Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines 

For&-wide Standards and Guidelines set the "I resource ccslditicols that 

will be maintained th?xqMut the Forest . They provide specific guidelines 

for the management of each resaurce to ensure its protection or enhancement . They apply wheremr the res" or activity wars . Pbre specific or 

additional duection may be given by Management prescriptions or Managercent 

Area Direction . 

Thrs section displays the guidelines for managlng all resources of the 

Forest . 

Resource Page 

AirQuality ................................................... 75 

Cultural Resources ............................................ 75 

Diversity .................................................... 76 

Energy ..................................................... 77 

Facilities .................................................... 77 

Fish ....................................................... 78 

Geology ..................................................... 80 

Hardwoods .................................................. 80 

Lands ....................................................... 80 

Minerals .................................................... 82 

Pest Management ............................................. 83 

Protection ................................................... 84 

Range ...................................................... 84 

Recreation .................................................. 86 

Research Natural Areas ......................................... 89 

RiparianAreas ................................................ 89 

Sensitiveplants ................................................ 91 

Special Interest Areas .......................................... 92 

Timber ..................................................... 92 

Visual Resources .............................................. 93 

Watershed ................................................... 94 

Wild and Scenic Rivers .......................................... 97 

Wilderness ................................................... 97 

Wildlife ..................................................... 98 

74 
Air Quality 

- Coordmate with the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District 

when develophg guidelines for managesent pq?ans on the Forest. 

-Obtain permits fran the Air Pollution Control District prior to 

cxmductiq prescription fire activities. 

-Bum only whm fuel mndi.t;lons and climatic conditicols are such that 

r"rm total suspended particles and volaklized gases are generated and 

rapid smke dispersion is assured. 

- Conduct, or require of lessees and mtxactors, dust abatement prccedures 

durq construction or other Forest activities that generate significant 

dust. 

Cultural Resources 

- Consult with local American Indian groups to ensure the protection of, 

and access to, traditional secular, religious, and mal sites. 

- Assess and authorize as appmpriate both general and site-specific 

requests by local American Indians for traditicmal and religious uses of 

National Forest system lands. 

- Consult with the State Historic h-eservation Officer and "ate 

appropriate cultUral/hi&xical sites to the National Register. 

- Identify the types of data and research efforts needed to develop mre 

efficient inventory, evaluation, pmteztion, and canpliance precessing. 

-wage and support in-sarvice and private sector efforts that address 

these needs. Develop and hplement appmpriate manag-t plans and 

strategies. 

- Foster active research programs by issuing antiquity/special use permits, 

cooperative agreements, and volunteer agreements. 

- Document inventories, site evaluaticms, assessmats of impacts, and 

mitigation plans in all EAs/EISs for Forest-mitiated, authorized, or 

licensed activities. 

- heat Class I1 properties as if they were Class I until they are 

evaluated. 

- Maintain the confidentiality of cultural resource site locations to aid 

in their protection. 

provide protectim for known cultural values. 

-Avoid cultural resoufce damage fire suppression activities and 

- Intezpmt cultural resources for the benefit of the public. 

75 
-Develap and impl-t strategies including road closures for the 

protedion of cultural sites. 

Diversity 

-Maintain or inpmve the diversity of plant and animal “mities by 

proviw a variety of vegetation types and seral stages within the 

Forest. 

- Maintain at least five parcent of each timber type and ten percent of 

each shrub type in each of the named seral stages. If any given seral 

stage-vegetation ocmbinaticol currently represents less than the “m 

required level, manage to achieve the required level as scan as possible. 

- Use the following timber types, shrub types, and seral stages to 

determine the Mini.” Management RW t level of diversity. 

Diversiw at this level is “3 Forest-wide and on all forested land 

whether managed for timber prcductirm or not. The red fir canpcolent will 

not be harvested duriq this pl- period. 

Timber Tvpes : Jeffrey pine; red fir; loagepole. 

seral stages (first two aecaaes): 

(1) 

(2) 

(3A) ple/medium tree (20-50 feet high, 0-39 percent canopy cover, 

(3B,C) ple/medium tree (20-50 feet high, 40 percent or mom canopy 

grass/forb (with or witbut scattered shrubs and seedlings); 

shrub/seedling/sapliq (trees up to 20 feet high); 

substantial shrub layer); 

cover, variable shrub layer); 

(4A) large tree, ma- to over-matwe (most trees wer 50 feet 

hgh, 0-39 percent canopy mer, substantial shrub layer); 

(4B,C) large tree, mature to --mature (40 percent or more canopy 

(4C) large tree, mature to over-matwe (70 percent or more campy 

ccnrer, variable shrub layer); 

cover and psible evidence of decadence). 

Shrub Type s: Big sagebrmh, bitterbrush. 

Seral stages: 

(1) early stage 

(2) middle stage 

(3) late stage. 

76 
Energy 

- Authorize the developnent of wind as an energy source vshere developrent 

is canpatible with the attainment of established Forest goals for other 

resources or uses. 

- Authorize new ~lectric power facilities as an energy source when 

developnent of projects will allow streamflow sufficient to maintain 

resident trout fisheries, maintain Visual Quality Objectives, and uphold 

wildlife and riparian resource objectives. 

- Assure that energy o”tim practices are applied to Naticmal Forest 

-To the extent possible, require the use of existrng roads, disturbed 

areas, and the co-lccatim or clustering of energy developent facilities 

such as roads, pipelines, mlant and supprt smcm. 

management &xOg”s. 

Facilities 

- Provide additions to the transprtation system for resource developnent. 

provide public access to public land and developed recreation sites, 

consistent with Forest goals and objectives. 

- Recxmshct and regulate traffic as needed for public safety and/or 

resource protection. 

- Address cc”s for public safety and resource proteCtion through road 

closure, relocation or reccolstrudion of m-system mads wnsistent with 

available budgets. 

- Mamtain facilities to established standards, make them energy efficient, 

and/or replace if necessary. 

- Schedule facilities maintenance and replacement pe~ the follwing 

priorities: 

1. 

2. Accarrplish annual recurrent “me. 

3. Eliminate inventoried maintenance backlqs. 

4. 

Correct inventoried health and safety items. 

Replace ~~ed facilities if there is a continued need and m 

feasible alternatives are available. If construction funds are 

not avalable, continue rehabilitabon/refurbishxg work necessary 

to maintain facilities at habitable standards while perpetuating 

the life of the struchxce. 

5. provide new facilities when. needed. 

- Consider mass transit options when vehicle use exceeds the capacity of 

existing roads or threatens to damage resource values or when public 

77 
facilities can best be served by a cc”ity-wide system proposed by 

another entity. 

- Provide -1s for hikers, skiers, equestrians, bicyclists, snommbilers, 

the handicapped, and off-highway vehicle users when cQlrpatible with user 

needs, level of developnent, and Forest goals and objectives. 

- Maintam trails to assignea maintenance levels. 

- coordinate txail ccastruction, rezuuting, improvement, and maintenance 

with ccopxatjng or affected agencies. 

- Separate “patible trail uses where feasible. 

- Utilize existing develop3 facilities, roads, and trails for both mr 

and mter recreation activities, whenever possible, before developing 

new ones for exclusive seasonal use. 

- Rehabilitate and maintain essential habitat for these species according 

to species’ recwery plans and Mem3randa of Understandirg with the 

Califonna Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

- pravide hgh quality habitat for threatened and endangered fish species 

based on the results of habitat capability model analyses. 

- Manage all stream reaches of essential habitat as depict& in the 

Recarery Plan to the fo1lmu-g guidelines in consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife S-ce. 

1. Do not allow any activity that results in mre than 10 percent 

dqadakon of the habitat withjn any gLven strean reach; this 

conclusion must be supported by data that results fm the use of a 

quantitative methodDlcgy -ey such as GAWS, COWFISH, etc. 

2. Restore unstable or eroding streambanks to a- a streambank system 

that is no mre than 10 percent unstable at any given tune. 

3. Retam vegetation adjacent to p”ial streams that affords stream 

shading and shambank stability. 

Fisheries 

- Provide medium- to high-quality habitat for resident fish species based 

on the results of the appropriate habitat capability model. 

- Manage all st” reaches of all state designated wild trout waters 

accadiq to the following: 

7% 
1. Any activity that results in trampling and chiseling should not exceed 

10 percent of any giwm sizezun reach. A reach is defined as a 

canl5nlnxs portion of a stream with htnqeneous physical 

characteristics. Use the current situation as documented in the Final. 

-tal Impact Stat-t (EIS) as a reference point. 

2. Restore unstable or eroding streambanks to attain a streambank system 

that is m more than 10 percent unstable at any given time. 

3. Streamside vegetation sbuld pmvlde a nuni" of 90 percent of the 

habitat's capability to provide Stream shading and fish cover. 

-Manage all stxeam reaches containing resident fish ampding to the 

1. Any activity that results in tranpling and chlselirg should not 

exceed 20 percent of any given stream reach. Use the current 

situatim as documented in the EIS as a reference pint. 

2. Restore unstable or eroding to attain a streambanlc 

systm that is IXI nwre than 20 percent unstable at any given time. 

- -bit Stream-modifyirag construction activities within or imnediately 

following: 

adjacent to the aquatic zone dunkg the folloWirag spa"J seasons: 

1. in streams with spring spawning species (rainbow, cutthroat, and 

golden trout), Febary 15-AuguSt 20; 

2. in streams with fall spawning species (brown and brook trout), 

Excepticms to (1) and (2) abwe nust be approved by the Forest 

Supwisor. 

Wtom l-mil 15. 

- Design stxeam crossings to acmmodate fish passage where proposed roads 

and trails will cross streams that support active or potential fisheries. 

- Maintain instream flows needed to Support existjng resident fisheries. 

-Maintain water levels in reservoirs and ~t~rd lakes to support 

fisheries to at least exist@ levels. 

- Negotiate with the Federal Energy Regulatory Ccmnission (FERC) and the 

affected utility canpanies to rewater selected reaches of streams for the 

re-establi-t of resident trout fisheries. 

- coordinate with the California Deparhmt of Fish and Game to establish 

standards for viable populations and tolerable levels of depletion for 

resident fish species. 

79 
Geology 

- Design and construct struct~~~~~ or facilities located near active faults 

and/or areas of lamwn seis~c activity to withstand seisnic impacts. 

Relocate s.hructures or facilities to less active sites where design and 

construction is not e"icaJ.1~ efficient. 

- Conduct on-site geologic - 'gaticms prior to surface or vegetationdisturbing activities on lands mapped a$ highly or extremely unstable on 

Forest geologic resource inventozy maps. Assess the feasibility of 

mitigatim measures and include stability mitigation measures in pjed 

waking plans and design specificaticms. 

- Make a slope suitability exanuna * tion based on sheer sm/sheer stress 

relationships before ccmstructjng mads or other permanent developnents 

in mas that are a hazard because of instability. 

- Cooperate with other agencies, where appropriate, in identi- geologic 

hazards in areas of existing ma& or facilities and assess the 

feasibility of implenentjng hazard mitigation measures. 

-wherever appropriate, include infomat~on explaining local geolosy or 

interesting geologic features in interpretive displays, publications, and 

interpretive programs. 

Hardwoods 

-protect the integrity of the hardwood emsystem in all exist&q oak 

stands. 

Lands 

Electrolu 'c Sites 

Fully develop existing sites Wore authorizing new sites. Authorize new 

sites or expand existirg sites only after analysis indxates such use is 

canpatible with Forest goals and objectives. 

Landohlnershp Adjustments 

-Acquire lands by exchange, purchase, or &mation in the follmirg 

priority: 

1. Highest priority: 

a. lands with water frontage such as lakes, streams, flmdplains, 

wetlands, and riparian zones; 

b. key game managemmt areas and lands having endangered or 

threatened fish, wildlife, or plant habitat: 

c. lands needed to reduce fire risks; 
d. 

e. lands and easmts that ensure access to public lands and 

lands needed to prevent soil -ion; 

resources: 

f. lands havirg miwe historical or cul-al resources; 

g. wild€meSSinh3lciings. 

2. -ate priority: 

a. lands prjmarily of value for outdoor recreation puzposes and 

lands needed for aesthetic purposes: 

b. lands needed for ahinistcative purposes. 

3. Lowest priority: 

b. lands needed to cansolidate exi- blocks of National Forest 

lands to improve administration of the area. 

- Dispose of lands by excharge in the following priority: 

1. Tracts inside or adjacent to ammmities when such tracts would 

enhance "ity develapnent and reduce use conflicts, pruvided that 

suitable private land is not available. coordinate Natrcolal Forest 

System plans for land adjustments with the Bureau of Land Manag-t, 

-w, and- 'ty general Plans. 

2. Lands under special use permit within or adjacent to cc"ities that 

would be better suited for private ownership. 

3. Small federal parcels that are intermingled with other "-federal 

parcels. 

Ebundaries and Unauthorized o"y 

- Locate, survey, post, and mark National Forest System boundaries to 

- Identify and reduce unautbrized occupancies on National Forest System 

standard. 

lands. 

Rights-of -way Grants 

- Utilize existing public or private utility rights-of-way, and "ize 

the creation of new rights-of-way where feasible to reduce mads on 

other resources. 

- Emy new or remns&ucted pawer distribution lmes, (33 kv or less), and 

telepbne 1- me feasible. 

81 
Special Uses 

- Issue special use permits only if private land suitable for the use is 

not reasonably available and if the use is oanpabble with established 

Forest goals and 0bJ-m. 

- ~pply the following priority whm evaluatirtg special use permit 

applications: 

1. public uses (govemmntal) 

2. semi-public uses 

3. private (exclusive) uses. 

- Issue no special use perrmts on lands identified for exchange when this 

would reduce future exchange opprturn+~es. 

Utility Corridors 

- Participate in the East- Sierra Interagmcy Utility Corridor Study to 

identify an east/west midor designation. 

Withdrawals 

- Review exlsting withdrawals and recormend revocation when the puqmses 

for which the withdrawals were established no longer exrst or can m 

knqer be acaninistratively accanplished. 

- Initiate Forest Service mthdrawals for new sites only when other 

available surface use and occupancy contruls cannot protect the surface 

resoucces . 

Minerals 

Minerals MaMgemen t: G€nIxa.l 

-A&nunster "g laws and regulations to permit the uninterrupted 

productiun of minerals while assuring the adequate pmtection of other 

resources and enTrimrRnental values. 

-where valid existing rights within withdrawn areas are exercised, 

operating plans should be consistent with the purpose of withdrawals. 

-coordinate the mineral management prcgram with the Bureau of Land 

Management. 

leasable Minerals: Oil, Gas, and Geathermal 

- provide for the leasing of National Forest lands for exploration and 

developnent of oil, gas and geothermal resources carmensurate with other 

resource values. Follow existing Mem3randa of Understanding between the 

Bureau of Land Managenient and the Forest Service that relate to oil, gas, 

a2 
and geothermal mineral activities. Follow applicable regulations, 

opsratlng orders, and notices for oil, gas, and geothermal leases issued 

pursuant to appropriate authority. 

- Wepare envirormntal documents that analyze full-scale developwnt prior 

to consentirag to Bureau of Land Managaent's issuance of geothermal 

leases. 

- Prepare pastlease environmental documents in cooperation mth the Bureau 

of Land Managewnt for site-specific exploration, developnent, and 

proauction proposals. Assure that lmpacts to re~~ucce~ are appropriately 

analyzed. Assure that impacts to these resources are mikgated to the 

extent possible. 

- Consider the location of fluid conveyance lines and facilities for 

geothermal developnent to ensure the vlability of deer mgration 

corridors. B-murage geothermal developnent that utilizes air cooling 

rather than evaporative coolmg systems. 

Leasable Mineral s: other 

- Provide for leasing National Forest System lands for the exploration and 

developrent of minerals, "rate with other resource values, as 

specified under the Mineral s Leasjng Act of 1920 and the Mmerals Leaslng 

Act for Am Lands Of 1967. Follow 

applicable laws and regulaticms. 

This includes hardrock minerals. 

Locatable Mineral S 

-Allow all National Forest System lands not specifically withdrawn frun 

mineral entry to be available for mineral exploration, location and 

extraction under applicable laws and regulations. 

Saleable Minerals 

- Utilize c"n variety minerals, e.g., sand, gravel, and bo- material 

without encroaching up other resowce values. "rage the use of 

materials that are available frun the private sector whe possible. 

- Provide for the sale of ccmmn variety minerals when such action will not 

cause unacceptable damage to the surface resources. This includes 

impacts an surface-based access. 

Pest Management 

- coordinate pest mtml programs with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

the California Department of Fish and Game, the Califorma J3e-t of 

Health Services, other federal, stab, and local agencies, and private 

sector groups as needed. 

- Follow an Integrated Pest Management approach to managing pests during 

the plannirag and inplementation of all appmpriate activities, 

particularly tbse that influence vegetation. Consider and analyze, on a 

83 
site-specific project basis, a full range of pest management alternatives 

that include cultural, biological and "rucal methods. Select 

treatnent me- thrmugh the eslvlrcormental analysis process that 

ccolsider the enviromtal effects, treatment efficacy, and cost 

effectiveness of each alternative. Determine mnitorhg and enforcement 

plans to implement specific measures during this site-specific process. 

Pest detection, surveillance, evaluation, p"tion, suppression, and 

post-action evaluation are integral canponents of this Integrated Pest 

Management appmach. 

- Treat green pine stups that are eight inches and larger in diameter with 

borax to "ize the aerial spread of ar" rcot disease in stands 

that are managed for timber prcduction. Treat all green &fer stumps 

with borax in areas managed with a comentrated/developed recreation 

aphasis. 

Protection 

- Implement a fire management program c0nsisb-g of: 17 percent prevention 

and &%tion, 83 percent suppression and aviation, and the application 

of all appropriate wildfire suppression strategies (ccnf~t, 

cfmizxi"t, and cfmtml). 

-Use Prescriptions and Management Area Direction and fire managmt 

' action plans when detennbiq the appropiate wildfire suppression 

strategy. 

- Use prescriW fire as a management tool. 

- Consider both existing conditions and the effect of future managmt 

activities in the area mm"g ' the project area wtw developing 

treatnent standards for fuels. 

-coordinate with local fire districts in the develapnent of major new 

structural facilities on National Forest lards. 

- Allowable hurried acre objectives for specific areas will be determined in 

the preparation of fire managmt area plans. 

resource management tool. 

-The Forest Sexvice mission in fire management is to use fire as a 

- Develop range resources to their reasonable potential and manage them for 

- Provide grazhg tenure to lend stability to the &a1 livestock-raising 

sustained yields. 

Carmunity and established ranchiq operations. 

- Manage grazmg allotnents according to a planned management system. 

84 
- Develop range Allobnmt Managanent Plans before term pennits are issued 

where lpssible. Incorprate in those plans prwisions for inple"~ 

Best Management Practices for range management. 

- Consider deer forage -ts (five pnmds per deer day) in the 

- Use individual grazing allobimt plans as the mtnunent to guide the 

avoidance of unacceptable damage to soil, water quality, and fish habitat 

and the resolution of inrrmpatibilities between livestock and lomwn key 

mule deer favming areas. Institute psitive measures such as delaying 

the grazing seascBl and/or cErxb-g ' livestock away fm riparian areas by 

to include aaoptea means of resolution and needed mitigation measures. 

If rmtigatim is unsuccessful in preventing unacceptable resource damage, 

as a last resort livestock grazing will be reduced or eliminated. 

1. Develop a priority schedule, with an annual review, of Allotment 

Management Plans to be revised over the plarUring period. Each 

Allotment Management Plan will be revised "ensurate with available 

allocation of livestock furage as part of all range analysis. 

herding, saltirg, water developnents, or fencing. Amend allotment Plans 

fW. 

After Allotment Management Plans are revised, they will be Wted m 

an average of every ten years. 

2. 

- Consider the benefit to fisheries, wildlife, recreation, and watershed as 

well as range when designkg rarge impravemen ts. 

- Assess mpacts on riparian areas within pennit boundaries during grazing 

permit re-evaluaticns. Require structural and/or non-strueal measures 

to Correct unacceptable det&oratim of riparian-dependent resources. 

-Graze meadows only when "range-ready" as defrned in Forest Sesvice 

Handbook 2209.21. 

- Conduct annual utilization checks on selected meadows and key wildlife 

habitats in grazing areas. 

- coordinate with the Bureau of Land Managemat (BLM) for acaninstrating 

shared grazing allobnents to implement the decisions in the BLM's 

BentoII-cxyens Valley Management Framework Plan. 

- Achieve or maintain rangeland, over the, in "satisfactory" condition as 

defmed by the Region 4 or Region 5 (as appropriate) Range Analysis 

Handbook and Resource Value Rating System. 

- Where feasible, locate all range inprwements away fran travel corridors, 

especially trals, papular fisheries, and other watercourses. 

- Allotment Management Plans will display use, impruvement, maintenance, 

and other managemat data. 

- Use criteria will be established and documented for each unit of each 

grazixg allobnent. These criteria will be develapea through the 

85 
interdisciplinary team approach using lq-term -trend studies and 

identified lunitxg factors. These criteria will define permissible 

graziq levels. This standard &odd be observed m the prccess--soil 

and vegetation are the basic resources. !Che condition of these two 

resources must be maintained or improved. If they are in a satisfactory 

condition, then they must be maintained in this condition. If they are 

m a less than satisfactory condition, then allowance must be made for 

impmmt m dtion. 

- Infonn the California Department of Fish and Game before planning and 

implementating revegetation projects. 

- Grant extensions of season of use only when this use does not conflict 

with the Allotment Management Plan's objectives. 

- Locate salt and sheep beagrounas outside riparian areas and at least 

one-quarter mile away if possible and reasonable. 

Recreation 

Developea Fkcreatim: Private 

-Make future use deternunations before issuing new pernuts: (1) three 

years prior to the expiration of exist5.q term pernuts; or (2) when 

existing facilities are sold, a new te"tion date 1s requested, and 

potential financing of inp"=nts requrre a later termmation date. 

- Encourage the up3atA-g of master developnent plans for exlstmg 

carmercial developnents. Require mas* developnent plans for new 

developnents or before all- any new major construction on exlstiq 

developnents. Require the permittee to suhnit these plans for Forest 

Service approval. 

Developed Recreation: Public 

- Construct and mtain facilities and sites to qional standards. 

construct and maintam sites and associated water systems and wastewater 

treatment plants to Facility condition Class 1 as defmed in the 

recreation resource jnventory. 

- Rnphasize permitted activities rather than prohibited ones on signs to 

lessen recreation use conflicts. 

- Provide screenirag and shade, using vegetation and/or hificial 

structures, to increase use on less attractive sites. 

- Design at least 10 percent of recreation units for use by the physically 

lmited, in all new highly developed sites (-i- Levels 3 or 4), 

and in reconstructed sites with a capacity of mre than 125. Consider 

the needs of the physically limited in toilet design for these sites 

whexe possible. 
-Develop new canipsites in concentrated recreation areas before other 

locatiom to generate increased use and higher returns to the U.S. 

masury. 

- Develop associated day-use facilities and intwpretive and informational 

sites and Mls, tngether with overnight campgrounds, to achieve a 

balanced facility package. 

- coordinate with other agencies for the develo-t and maintenance needed 

to pmde parking opprhmities for sxm play and mrdic skiing. 

Dispersed Reaxatism 

-Maintain activities and developmts at levels that meet prescribed 

Recreation CQprtu~ 'ty spedrum (IIOS) Classes as defined in the Ros users 

Guide. 

- Incorprate the inaeasing demand for mnmtain bike, equestrian, bicycle 

and dc opprtwdties him canpasite plans, cormunity plans, trail 

Plans, andprogranr;. 

mtap?=e tive services 

- Develop prcgram, displays, and publications to interpret Forest Service 

resource management and the natural and cultural -ts. 

- Design the physical elements of the Interpretive Services proSram (e.g., 

signs, interpretive .trails, infomation stations) to hamum 'ze with the 

settirags whexe they are lccated. 

- Maximize the use of self-service infomtion facilities. 

- Develop interpretive canposite plans for major interpretive opprhmities 

(e.g., the bristlecones, Mmo Craters). 

- Fonnalize an interpretive plan of Operation for each district based on 

interpretive canpasite plans. 

- ccoltinue to coordinate with the Eastem Sierra Interpretive Association 

to pmte and facilitate interpretation and education relating to the 

Eastem Sierra. 

Off -Highway vehic1es/over-snow Vehicles (c%N/osVs) 

- Manage OHV/W use accordirag to the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines 

and the 1977 Interagency Motor Vehicle Use Plan. The Motor Vehicle Use 

Plan is scheduled to be upaatea upon implementation of the Forest Plan. 

The update will be wnducted with public involvement and will include 

maps irfhcatiy open routes for both OHVs and OSVs. Criteria used in 

upaating the Plan will include but are mt limited to: 

1. 

2. 

Impacts on soil resultirag in reduced land Koductivity. 

Impacts on vqetaticn resultjng in loss of soil. 

87 
3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10 * 

11. 

12. 

Dqmdaticn of water quality. 

Degradaticn of air quality. 

Adverse impacts cn habitat for threatened, endaqd, or sensitive 

species. 

Adverse inpacts cm habitat in areas in the mtain sheep and mle 

deer Prescriptims. 

Adverse impacts cm ~~ resources. 

Adverse impacts on visual -. 

Adverse impacts cm other recreation uses. 

Adverse impact toothers using the Inyo National Forest. 

New .t€dlnolcgical changes in c%N/osvs. 

c3aIqffi in the goals or management l3irwZh 'on for the Inyo National 

Fcarest. 

- coordinate Forest off-highway vehicle planning ard furdig with f-al, 

state, and local agexiffi, and with private landowners where apFaropriate. 

- when necessary, close critical wildlife and fish habitat to O€W/OSV use. 

-Designate OHV/CSV txails and open areas to "ize ccmflicts with 

existing or potential developed recreaticm sites, private property, 

special uses, adjacent wilderness, aclninistrative areas, cultural 

-, riparian areas, key wildlife habitat, and sensitive watershed 

areas. 

- cooperate with the State of California in developing a Statewide OIN 

Trail Plan. 

- Do not permit wheeled vehicles exept for canmmial and adrnjnistrative 

- Do not permit recreational use of wheeled vehicles over 9y3w except in 

- Permit OSV use cnly when there is sufficient 910~ cwer to prutect the 

use on CEV trails and corridors in winter. 

designated areas. 

soil and vegetative resources. 

-tim Residences 

- Clxtinue all recreation residence special use permits unless a future use 

detenninaticm identifies a higher public need. Ccmplete future use 

debminations for recreation residence tracts during this plperid (1988-1998). Schedule futue use determinations in advance of 

temrination date of the permit to allm sufficient time for public input. 

88 
- Give priority to public access leading to or through developd or 

dispersed r€Xx€?ation areas - Fnoposed inp”ts obstruct such 

access. 

- Notify recreation residents within flood or avalanche zones that then 

residences are in tfiargez~~~~ areas, and that m additions to existing 

structures will be permitted. Include. the flcdplain damage clause 

(BR-5-3) in permits flwlainS. 

-Resol= “Qliance deficiencies before ism a pennit for an 

iqxmwmmt to an existirag facility to a new amer. 

Research Natural Areas 

- cooperate in the establishent process for recarmended botanical Research 

Natural Areas. 

Regional Research Natmal Area prcg’ram. 

- Inventory geolcgic Research Natural Area candidates as a part of the 

marian Areas 

-Give emphasis to riparian-dependent resources in the management of 

riparian areas. 

- protect streams, stmambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and the plants 

and animals depmdent an these areas. 

- prevent significant adverse riparian area changes in water temperature, 

chemistry, sedmentaticol, and channel blcckages. 

- Use Allotment Management Plans as the vehicle for ensuring p+x&icol of 

riparian areas fran unacceptable impacts fran grazing. Institute 

pasitive measures such as salting, herding, water developnents, fencing, 

rest rotation, deferred rotation, and other grazing systems as mitigation 

measures. If mitigation is unsuccessful in preventing unacceptable 

resource damage to the riparian habitat, as a last resort, livestock 

grazing will be reduced or eliminated in the affected areas. 

- Rehabilitate and/or fence riparian areas that consistently show resource 

damage fm any cause if conflicts mt be resolved. 

- Relocate existing roads, trails, and campsites outside riparian areas 

where. necessary to eliminate or reduce unacceptable deterioration of 

rqarian-depndent resources. 

- Allow new developcents and surface disturbance in riparian areas only 

after on-site evaluatims have determind that riparian-dege”t 

resources are not adversely affeded, or mitigaticol of adverse impacts is 

identified and incorporated in project design and inplementaticol 

specifications . 

89 
- Apply the fol1mh-g e& dxzturbance standards to each me w~thin each 

stream .type. These standards apply to the ar"t of post-project 

disturbance. Earth disturbance 1s defined as ccmplete r-a1 of 

vegetation or a percentage of bare ground resulting fran of the 

disturbance. 

Earth Disturbance Standards 

Zone Type Amount of earth 

Disturbance Permitted on 

Any 100-Meter Reach 

AQUATIC 

-standing or running water See Forest Wide Standards & Guidelines 

RIPARIAN 

--Terrestrial habitat adjacent to Water bodtes tn Which 

plants are rooted In water or nn saturated sol1 

A 

B 

C 

3% 

5% 

10% 

A 10% 

(If entrenched. on unstable 

terrain or on a slope 40% 

allow only 5% disturbance ) 

E 

C 20% 

(No restriction) 

Terrestrial (Upland! Stream Type A 

Aquatic (Riverine 

Terrestrial (Upland) stream Type B 

Riparian (Palustrlne! 

Aquatic (RlVerlnel 

Terrestrial (Upland! Stream Type C 

Riparian (Palustrlne! 

Aquatic (Riverme) 

. - 

90 
- Limit wildfire contrul rnetkds and actinties that would adversely affect 

the riparian zone. Avoid dozer-built lines in th~s zone where possible. 

mqjlasize the restoration of dozer impads on ripmian zones when 

rehabilitatixg fire ant101 sites. 

- Require the foll- waterbar spacing on trails in riparian areas mess 

specifically detennined othezwise by on-site project evaluations: 

Wail Gradient (%) Spacing (feet) 

1-5 200 

6-10 150 

11-15 100 

>15 50 

- Prohibit new locations of equipnent staging areas in riparian zones. 

Phase out existkg staging areas that have adverse effects on these 

mes. 

- Maintain the integrity of desert springs in the White and Inyo "ntains 

and the South Sierra Eastern Escarpnent to conseme plant and wildlife 

habitat. 

-Recognize the importan t and disbnctive values of riparian areas when 

implementing managexent acbvities. Give preferential mideration to 

riparian-depmdent resources when conflicts a"g land use activities 

OCCUT. 

- Delineate and evaluate riparian areas before inplmentiq any planned 

management activity. 

-Design range, fish and wildlife habitat imprwement projeds and/or 

silvicultural prescriptiuns to maintain or enhance riparian area 

dependent fesoucces. 

-Give priority to the rehabilitation of riparian areas when planning 

range, wildlife habitat, and watershed iq"ent projects. 

- Mwe existing livestock watering locations out of riparian areas when and 

where feasible. 

Sensitive Plants 

- Develop and implement a consistent, systematic, biologically sound 

prcgran for sensitive plant species and their habitat so that federal 

listing does mt OCCUT. 

- Ocmplete inventories of project sites and areas of disturbance if there 

is potential habitat or lamwn population locations are identified. The 

reporting Lpocedures for this process will be outlined in the Sensitive 

Plant proSram Managemat Plan for the Forest. 

91 
- canplete interim management for all listed sensitive 

plant species (the Watch I, Watch 11, and Sensitive Species lists). 

- Allow rn new disturbance of identified sensitive plant habitat witbut 

direction fm Interim Management Guides, Species Manag-t Guides, or 

an e"atal analysis. 

- Allow scientific studies whm there is rn detrimental effect on sensitive 

species. 

- Develop Species Managmt Guides and subsequent plans for all 

species on the Forest sensitive plant list. They will @de bckqmund 

mformation and present stabs of the species, locate new pplations, 

identify potential enhancement opprtunities, locate key areas necessary 

for long-term protection, and describe "nn impact levels. Utilize 

information fruu the Natural Diversity Database, the California 

Deparhent of Fish and Gaw and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sexvice. 

Special Interest Areas and National Natural Landmarks 

- Bdiuate and reccmnend candidate Special Interest Areas for 

classification and candidate National Natural Lanchnarks for naninatiOn by 

1990. 

- Manage the existing Ancient Bristlecane Pine Forest Botanical Area under 

the apprwed managanent plan. 

- Protect the characteristics of the candidate areas until evaluation is 

mnpleted. 

Timber 

- conduct a silvicultural examination and constxuct a prescriptmn before 

any vegetative. manipulation or cultural trea-hnent. Make exceptions for 

the removal of hazard trees or trees that block vision along mads, 

rights-of-way clearings, minerdl operations, minor amunts of remaVal by 

public fuelwood gathering, and similar cases. 

- Locate and design tunber sales with wnsideration for the Visual Quality 

Objectives of the surrow landscape and -sting and potential 

recreation use. 

- Timber sale contracts will make provision for access across timber haul 

mads for officially designated mrdic and -bile trails. 

- Allm ms created by regeneration harvest to border or include 

natural openings if other resource values are protectd. Cpenings shall 

generally be surrounded by timher stands five acres in size or larger 

except that on a case-by-case basis, opniqs may have up to 15 percent 

of their periphery in cc"n with other opniqs. 

- Do not enter pure stands of red fir during this pl- period. 

92 
- Harvest timber in riparian mes and on uther moist sites using logging 

systens that minimize soil disturbance, wnpaction, and other impacts on 

those sites in acoordance with Regulation Class I11 requirements. 

- Ehphasize maximum road spacing in logging system Plans and -tal 

anal-. 

- Clase or, where possible, Oblitexata "ceded roads to preclude resource 

ocolflicts, while considering OW 'ties. 

percent. 

the absence of on-site detwminations. 

- Consider the need for specialized yarding equipnmt on slopes over 30 

Preclude tractor logging on slopes greater than 30 percent in 

-Conduct logging and/or "struct-ion pjects to prevent debris fmn 

-bit yarding 

- Schedule planting or seedirg within three years of clearcuttlng, so that 

aaesuate ' can be attained within five years of harvest. 

-Plan activities that will favorably mDdify the microclimate to help 

ensure plantation success. Include such activities as shelterwood 

entering stream ChaMels or causjng watesh& damage. 

logs through streams. 

cutting and using shade-& devi- for seedling protection. 

-Determine the duration of opmirgs on the basis of assigned Visual 

Quality Objectives for that area. Apply the gmdeline that a harvested 

area will IID lcmge be cansidered an 0peni.q for timbar managaent 

puqmses when stocklq ' surveys indicate that the new stand meets 

prescribed stoclung ' requirements with ~CSW four and m-half feet tall. 

- Continue to honor the unsigned agreenent with the Paiute/Shoshcme people 

m-Indian for the purposes of picking pinenuts or piuga on National 

Forest System lards. 

envircarmental analysis. 

causing unacceptable damage to resources. 

drafted in 1973. Issue no "eru 'al permits to either Indian or 

-Consider both sumner and winter operatirig seasons in project-level 

- Restrict vehicles to designated mads when vehicle use by wwdcutters is 

Visual Resources 

- Obtain the Forest Supervisor's appwal through the envj"ntal 

analysis prw.%ss for any deviations fmm Visual Quality Objectives (VQOS) 

assigned in Prescripticas. 

- Maintain or enhance #e size and diversity of all riparian zones, aspen 

stands, meadows, and alpine tundra vegetation zones where such zones are 

visible fmn Sensitivity Level 1 & 2 roads and trails, or where they 

receive significant recreation use. 

93 
- Rehabilitate and/or enhance the visual resoucce when hIipl€imnting 

projects, where appropriate as follows: 

1. Rehabilitate the visual resource where the -sting visual wndition 

fails to met the assigned va3. 

2. Enhance the resource where the existing visual wndition appears 

mmtomm, and where there is an opportunity to create visual 

variety in the landscape through planting, vegetative manipulation, 

or other accepted means. 

Base priorities for rehabilitation and -t projects upcol the 

VQo assigned to the project area, corridor viewshed plans, and on the 

follawirag considerations: 

3. 

- The relative imp3rtance of the area and the amount of denation 

fm the aaaptea w. 

- The 1- of time it muld take natural processes to reduce the 

vlsual inrpacts so that they meet the a-ted W. 

The length of time it would take rehabilitation measures to met 

the adopted W. 

The coordination with the m-s necessary to rehabilitate the 

project area. 

- 

- 

- Mamtain foregrounds and nuddlegmunds of the scenic corridors of the 

follming travel mutes to Retention and/or Partial Retention Vg3s as 

inventoried, but rot less than Partial Retention: 

1. Highways officially designated by the state as California State and 

county scenic Highways. 

2. California State Scenic HLghway Systm routes as designated m the 

September 1970 Master Plan. 

- State Highway 120, west of U.S. 395 to Tioga Pass 

- U.S. 395 

- State HLghway 158 

- State Highway 203 

- State Highway 168. 

These highways include: 

- Meet the Retentim VQ3 in all foreground zones of other Sensitivity Level 

1 mads and trails, recreation sites, and within all concentrated 

recreation areas. 

Watershed 

Soils 

- Reduce accelerated soil erosion resulting fm managemsnt activities to 

natural backgruund levels within three years after the soil-disturbing 

activity. 

94 
- Conduct an order 2 Soil Resaurce Tnvmtory or an on-site soil 

lrnrestigation to evaluate all areas that are scheduled for msdification 

(vegetation manipulation, consbuction, etc.) or subject to concentrated 

use. 

-Avoid the use of soil-dishn3- equipwrit, OHVs, and tSampling by 

livestock on wet or poorly-drained soils whewver possible. 

-Use earth-retaining stn~ctures or other special mthds as needed on 

steep slopes or in areas of instability. 

- Keep cbzer-cwnstcucted fire lines as narrow as possible, and pmde for 

CMCurrent aim c@ntrol on areas with long, ccoltmuom gouges in areas 

of shallow, canpact&, or highly erodible soils. 

- Omserve the surface mineral and/or surface organic layer of the soils by 

"izing soil =&urbane to maintain long-term prmhctivity. 

-Store topsoil a-site in areas subject to "u 'Cal disturbance. 

Respread as the top layer when the pject is qleted. 

-Avoid land alterations that could potentially cause significant soil 

erosion and loss of soil prodluctr 'vity. 

erosion. 

- Stabilize all areas disturbed by managem& activities to "ize soil 

-Apply the Best Managmt Practices (BMPS) fmn the handbook, "Water 

Quality Managment for National Forest System Lands m California" 

activities that may reduce the prcductivity of the landbase or cause 

surface erceicm or mass wasting. 

hw ' ipljnaxy review to mid or mitigate adverse impacts 

for any projects or activities pmposed in areas identified in the soil 

resource inventories as having an erosion hazard ram of nine or 

greater. 

(U.S.D.A., Forest Service, 1979) when hpl-tirag ground-di~b.?hb~~ 

- R- 

- Limit disturbance to 110 mxm than five percent per decade on that portion 

of a managemnt area characterized by steep slopes, very high erusion 

potential, or high instability. 

Water 

- Mamtain or hprove waw quality to meet state and federal standards. 

Cooperate and coordinate with state and federal agencies when planning 

projects that could affect water quality. 

-Implement Best Managmt Practices (Ws) to meet water quality 

objectives and maintain and inppove the quality of surface water on the 

Forest. Identify me.. and techniques for applying BMps durjng project 

level e"mtal analysis and incorporate into the associated pnject 

Plan and inplementation documents. 

95 
- Secure water rights for existing and foreseeable future National Forest 

c"ptiw uses am- tn state law. Convert all National Forest 

System water uses intn the name of the Forest Sbce -e psible. 

- Obtam water availabiliw assurarn%s for existing and foreseeable future 

-ive uses through the special use p??nnit and the Federal mergY 

Regulatory Carmission (FERC) "a Repcnt" processes. 

-Manage mi%"% with the priori- of maintaining and Proteding 

- Pqui?2e the f0llawing waterbar spacirg an d3zer-cnnstnlctd fire lines: 

existing healthy watwd-mk before rehabilitating degrade3 systems. 

Slope gr adient (%) 

1-3 

4-6 

7-9 

10-14 

15-20 

21-40 

41+ 

Spaclng (feet) 

300 

250 

150 

125 

80 

60 

40 

- Do not channelize natural streams unless there are no other options. 

- Maintain irlstream flows needed to maintain stream channel CnITptence. 

- Design crms.tructicol activities within Streams to avoid sedimentation in 

the aquatic zone. 

- Manage all stream reaches to maintain or inpiuve their S.tream Channel 

Stability Rating (SSR) to 110 or less for all clcmestic water supply 

watersheds. 

- Manage sensitive stream reaches (those with bank protection ratings of 

16-20) am- to the fol1cmk-g guidelines for all dunestic water 

supply watersheds: 

1. Do not allow the sun of trampling and chiseling smres to exceed 20 

percent. 

these reaches unless they are satisfactorily nutigated. 

2. Do not permit mads, trails, or livestock paths tn cross streams in 

3. Maintain adquate instream flows to retain mil protect- riparian 

vegetation. 

- Locate roads and trails on natural benches or ridges well away fran 

stream causes and other water bodies where possible. Avoid constructing 

mads and trails that parallel or cmss tributaries to a - stream. 

- Use the steepest permissible pitches and grades to avoid parallellng the 

stream at stream crossings. Design to maintam the exist- width:depth 

ratio of the stream. 

96 
- Use repeated .treatments, if necessary, to establish vegetation on fill 

material where bridges or culverts wnss streams. 

- Heavily anMr ths &"ked bath Upstream and drrwnstream fnm each road, 

trail, and livestock path crcssing that has neither a bridge nor a 

culvert. Give highest priority to streams that contain threatened or 

endangered .trout species and watersheds that provide 'c water 

supplies. 

- Use the fo1lcd.q spacing of cross-drains on unsurfaced loads as a guide: 

Road Ment (%) 

1-3 

4-6 

7-9 

10-14 

15-20 

spcirag (feet) 

1,200 

700 

400 

250 

120 

- outslope umurfaced roads and trails where user safe* and designed use 

- Avoid creating berms that hinder drainage on law gradient mads. 

- Revegetate mads and trails when use is terminated. 

- Retum all lands in declining watershed dkon to &librim. 

q IlDt jeqardizeii. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

- Develop IMnag-t plans in ccnjunctim with the Sequoia National Forest 

for the newly designated North Fo?A of the Kem and South Fork of the 

Kern Wild and Sac Rivers. 

- Undertake 110 management activities that wnild prec11~~I~ designation of the 

Middle Fork of the San Joaquin River as a Wild and Sdc River. 

Wilderness 

- Develop management plans or amend existing plans to address wilderness 

designated by the California Wilderness Act of 1984 or any wildemess 

legislatim enacted birag the plarming perid. 

-Manage wilderness under the follwiq guidelines: maintain a 

p&"ntly natural and natural-apgeariq environment, facilitate low 

frequcmcies of interaction between users, and exexcise necessary contzvls 

primarily from outside the wilderness boundaqz. Any on-site contzvls 

should be subtle. 

97 
Wildlife 

'Ihreatened, lw+F=€d , and Sensitive Animal Spec ies 

- Consider threatened and endangered species as belaw viability until 

recwery is achieved. &&size the protection and inp?rovement of 

habitat for threatened or endaqered wildlife. Manage for the protection 

and enhancement of all historically and potentially threatened or 

endangerd species habitat as necessary to meet recovery levels. 

- Cooperate with the Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of 

Fish and Game in the manag-t of threatened and endangered species and 

the restoration of habitat. Suhnit praposals for actions that might 

affect the mtinued existence of a threatened or endangered species to 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sdce for formal consultation. 

- Develop and inp1-t a consistent, systematic, biologically sound 

strategy to manage sensitive species and the= habitats so that federal 

1lStrng does not OCCUT. 

- Pexmit scientific studies on sensitive species only if the stu&es muld 

benefit the species. 

mlaganen t Indicator Spec ies 

Manag-t Indicator Species are those that the Forest identified for one or 

mre of the following reasons: federally designated threatened or endangered 

species: sensitive species: harvest species: ecological mdicator species; or 

special intezest species. 

Populaticms of species in these categories will be maintained at viable 

levels. These Standards and Guidelines apply to -sting and ptential 

habitats for these species. 

Carnivores (State-listed or Sensitive): Sierra Nevada red fax, pine 

marten, fisher, wolverine 

1. Inventory projed areas where developnent or habitat alteration 

projects could alter habitats required by these species. 

2. Maintain the integriiq of habitats rquued ' bythesespecies. Manage 

Ina3wn habitats to ensure that breeding and adjacent foraguq habitats 

are maintained. 

We &er (Harvest) 

1. Maintain or enhance the integrity of key win- ranges, holding 

areas, migration mutes, and fa- areas for mule deer. Although 

managmt activities may allow for some alteration of their habitat, 

the goal is to mtah deer habitat to support deer population 

levels consistent with deer herd management objeckves. 

98 
- Design vegetative -treatment units on "x, winter, and 

transitian mqes so that the distance fmm forage to cover dDes 

mt exceed six hundred fet. 

Recognize the Sensitivity of infringement on lnmwn key mule deer 

fawning areas during the critical fawnirq periOa from June 15 to 

July 15. 

- 

Resolve ccmflicts in fawr of fawning areas. 

- Manage sumner and transition ranges for each herd to provide a 

thermal cover to forage ratio between 20:80 and 80:20 on each 

area. 

Develop water sources where water is needed and opprtunities are 

available. 

- 

- mrdinate with Caltrans and the counties to provide the safest 

possible mad crossings for mule deer. 

2. Recognize the impoaanCe of key deer habitats. Dnphasize the 

ptection of critical deer habitat when analyzing developwnt 

pmpasals. 

Determine forage allccation for deer on the basis of five pounds of 

forage per deer per day (6.5 deer per AUM). 

3. 

4. coordinate with Calif-a Department of Fish and Game in 

iq~l"J existing deer herd plans. Cooperate with the Department 

of Fish and Game in the preparatim of needed additional deer herd 

Plans. 

Bald eagle (- ) 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Manage for recovery. Recovery may require the manag-t of 

potential sites as well as occupied sites. 

Use the presence of bald eagles and results of the habitat capability 

nodel for the species to establish the existing and patential 

wintering areas including wintex roosts, foragkg areas, and aaytime 

perches. 

Maintain the inkgrity of existing wintaring areas. Do mt establish 

new winter uses or recreation devalopnents within one-quarter mile of 

such areas. 

Maintain and enhance fish, waterfml, and other pmy-base ppulatims 

within winter foraging areas where opportunities exist. 

Inplement the Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. Prepare a 

local winter bald eagle management plan that tiers to the Pacific 

states Plan. 

99 
Golden eagle and prairie falcon (special * Ulterest) 

1. Maintain or enhance the integrity of nesting habitats for golden 

eagles and prairie falcnns. 

- Limit disturbance within one-quarter mile of nest sites 

frun February 1 through June 30. 

- Pmvicb for several successional stages and vegetation types 

within five miles of nest sites. 

Provide artificial ledges on cliffs where the lack of ledges is a 

limiting factor. 

- 

We elk (Speual - Interest) 

1. Follow the direch 'on of'the Tule EL^ Managawnt Plan for the C~SLS 

Valley. 

peregrine falclm (EhhqeEd ) 

1. Implement the Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recwery Plan 

prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Senrice. 

2. Establish ism nesting pairs of Peregrine falcons. 

Goshawk (Sensitive) 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

"tam a density of at least one goshawk territory per eighteen. 

square miles within goshawk habitat range. Distances between 

territories or clq of territories will mt exceed twelve miles. 

Goshawk habitat range is defined as an area contairung acbve or 

potential nesting habitat as defined below. 

Maintain at least one hundred acres of mature timber per territory to 

provide suitable cnnditions for the nest stand and an altemate nest 

stand. If the nest stand and an alternate nest stand am lamwI1, 

delineate at least fifty acres around each stand. If only the nest 

stand is lamwn, delineate either me hundred acres around the nest 

stand or at least fifty acres around the nest stand and, within a 

half-rmle radius, at least fifty acres around a potential alternate 

nest stand. R"= that replacement stands are incorporated m 

territories. 

Give preference to currently active nest territories when delineata population neismrk. 

Include the followug elementS in potential goshawk habitat or 

territories re- to as- species viability: (a) five or mre 

vegetaticol types and three or mre seral stages within two miles of 

the nest stand: (b) at least 40 percent campy mer: (c) a water 

soufce within one-quarter mile of the nest stand: and (d) a nest 

stand locaticm on a slope of less than 20 percent. 

100 
5. Locate territories in areas classified as unsuitable for camwcial 

timber management wtlerever possible. 

6. Exclude timber activities within occupied nest stands durhg the 

nesting period. Timber activities during other tine perids should 

be limited to those activities that meet the habitat variables 

associated with suitable habitat in the Forest's goshawk habitat 

capability model. 

Blue zpouse 

1. Maintain or enhance blue grouse habitat by protecting vegetative 

diversity, riparian habitat, and down logs. 

sage grouse (-st) 

1. Maintain a shrub canopy cover of at least 20 percent on at least 30 

percent of vegetation treatment areas within six miles of lamwn 

strutting grounds (leks). 

Allm m vegetative treatment in sage grouse habitat that would have 

a significant negative impact on tlus species. 

Recognize the sensitivity of sage grouse leks during the period fran 

March 1 and April 30. 

2. 

3. 

Resolve conflicts m favor of sage-grouse. 

4. cooperate with the California Department of Fish and Game in 

remtxductmn efforts. 

spottea owl/Great gray owl (Sensitive) 

1. Conduct periodic inventories. If spotted owl pairs are located, 

manage their habitat as needed to maintain natu?=al &stribution on 

the Forest. 

2. If great gray awls are documented, maintain foragmg and nesting 

habitat where management activities could alter their habitat. 

Sierra Nevada mcimtain sheep (Sensitive) and Nelson nmmtain sheep 

mtmst) 

1. Maintain existing mountam sheep habitat. Where feasible, expand 

their ranges by transplanting animals to slutable UMxCupied habitats 

as per the criteria stated in the Sierra Nevada Mountain Sheep 

Rewvery Plan. 

Permit m increase in existing livestock use if the -ease is shown 

to be deleterious to mountain sheep populations as defined m the 

Recovery Plan. 

2. 

3. Maintain the health of established mountain sheep poulations. If 

disease transmission fmn &mesh 'c livestock 1s shown to be 

deleterious to mountain sheep ppulatiuns, find ways to alleviate 

this problem. 

101 
4. Prohibit the conversion of livestmk type frcm cattle to sheep on or 

adjacent to existirag or apEnoved reintroducticm sites for mtam 

-P. 

5. If remtzw3ud rmuntain sheep establish thanselves m drainages 

outside the reintzw3uctim sites, take advantage of opportunities to 

extend mmtain sheep range, wnsistent with other resource 

ackwkes. 

6. Develop and implement a rewve~~ and conservation plan for Nelson 

sheep similar to the one devised for Sierra Nevada sheep. Update the 

Sierra Nevada i’4nmta.h Sheep Plan. 

7. provide for the lorg-term vlability of Sierra Nevada and Nelson 

muntam sheep ppulations by pnmtirg reestablishment of these 

species into suitable habitat within historic range, giving 

preference to areas with m current livestock use and consistent with 

other resource activities. 

Riparian Kea-depenaen tspec ies 

1. Maintain the viability of the yellow warbler by Implementing 

managment direction for snags, down lcgs, riparian habitats, and 

habitat diversity. D 

5lag-- tspecl ‘es 

1. Maintain the viability of the hairy woodpecker and Williamson 

sapsucker by implemsnthg management directi on for snags, down logs, 

and habitat diversity. 

Habitat Type S 

Forested Habitats 

Successional Stages: Grass-forb, shrub-seedling, pole, mature 

and old growth. 

Wildlife Habitat Relatiomhip Type s (WHRs): Eastside (Jeffrey) 

pine, ldgeple pine, mxed conifer, red fir, subalpme forest, 

bine-juniper, oak wo~dland and quaking aspen.. - 

1. Maintain a “I of 5 percent in each successional stage and each 

campy cover class for each WHR habitat type. Recarmended area size 

for implementation of this guideline is 10,ooO acres. 

2. Limit regeneratian harvest area size to 40 acres. Limit area size 

for other trea.hnents (i.e. overstory remwal, carmercial thinniq) to 

a raqe of 80 to 140 acres unless determined otherwise in the 

envirormnental analysis process. 

102 
3. Manage to achieve the desired dispersion as soon as possible if a 

given vegetation -/seral stage dination is below long-term 

mini" levels. 

4. Utilize both suitable and unsuitable t.lmberlands to meet the 

diversity requirement as long as habitat characteristics for 

managemnt indicator species are fully met. 

5. Design treatment areas to have wavy or feathered edges, so a high 

"dimity index" is achieved. Design treatment areas larger than 10 

acres so they have a diversity index greater than 1.4. 

"Logs (To provide woody material foragiq sites for cavity-nesting 

wildlife. ) 

1. Leave in place an average of one lq/acre in the Jeffrey pine forest 

whe.re pssible. In other Conifemus forest types, leave in place an 

average of one lcg/acre that is at least twenty inches in diameter at 

the large end, and at least twenty feet long. 

Give pference to logs and slash piles within 100 yards of meadows, 

possible, logs to achieve a density of two to three logs per 

acre in such areas. 

2. 

standing water, stream, or the edges of regeneraticol units. where 

Old Gmwi31 

decadence. 

1. 

(A forested stand that is past maturity and sh3xi.q signs of 

The last successional stage in a forest ecosystem. ) 

Apply the following priority sequence when designating stands to be 

managed for old growth habitat values. 

- Those stands that best meet old ~JXE&I conditions and are not 

managed for comnercial timber pNXbctim. 

riparian habitat, watershed, and aesthetics. 

Stands that are mt managed for carmercial timber prcduction. 

- stands that serve the needs of Sewal resources, such as 

- 

2. Allocate rm less than 10 percent of the acreage to the late seral 

stage ompmnt in areas "aged for timber, mcluding both the 

suitable and unsuitable amgonerit. 

Apply a minimum size requirement of forty acres to old growth stands 

managed primarily for wildlife habitat. 

Review and display old growth stands and wildlife habitat needs for 

the entire timber a"t when Plannirg individual t.rmber sales. 

mgmt: 

- Extend rotations for designated stands on camercial 

timberlands. Include a pattern of long-term stand replacement 

3. 

4. 

5. Consider the follu%irig Options when planning for old growth 

103 
that ensures the continued presence of old growth stands over 

time. 

- Reserve old growth stands on rifm-cormercial timhrlands over 

time. 

Select specific stands for old growth managmt in areas where 

sufficient stands do not presently exist, or where old growth is 

projedaa for harvest. Document these selectim. Document any 

decision to forego the old growth canp=owt for a specific area. 

- 

6. Manipulate vegetation (e.g., in- 'ate harvest, planting, snag 

creation), where necessary, to maintain or enhance old growth 

habitat. 

(Standing dead trees over twenty feet tall.) 

1. Maintain dead or down trees that are needed for cavity-nesting 

species. 

prescribe slag densities for each mag-dependent wildlife species or 

group of species (guild) for each timber aqarherit. 

2. 

3. Manage slags on suitable timberlands to the extent possible to 

achieve an average density of 1.2/acre (15-24" dbh) plus 0.3/acre 

(>24" dbh); all should be higher than twenty feet. 

Manage snags on nomuitable timberlands and all riparian areas to the 

extent pssible to aheve an avexage density of 1.5/acre (15-24" 

dbh) plus 0.5/acre (>24" dbh). 

4. 

5. Manage snags on pinyon-juniper wcdlands to achleve an average 

density of 0.8/acre (15-24" dbh), plus 0.2/acre (>24" dbh), where 

such larger slags are available. Manage the mller snags to achieve 

an average density of l.O/acre where larger snags are not available. 

6. Give preference to snags amund seeps, springs, and successional 

edges. 

7. Manage mags in clmp of three to five, each clump representing a 

"I area of five acres in riparian areas. 

Count m mm than ten snags on a given acre in terrestrial habitats 

toward fulfilling prescribe3 average snag density for an area. 

Groups of snags covering areas larger than 10 acres cannot be 

considered clmps. 

Select snags >20 feet high and >16 inches XI diameter to manage for 

wildlife habitat. 

8. 

9. 

10. Ccnsider snag creation where existing snag density falls belaw 

acceptable levels. 

104 
11. Permit slag cutting only in areas where the hard slag level exceeds 

three per acre, or where mags could endanger life or pmperty, such 

as public use or vndt project areas. 

slzub Witats 

Shrub Habitat Type s: High elevation (alpine shrub, montane shrub, 

wedgeleaf ceanothus); law elevation (curlleaf mahogany, 

bitterhush, big sagebrush,lm sage-); and high desert 

(saltbush-greasewood, shadscale). 

Successicolal Stages (not applied to high elevations: 

<20% canopy cover (grass-forb): 20-40% campy cover: >40% canopy 

cover. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

Maintain a “m of 15 percent of total shrub habitat in each 

successional stage in low elevation and high desert shrub types. 

Limit vegetation .treatment area size to a range of 80 to 140 acres in 

nnst cases. Design treatment areas so they have wavy or feathered 

eageS and a diversity index greater than 1.4. 

Bring all grazed habitats to at least fair ccoldition with an up”I 

or static trend on lands grazed under “tation and deferred 

mtation systems. 

Defer livestock grazing on vegetaticn treatment areas 1.5 to 2.5 

years to allow establishment of herbaceous vegetation. 

Address the managemnt of all forage classes, including forbs, in 

tenns of grazing systems and Season of use in Alloat Managentent 

Plans. 

Locate areas propxed for tceatment in shrub habitats where existing 

herbaceous understory represents at least 10 percent of total 

vegetative cover. 

105 
Management Prescriptions- 
Management Prescriptions 

Management Prescriptions specify how all the Forest resolvces will be managed 

to emphasize a specific resource . Each prescr~.&lon has a different resource 

masis . Several prescriptions may be implemented mthn one Management 

Area. de- on the resowces and use of the area . 

This section describes the purpose of each prescription. what the resource 

emphasis will be and where the prescription will be applied . It displays 

direction for management of each reso- . There are eighteen prescriptions 

that will be inplemented . 

No . 

1 . 

2 . 

3 . 

4 . 

5 . 

6 . 

7 . 

8 . 

9 . 10 . 11 . 12 . 13 . 14 . 15 . 16 . 17 . 18 . 

- 

Prescription Page 

Designated Wilderness ..................................... 107 

Proposed Wilderness ...................................... 113 

Mountain Sheep Habitat .................................... 116 

Mule Deer Habitat ........................................ 117 

Research Natural Areas .................................... 119 

Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area ........................ 122 

Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest .............................. 123 

Wild and Scenic Rivers ..................................... 126 

Uneven-aged Timber Management ............................ 130 

High Level Timber Management .............................. 132 

Range ................................................. 134 

Concentrated Recreation Area ............................... 136 

Alpine Ski Area. Existing and Under Study ...................... 138 

Potential Alpine Ski Area ................................... 140 

Developed Recreation Site .................................. 143 

Dispersed Recreation ...................................... 145 

Semi-primitive Recreation .................................. 147 

Multiple Resource Area .................................... 149 

106 
D-nated Wilderness (#1) 

The purpose of this prescription is to protect wild lands and their 

wilderness values of M~UI~L ecolcgical integrity and natural appearance. 

The aphasis is on providing opprhmities for solitude, challenge, and 

primitive recreation. 

This prescription applies to the existkg Ansel Adams, Hoover, Golden Trout, 

John Muir, south Sierra, and any Wilderness designated by Cagress during the 

planning period. 

Elenent lrynaganen t Direction 

Air Quality -tor air quality on Class I airsheds to detect 

degradatirm. Reaxmend abatement measures after 

Air Quality Related Values and indicators are 

de-. 

Fnergy 

Facilities 

protect significant cultural pmpzties by limiting 

or distributing use. 

Permit no new energy developnents. 

Allow m road "on. 

Manage the trail system as determined inthe 

management Plan for each wilderness. Maintain 

-1s to assigned mamtenance levels. 

Wunt signs to be unobtruskve and not detract frcm 

the- ' natural enviranment. Signonly as 

needed for prcgessive -vel. Do not sign 

features other than passes. 

Use fords at stream crossings unless a trridge is 

needed for safety or route c"ezh 'on. (xln&n& 

needed bridges using materials and metkds that 

will best preserve WildeJmeSs values. 

Dnphasize the use of native materials when 

designig resource protection hp"nts. 

Allm syxnl survey cabins to remain in wilderness 

only if essentzal for the safety of surveyors. 

Remwe 9y3w survey cabins after the associated 

survey sites have been correlated with, and 

replaced by, sites outside wildemess. Make 

exce.pticm if a cabin is needed for safe 

I- .travel to a site that is still in 

use. 

107 
Fisheries 

Geology 

Lands 

Minerals 

Whera a &"-&rated need is identified, allow 

autaMtic 91ow survey i"sn tation and temporary 

SaISnic Staticns in wilderness with the cclnditicol 

that the facilities will be periodically evalmted 

needed, the facilities would be ren~~& and the 

site lestored to as near a M~UI-Z~L dtion as 

possible. 

Allow aerial fish stocking in wilderness if it 

avoids inpacts on visitors and involves only lakes 

that were aerially stocked before the affected 

wil- was legislatively designated. Licensed 

fishing is all&. 

Ccmsider the risk frun landslide and seismic 

prcc!esses when locating new .trails. provide 

information on these risks to wilderness users. 

Attapt to acquire all private land inboldhgs. 

Deter" the validity of existing mining claims 

wtw a plan of operatiom is suhnitted. Subject to 

valid exis- rights, designated wilderness areas 

are withdrawn fran further mineral entry. 

Administer operating plans to protect wilderness 

values and grandfathered valid existing rights. 

leasing, in designated wilderness. 

Permit m sales or extraction of ax" variety 

minerals in designated wilderness. 

Allow insect and disease infestations to nm their 

natural course^ except where it is necessary to 

prevent unacceptable damage to resources on 

adjacent lands or to prevent mtural Iffis to the 

wildemess resource because of exotic pests. 

Use the fire suppression stxatepes of confinement, 

amtainnmt, or mtml for management of unplanned 

natural fires. Ccintml all unplanned human-caused 

fires. 

Obtain apprwal prior to emergency use of the 

foll~ suppression actimties: Regional Forester 

appmal for tractor use and/or for heliport 

Constxuction; Forst Supervisor approval for 

helispot constsuction, retardant application other 

than short-term or fugitive-dye, wheeled vehicles, 

generatom, or chain saws (unless for drrect 

suppression). 

for need. when the iIEbmEn ts are no 10qer 

Allow no mineral leasiq, including ge3themal 

108 
Range 

-tim 

Apply low-impact suppressim tactics such as 

reliance upon natural barriers unless mre direct 

attack is needed to p”A persons or adjacent 

property values. Favor the use of water over land 

disturbance. Favor COld-tCailing o~er handline 

~ction. 

Mitigate temporary fire camps, helispots, evidence 

of vehicles, and other disturbances created by 

emrgewy fire suppressicol activities. 

Use prescribed fire (planned ignitions only) to 

relluce the risks and consequences of wildfire 

within wilderness or escaping fmn wilderness to an 

acceptable level. 

ACininiStar the range grazing prcgram as defined by 

Forest Servica Manual 2323.2 (Wildemess) and 

Forest Service Manual 2200 (Range). 

Allotment Managanent Plans (AMPs) will consider 

mtialal stock grazing. 

Distribute publications to wildemess users that 

enrphasize wildemess regulations, etiquette, and 

health and safety considerations including fire 

safety. 

Allaw the dispersed recreation activities 

appiate to Primitive and Sen-!i-Primitive 

Nm-I%torized Remeatim Gpprtunity Spectnrm (ROS) 

classes. Allm 110 off-highway/--- (OHV/W) 

vehicle use. 

Ehphasize minimum impact camping techniques when 

interacting with wildemess users or developing 

informational handouts. 

R- that campsites be located ane hurdrsd feet 

or nmce fnrn lak€?sbres, trails and streams where 

terrain Wts, but III 110 case closer than 

twenty-five feet. 

Advocate and enforce the pack-it-in, pack-it-out 

prcgram for trash. 

prohibit discharge of firearms except for 

emergencies, or for takirg wildlife as permitted 

under state gam laws. 

aohibit wood fires in areas that are 

-tally sensitive or where wood is scarce. 

109 
Allow 1-e herding of pack and saddlestock only 

where trail conditmns make it unsafe to tie stock 

together. 

F’rolubit overnight pi&etiq or tether% of stock 

in meadows. Require that stock tied overnight be 

tied to hltch lines on hard sites. 

Require that feed for recreation stock be packed 

mto the wildemess under the following conditicms: 

before the grazing season, where feed is 

unavailable, or where grazing wld damage nalxral 

resources. 

Fmhibit tying of stock within one hundred feet of 

water, trails, or campsites except whm loading or 

moading. when loading or unloadirg, tie stock 

only to trees eight inches in diameter or larger. 

Issue no new pennits for pastures or stock packing 

services in the Ansel Adams, Hcuver, John Muir, or 

Golden Trout Wildernesses. Allow for a transfer 

perrmt - ‘p changes or pennits are 

renewed if continued use is carrpatible with 

wilderness management objectives. 

mize the rnrmber of wildemess rangers during 

the restricted seas~n in heavlly used, p3pular 

areas to maximize persmal contacts with wilderness 

users. 

Threatened, Edargxd, protected sites of threatened, endangered, or 

or Sensitive Species sensitive plants and arumals by restricting or 

redirecting use. 

T* Allow m timber harvem. 

Visual Rescxnces Meet the preservation Visual Quality Objective 

(W). 

Watershed Permit weather mxiification as long as effects on 

clmte, mldemess use seasons, and other 

resources me acceptable. 

Incarprate the Forest Watershed Impmvment Needs 

Plan while protectkg wilderness values. 

Fdwate the public with regard to Giardia. 

Incorporate both wild and scenic river management 

direction and wildemess management where a 

designated river s-t extends intn designated 

wilderness. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

110 
Wilderness Establish capacity limits for each wilderness and 

hplement en- limits on specific trailheads to 

regulate use when use exceeds capcity. 

Establish the se- 6uririg which entry limits will 

apply. "he restricted use se- may vary firm one 

.trailhead to another. 

Redired or restxict use where necessary to restore 

impired wilderness --. 

LimitpartysizeandNrmberof stockperpartytoa 

level that p?mteds social and natu-al reEawxe 

values. "he level may vary witlsin or between 

Wildernesses. 

-1y trailhead en- quotas to bath cormercial and 

Aal users. 

Determine the current level of Bal and 

cmnezcial backpacking and mnmtaineering use. 

Establish an appropriate level for these types of 

use. 

Apply quotas on the Pacific (sest Wail to only 

tbse travelers wlm begin their trip at a trailhead 

with quotas. 

pmhibit w5leeled "n 'Cal devices including, 

rast limited to, bicycles, wagons, and carts except 

permit * 

construct M benches, tables, or shelters. 

Allow plant collection and scientific research 

under permit on a case-by-case basis. 

Require the renrsv;il of airplane wreckage by owner 

but 

tbDse needed for aciministrative purposes or for use 

by physically handiappa-3 perscas under special 

or insurance ccmpany. 

Notify the apprupriate military authority of 

low-level flights over wilderness mil flights 

cease. Ckadinate with the Federal Aviation 

ACmnmtration to Wte wilderness In" 'es on 

flimt charts. 

Limit camuxcial wilderness activities under permit 

to those that meet public needs and cannot be 

pIwided elsewfiere. 

.. 

Pennit ccnpetitive type events in wilderness. 

111 
Wildlife Protect the integrity of natwxl ecological 

pJXCesses by I-estmm those processes that have 

been altered by hmlan activities. 

protect key habitat for Manag-t Irdicator 

Species by limi- or distributing use. 

Manage mtain skep habitat to maintain &/or 

enhance canyirg capacity. Relccate existirg or 

the trails will rot cause significant adverse 

effects upm the use by mmtain sheep of their 

habitat. Identify and provide for this sensitivity 

in the appxpriate wilderness management plan. 

Licensed hun- is allowed. 

c3"ld new recmatim trails cauy in areas where 

112 
Proposed Wilderness (#2) 

The purpose of this prescxiption is to recognize and protect wildemess 

attributes of Further Planniq Areas for wildemess pending 

Cbqresional designatim. 

The aiphasis is on providing traditicmal pubuc uses during the interim that 

do not jeopardize designaticm as wildsmess. 

This prescxipkon applies to the Table Mountain and Ti- Lake Further 

pianning Areas and porticms of the White mut~tains and Paiute-Mazourka 

mer P1anru-g Areas. These total app"tely 172,600 National Forest 

System acres. 

Elenwt &magan€¶ t Dir€Ct.iQl 

Air Quality - 

Facilities 

Maintain Air Quality Related Values. 

Permit m new energy devel~ts or leases. 

Allow m road c€"ction I22 -&on. 

Maintain, reo"&, or oxstruct trails on the 

current inventay accordiq to established 

Forest-wide @&ties. 

Retain othar facilities if desired, but do not 

expand -. 

Fisheries 

Lands 

Continue current management, includhg aerial fish 

stocking and habitat j"t to the extent that 

wilderness values are mt adversely affected. 

Licensed fishing is allowed. 

oonsider the acquisition of private lands inside 

the propxed wilderness boundary on a Forest-wide 

priority basis. 

Allow special uses to Ccsltinue, but not to expand. 

If a current permit terrmna ' tesorexpires,anew 

parmit will only be issued on an annual basis. 

Determine the validity of existing mhing claims 

when a plan of operaticols is suhnitted. 

wilderness attributes and grandfathered valid 

existing rights. 

Administer 0pzraW-g plans to protect inheren t 

Allow no nrineral 1easiX-g. includjng ge0thf"l 

leasing, in proposed wilde?m€?Ss. 

Permit 110 sales or extraction of variety 

minerals in proposed wilderness. 

113 
Pest &ulag€mE?nt 

protecticm 

Range 

Reaeaticm 

~llow insed and disease infestations to run their 

natural courses except whexe they would 

the 

resources of adjacent lands, livestock, or human 

health and welfare. 

use the fire suppression strategies of confinement, 

mtairrment, or control for manag-t of unplanned 

natural fires. Ccoltcol all unplanned human-caused 

fires. 

Minimize "mental disturbance when suppressing 

fires. 

Manage the grazing ~orogram to protect wilderness 

values. Address specific management needs in 

unacceptably threatesl the wilderness resource, 

AllOixent Managenmt Plans. 

~llm traditional recreational uses, includjrg 

motorized access, to ccmtjnue unless wilderness 

values are seriously threatened. Allow OW use on 

existjng designated routes. OSVs may be used off 

roads and tXallS unless restXicted by the new 

winter Motor Vehicle Use Map. This map will be 

developea as an @ate of the 1977 Motor Vehicle 

Use Map mth public participation dur- Plan 

implementatian. 

Manage for Primitive or Sa-Primitive NonMotorized Ros classes. 

special Interest rea as 

Ti&€X Allow m timber haraestirag. 

prop3se rn new Special Interest Areas in proposed 

wilderness. 

Visual Resources 

Watershed 

Wilderness 

Wildlife 

Allow public fuel- gathering of only dead and 

dmn material unless wildemess values are 

threatened. 

Meet the Preservation VQO. 

Imorprate the Forest Watershed Inipmvemmt Needs 

Plan wlule pmtezting wilderness values. 

Replace this prescription with Prescription #1, 

amnding the Forest Plan as necessary, if and when 

Coqress aeSignates &ti& wildernesses. 

Manage wildlife habitat while pmtectiq wilderness 

values. 

Manage -tab sheep habitat to maintain and/or 

enhanca carrying capacity. Relocate existing or 

114 
c0nStnlc.t new recreation trails only in areas whe?x3 

the bails will ncrt cause significant adverse 

effeds upn the use by "tain sheep of their 

habitat. Identify and -de for this sensitivity 

in the appropriate wilderness management plan. 

Licensed hunting is allowed. 

115 
Mountain Sheep Habitat (#3) 

The purp3se of this prescripticsl is to provide high quality habitat for 

mnmtain sheep to maintain or enhance existing papulation levels. 

The emphasis is on mxlntain sheep habitat. Gther management activities will 

be curtailed if they present unresolvable conflicts with mnmtain sheep 

managment objectives. 

El-t -t Di~~~tial 

Facilities 

protection 

Visual Resources 

Wildlife 

Recarmand in favor Of energY df?VelOpnent where 

developnent is determined to be anipatible with 

wildlife values. Recn"3 against eneqy 

developnent where inpacts to wildlife values mt 

be mitigated ur are unacceptable. 

mate trails and manage their use so they do not 

conflict with mnmtain sheep habitat. 

Establish m roads or heliports whexe they would 

conflict with mtain sheep. 

carmensurate with the sensitivity of mnmtain sheep 

on their wintering gnnmds, work with claimants and 

mineral operatcas to limit mineral exploration and 

developnent activities within mtain sheep winter 

range during the perioa when the animals are using 

the winter range. 

Use the fire suppression strategies of confinemmt, 

containment, or control for managerent of unplanned 

~t~~al fires. COIltrol all unplanned human-caused 

fires. 

PrescriW fire may be used for habitat 

imp-t. 

Permit IIO increase in livestock use if the increase 

is shown to be deleterious to mnmtain sheep 

matiax. 

Manage €or primitive and semi-FThitive Ros 

classes. Allav m OHV/OSV use. 

Resolve ocolflicts betwe~9-1 mtain sheep and harg 

gliding in favor of mountain sheep. 

Meet the Retention W. 

Evaluate potential transplant sites, giving 

preference to sites that have no current livestock 

srazins. 

116 
Mule Deer Habitat (#4) 

Thepurpose of this prescriptim is to preserve or enhance key mule deer 

habitat in order to maintain or haease existing population levels. 

The -is is on key mule deer habitat, fa areas, win- mqe, 

migration -i&xs, and hD1di.q areas. Other management activities will be 

prohibit& or reduced if they present unresolvable conflicts in these key 

areas. 

Elanent mg€nE!n t nirectian 

Facilities 

Minerals 

Recarmend in favor of energy developmnt where 

developnent is determined to be mqatible with 

wildlife values. Recxmwnd against energy 

developnent where impacts to wildlife values 

cannot be mitigated or are unacceptable. 

Iceate trails and manage their use so they do not 

conflict with mule deer habitat. 

Do not establish roads or heliports where they 

would conflict with mule deer. 

Work with claimants and mineral operators to lhit 

mineral exploration/developrent activities within 

mle deer migration corridofi during migration 

periods, within key fawning areas, and on key 

winter range if it is determined on a 

project-specific basis that mineral operatians 

would affect mule deer usage of these habitats. 

Use the fire suppression strategies of confinement, 

cnntainmnt, or ccoltrol for management of urplanned 

fires. 

Prescribed fire may be used for habitat 

i"ent. 

Mbal f-S. oon.h-01 dI.1 lJtlpl.allIled human-CaUSed 

Manage livestock Animal Wit Pbnths (AUMS) on key 

deer winter range and other critical Mitats such 

as migration mutes, holding areas and fawning 

areas accclrding to objedives of the Deer Hard 

Managemnt Plans approved jointly by the Forest, 

the Bureau of Land Management and the California 

Deparhnent of Fish and Game. 

Design new developrent so that the integrity of 

mule deer staging areas, migration corridors and 

key habitat is maintained. Allow the dispersed 

activities appropriate to Primitive, Semi-primitive 

Wm-MAorized, Semi-primitive Motorized and Roaded 

Natural Ros classes. OHVs are permitted on 

117 
Riparian Areas 

Tinber 

Visual Remmces 

Wildlife 

existing designate3 roads and trails unless 

otherwise restricted. OSVs are prohibit& unless 

otherwise indicated on the Winter Wtor Vehicle Use 

Map. 

Impmve riparian areas where necessary to enhance 

fawning habitat. 

Leave vegetation necessary for themal and him 

cover. 

Meet or exceed the Partial Retentim VQO. 

PkLntain habitat quality in key fawning ateas, 

winter range, holding areas, and key migratim 

routes. 

Manage vegetation m key habitat areas for optimum 

forage-to-mver ratios. 

Manage the remahbg m-key winter range to 

provide the canpssition and seral stages of 

preferred brush species that will meet the dietary 

needs of mile deer. 

Restrict vehicular access as necessary to protest 

deer winter range, holding areas, and lu” key 

fawning areas. 

coordinate with Bureau of Lard Management’s 

Benkm-Cwens Valley Management Framework Plan for 

seasmal road closure dates to benefit mule deer. 

118 
Research Natural Areas (#5) 

me purpose of this prescripticol is to maintain the ecologicdl integAty of 

target vegetation typx, for research, stufly, and observation. 

The emphasis 1s placed on maintaining naM emlcgical processes. 

Both existing and reorsrmended Reseamh Natural keas (RNAs) are included. 

Additional site-specific dire st^ .on may be found in the documents that 

established the RNA or subsequent management plans for established RNA. This 

prescription applies to the follming: 

Forest Research Natural Areas 

Data I 

,Base ..= - -,X%se&!tion; 

~ b~- . i_ 

,_. : >. I 

%,* 

i. _%;. a ~ a 2- %I X$e?iearch Natural- Area ~ status &rgs ape Provin.ce &%;. ;<>;$,:i*=\%: =_ :*\ :-: shPh3;siosra&hlc ~ 

Indiana Slmmit Est. 1932 1,162 Jeffrey pine Basin Ranges 

Harveyl%€lrCe Hall Est. 1933 3,883 subalpine Sierra Nevada 

White Phmtain Est. 1953 2,004 bristle" Basin Ranges 

Last Chance Mdw. Est. 1982 660 foxtail pine Basin Raqes 

Sentinel Meadow Est. 1983 1,897 lodgeple pine Sierra Nevada 

Wlnpp"11 Flat Rec. 1985 3,328 pinycsl pine Basin Raqes 

mee Rec. 1985 2,627 alpine Basin Ranges 

fellfield 

oultucal Resolaces protect identified cultural resources. 

Ehergy 

Facilities 

coordinate gmmd-disturbing activities with the 

Pacific sc"& Research Station DirectOr . Asa 

general We, excavations for cul-hual resources 

may be pnnitted when the naM integrity Of the 

RMI. is rrJt adanpmd. 

Allow In energy leasing, exploration or 

aevelopnent. 

standard of existing roads and trails unless they 

Do not rmnstxuct new rcads or trails or improve the 

specifically cdzibute to the research objectives 

of the area. 

119 
Fisheries 

Geology 

Lands 

Minerals 

Maintain existiq roads and trails to current 

standards. 

coordinate with the California Department of Fish 

and Gam to leave all waterways unstocked. 

mlow M alteration of the gramdwater system. 

Permit M utility or txanspctatim rights-of-way. 

Pennit scientific study by special use permit or 

cooperative agreaent only. All permits or 

agreements are executed between the propcolent and 

the Pacific Sm-thwest Research Station Director 

with prior approval of the District Ranger and 

Forest Supervisor. 

Recmn~nd and/or maintain withdrawal frun mineral 

entry. 

Allow M surface cc"q for leasing 

inClud5.q geothermal. 

Pennit M sales or &action of camrol variety 

minerals. 

Allow forces of nature to prevail. Manage pests 

only when necessary to preserve the values for 

which the RNA was established. 

Use the fire suppression strategies of mnfimmmt, 

amtaiment, or ccoltrol for managmt of unplanned 

~bal fires. Conkc11 all unplanned human-caused 

fires. 

Restrict livestock to those areas where grazing is 

essential for the maintenance of a specific 

vegetative type. Othena 'se, permit I-KI livestock 

grazing. 

Allow the dispersed recreation activities 

appmpriate to the Primitive IEOS class, but 

discourage or expressly prohibit any public uses 

that amtxibute to lllodification of the area. 

prohibit ovamight canping, campfires, and 

mtorized uses including OHVs unless authorized by 

special use et. OSVs are prohibited unless 

othemise indicated on the Winter Motor Vehicle Use 

WP. 

Fte~andstudy Make areas available for maximum scientific and 

academic uses that are mndestructive and 

"nipulative. 

120 
Riparian 

T* 

Visual 

watershed 

Wilderness 

Wildlife 

Allow M modification of riman areas. 

Allow M ccmnercial tinter harvesturg . orgathering 

or refarestatica. 

Allow M management practices except as requFred to 

presenm or restore the vegetative dtim for 

which the area was established. 

Meet the pres~ticm VQO. 

Allow M modificatim of soil or waimxomsx. 

Restace man-induced damage to a M+JJI~~ dticm. 

Upbld the laws gWeming use and management of 

wilderness where an RNA is located within a 

of flle'lm. 

Allow M timber stand 

designated wildemes!3 area. 

management differs fruu that of wilderness. 

Follow the mre sbciragent RNA requirements where 

Allow legal hun- and fishing. 

Allow M enhancement of wildlife habitat. 

121 
Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area (#6) 

The purpose of thrs prescription is to pnmide for the manag-t of the lul3no 

~a~m National Forest Scenic Area as directed by the California Wilderness 

Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-425). 

The aiphasis is to protect the area's scenic, geologic, ecologic, and 

cultural resources while pruvidxg for public recreational use, and 

perrmttxg scientific study and research in acmrdance with Title 111 Section 

304 of the Califorma Wilderness Act of 1984. 

This prescription applies to the lands within the boundaries as described in 

the Act. The S-c Area encanpasses a-tely 116,000 gross acres of 

the Basin mclu- "0 Lake. 

Planning DireCtim 

section 304 directs in part that a "detailed and cxqrehensive" managaxat 

plan for the Scenic Area be suhnitted within three years after enadnent. 

Direction stipulates that the management plan must be consistent with the 

protection of water rights, and shall include but not be limited to the 

following: 

- an ulventory of natural (inc1udi.q geologic) and cultural resources; 

- general develOpnent plans for public use facilities inclw cost 

estimates; 

- masuces for pre-a-bon of the ~t~~al and cultural resources. 

Section 304 alSo directs that the management plan provide for hunting and 

fishing inclw camrercial brine shrimp -ations authorized under state 

law in accordance with applicable federal and state law, except as otherwise 

necessary for reasons of public health and safety, the protection of 

resources, scientific research activities, or public use and enj-t. 

The required ccrrrprehensive Manag-t Plan for the Scenic Area will be tiered 

to the Forest Plan by: 

-identification of the Mono Basin National Forest S-c Area as a 

Manag-t Area. However, this Management Area will be assessed in the 

carrprehensive Managemnt Plan for the Scenic Area. 

- the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, which apply to the Scenic Area. 

122 
Ancient Bristlecone Forest(#7) 

The purpose of this prescription is to protect the Ancient Bristle" Pines 

far public enjoyrent and scientific study. The area was established in 1958 

to reoognize the botanical, scenic, and histacical values on its 28,991 acres 

(28,887 National Forest system; 104 private). The area is classified as a 

special Interest Area. 

The emphasis is on maintaining near-natural dtmns. All activities are 

fllbordinate to the needs of proteztixq and pnxemiq bristle" pines and 

wood remnants. 

Additional dimxtl 'on may be foLmd in the estab1-t record and fllbsequent 

management Plan. 

El-t 

hergy 

Facilities 

Geology 

Lands 

ManaqalEn t Directian 

Allow m energy exploration or developnent. 

iulcw achhistmtive facilities at lccations and with 

designs that met interpretive needs. 

Limit roads and trails to existbq routes except for 

hiE+cetive Ioads and trails. 

Locate inwtive facilities, including parking 

areas and trails, outside areas identified as having 

high risk frau landslide or seisnic processes. 

Acquire all rrm-federal lands. 

Permit no new above-gmmd Utility rights-of-way. 

Place existing utilities if this is 

technically feasible. 

Maintain current mineral withdrawal.. 

coordinate closely with Operators of valid nhiq 

claims to "ize and mitigate land disturbances as 

much as possible in Enoposed operatian plans. 

Allaw no surface "y for mineral leasing, 

inC1udil-g geoiwma. 

Permit no sales or 'on of "n variety 

minerals. - Management Allow forces of nature to prevail. Manage pests only 

when necessary to preserve the values for which the 

Special In- Area was established. 

clJrItL-01 all wildfires. 

123 
Use no heavy quipwnt or fire-retardant ckemicals 

for controlling fires wi-t appmval of the Forest 

Supervim. 

Allow ~t~al fuels to acclmnilate. 

Pemit livestock grazing. 

Allow the recreaticBl activities apprqtriate in 

Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Pkrtorized, SemiPrimitive Motorized and Roaded Natural Ros classes. 

Mde DeVe1-t Level 3 and 4 (highly develapea) 

day-use facilities giving priority to those 

facilities that protect the area. 

construct intfxprative trails, observation areas, 

visitor cmntact facilities, and parking areas at 

1oCatia-s that do not impact major lolown scientific 

study sites. 

cX"ct m ommight canping facilities within the 

area. 

Prohibit overnight czmqi.rg and open fires. Liquid 

fuel stoves may be used within vehicles. 

prohibit OHV use and restrict vehicle travel 

includirg bicycles to designated routes. Oms are 

prohibited for -tim use. 

Allow overnight parking only in designated parking 

areas during hting seasan or by permit. 

Riparian 

Scientific Study Make the area available for scientific and academic 

Allow m rmdificaticm of riparian areas. 

uses that do not cause ohservable deyadation. 

TW Allow m timber l"&hg. 

Allow no fuelwood gathering. 

Allow m removal of wwd remnants except for 

scientific research or museum specimens. 

Vegetaticm 

Visual 

Allow managmat practices which do mt threaten the 

vegetative dtion for which the area was 

established. 

Manage for the Retenticm VQO except whexe necessary 

to provide public use facilities. 

124 
125 
Wild and Scenic Rivers (#8) 

The purpose of this prescription is to maintain rivers that have been 

recccmEended or designated in a free-flowing condition. This 1s described m 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. 

The -is is on s-c, recreation, geologic, fish and wildlife, 

vegetation, and cultural values for the enjoyment of present and future 

generations. 

The North Fork of the Kem River and the South Fork of the Kern River have 

been designated as Wild and Scenic Rivers. S-ts of the Middle Fork of 

the San Joaquin River will be reccmnended for wild and scenic river status in 

the Sierra National Forest Plan as the river runs between the two Forests. 

This prescripticm applies to a linear strip paralleling these rivers and 

ext- for approximately cme-quarter mile on each side of their banks. 

Element "3 t D.keCtiCll 

Facilities 

Permit no mlectric developnent, i"nent, or 

diversion. 

Allow limted road cmmtructicm within recreation or 

scenic segments. Disallow roads within wild 

Segments. 

Allow trails and trail briageS within all segwnts. 

Fisheries protect and improve golden trout habitat. 

Geology Consider the risk fm landslide and seisnic 

processes when locating raew cangsites or trails. 

A- m-federal land and easements t0 inp1-t 

the Wild and Scen~.c Rivers Act and to facilitate 

management of other resources. 

Ensure legal access to "-federal. land that is not 

acquired. 

P-t rn utiliw rights-of-way within wild sepents. 

Pennit utility rights-of-way within recreation and 

scenic s3eg"ts when there are In alternatives. 

Recreation and Scenic Segmen ts 

Identify and detennhe the validity of all mining 

claims on public lands when a plan of operations is 

suhnitted. 

Allow mintxal leasing, exploraticm and developnent 

including geothermal, where accanplished with m 

126 
Protecticm 

Recreation 

surface “y of the --quarter-mile strip on 

either side of the river. This does not preclude 

crossing the strip with linear facilities at 

designated locations. 

Pennit M sales or extradian of cocm~n variety 

minerals. 

Wild Segmen t 

Allow M mineral leasing, exploration or developnent 

Pmnit M sales or extraction of cocm~n variety 

-S. 

Reneatian and Scenic Segnen ts 

control all wildfire and use a technique of fire 

suppression that minimizes landscape alhration and 

ground disturbance. 

Wild Segmn t 

Use the fire -ion strategies of ccolfinement, 

containment, or cQntI-01 for managCm3nt of unplanned 

includiq geothermal. 

MWal f-. cCEl”l all unp1atlIled hUlMn Caused 

fires. 

Recreation and scenic segmen ts 

Permit grazing. 

Pennit existing strllm i”ents. 

Permit expansion of structural improvements outside 

designated wilderness provided they meet assigned 

VQOS and allow for user access. 

Wild S- t 

Permit graziq. 

Limit - jlnpmmmts to existing structures. 

Qaperate with the adjacent Naticmal Forests in the 

Wild and Scenic River recomwdation process and in 

the cambxction of management plans for the rivers. 

management direction for Wild and Scenic Ever 

segments thrmgh use of b”s and signs located 

outside the area. 

Inmease public awareness and “&q . of the 

127 
Recreation Segmen t 

mlow the nticn activities appropriate in 

primitive, semi-Mtive Wm-Wbrized, Seniprimitive Motorized, and Fbaded Natural RCS classes. 

Allow m use oar designated roads and trails only. 

osvs may be used off roads and trails unless 

restricted by the winter mtnr Vehicle Use Map. 

provide for canping at designated sites cmly. 

scenic s- t 

mim the nticn activities appropriate in 

Primitive, Semi-primitive Wm-Motorized, Semiprimitive Motorized, and Roaded Natural FUX classes. 

Allow OHV use on designated roads or trails only. 

restricted by the Winter Motor Vehicle Use Map. 

provide for recreation in a near-natural setting 

while allacing other cmptible uses. 

miow canping and OHV use at locations at least 100 

feet fmn the river’s @e. 

osvs may be used off loads and trails unless 

Riparian 

Timber 

Wild Segmen t 

Allow the recreation activities included in primitive 

and Semi-Primitive Non-Motcaized classes. Allcw rm 

oHv/osv use. 

provide for recreation in a primitive s3kti.q that 

offers considerable physical challenge and requires 

well-develcpd outdoor skills. 

Allow caq?jrg at locations at least one hundred feet 

fran the river’s edge. 

provide access by trail for m-mtorized use only. 

Increase public awareness and understandjng of the 

management direct2 ‘on for Wild and Scenic River 

segments through use of brochures and signs located 

outside the area. 

mt& river, river banks and depndent plants and 

animals fran alteration. 

Recreation and Scenic Sqwn ts 

Limit timber harvest to maintain or enhance user 

safety and scenic quality. 

128 
Visual 

watershed 

Wilderness 

Allow tinbr stand -t and Ieforestation as 

necessary tomaintain or enhance the health andvigor 

of the M. 

Wild Segmen t 

DoncrtalloWtimharharvesting. 

Do rot allaw timbar stand i"ent and 

reforestaticn. 

Fecreatim segmen t: met inventoried m. 

scenic Sf3glen t: Meet the Retention VQO. 

Wild Segmen t: Meetthepres€"ticnVQO. 

Allow M modificaticn of soil or wa- except 

to restor8 damaged areas to a natural state. 

amtrol or prevent BTosioB1. 

Incorpra~ both wildemess manag-t direcia 'on and 

wild and &c river managgnent directi onwfierea 

classified river segent extends into designated 

wildanes. Apply the most restrictive requirements. 

129 
Uneven-aged Timber Management ($79) 

The purpose of this prescription is to manage suitable timberlands for the 

producton of wood prrxlucts using silvicultural ksai"k that maintain 

options for other resoucce aphases durw the plamiq prim. 

The -is is on the prrxluction of sawlcgs and miscellaneou~ d proaucts. 

Managanen t Dixectim 

~ocate all private land boundaries prior to sale layout. 

Use the fire suppression strategies of ocolfinement, 

containment, or control for rnanagment of unplanned. 

natural fires. Contxol all unplanned human-caused 

fires. 

Rxxeaticm 

Timber 

"vide for dispersed and developed recreation 

opp3rtunities as defined by mapped FOS classes. Allow 

OW use only on existing roads and .trails unless 

authorized by &t. OSVs are permitted on designated 

corridors, -&als and open areas identified on the 

Winter bbtor Vehicle Use Map. 

Close or re-route designated mer-- trails durq 

active timber sale opxations. 

Permit base facilities and access within this area to 

sezve alpine ski developnent. These will be identified 

and evaluated in project-level environmental analysis. 

Utilize uneven-aged manag-t techniques (group 

selection or single tree selection) using these 

criteria: 

- at least three age classes, 

- each age class canp~~ses at least 10 percent of 

the basal area of the stand, 

- at least twenty years between age classes, 

- one class in the upper third at end of rotation 

period, 

- openings up to tw acres in size--up to five 

acres where terrain, stand characteristics, 

operational factors, or xm-timber resource 

objectiw make this necessary, 

sawtmhx. 

- prcduct objective is large-diamter (-24") 

choose site preparation activities that are mst 

ccrnpatible with other resource needs. 

130 
Implement wal and canwxcial -s and 

sanitation cuttings to be ccnipatible with other resoucce 

needs. 

Retain the integrity of the hardmd caoponent. 

Visual Resmmxs Meet or exd the Partial Retentian VQO. 

Wildlife Maintain an average of 2.2 mags per a~e greater than 

16-24 inches in dia~te-c (slags may be clustered at a 

greater density to met -acre average). 

Maintain an average of 0.5 slags per acre greater than 

24 inches in diameter (mags may be clustered at a 

greater density to meet -acre average). 

Maintain and enhance cover and forage areas fco: deer in 

key fawning and miption areas. 

Maintain 10 percent of timbered acreage (both suitable 

and unsuitable) in old growth. 

131 
High Level Timber Management (#lo) 

The lxlrpose of this prescription is to “age suitable timberlands for 

cunpatible with timber maMgement activities. 

maxi” p3xductioul of wwd prcducb. Managmmt of other - will be 

The emphasis is on maxi” pl”tion of sawlogs and miscellaneous wood 

proaucts. 

Elenent Managenent Dkecticm 

Lands Locate all prim& 1prupexties before sale layout. 

use the fire suppression strategies of oanfinen\ent, 

ccoltairnnent, or ccsltrol for “agemat of unplanned 

natural fires. Control all unplanned human-cam 

fires. 

Allow M gYaz,ing of p1afltatiOns until the potential 

for damage to .trees XI 1cqe.r exists. 

-de for dispersed recreation as defined by the 

Serci-Frimitive M3torized and Road& Natural Ros 

classes. Allckv ow use only on existirag and new 

roads and trails. Allow OSvs on designated 

corridors, trails and open areas identified on the 

winter Pbtor Vehicle Use Map. 

Close or re-route designated over” trails &ring 

active timber sale operaticms. 

Allow for rotation lengbhs of 120 years for l-eple 

pine; 140 years for Jeffrey pbe; and 160 years for 

red fir. 

Remxre overstory when the understoq is well 

established and at least .two feet high. 

Keep clearcut umLts usually to a maxi“ of twwty 

acres. Do not exceed forty acres except in the case 

of ca- ’c occurrences such as fire or insect 

and disease; m specific timber sales only after 

sixty-day public mtice and review by the Regional 

Forester. 

Use mchine piling and buming and prescribed fire 

for site preparatim in mxt cases. Cbnsider other 

methods if other values are at risk. 

Release seedliqs fm canpeting vegetation in 

plantaticms as needed tn meet expected growth rates. 

At the project level, ccolsider a full range of 

methods to suppress cmqeting vegetation, including 

mechanical, biological, and chemical techniques and 

132 
prescxiibed fire. Base selection on an analysis of 

relative effdveness, e"atal effects, ard 

msts. 

CXmtxol anjmal me as nw3ed to protect 

rqmeraticm considering a full raqe of methods on a 

site-spxific basis. 

Apply prscormerCial thirniq to established 

plantatiom and stands that result fron OverStOIy 

remwal. 

Perform carmercial thiming and sanitation 

inix"dl 'ate hanrests. Eqh carmsrcial -as 

socn as yields are available, and assure "nn 

useable cubic growth in the rm"rg stand. use 

mortality. 

Obliterate all UMBeded loads after logging. 

Retain the intqrity of the hardlwood mqment. 

.. sanitation cutting to capture anticipated stand 

Visual Rescxaces Meet irnrento ried Vaos. 

133 
Ranae (#11) 

The puqose of *s prescription 1s to maintain or increase forage proauctioIl 

and acheve uniform livestock distribution through maintenance or expansion 

of structural and nonstructural range improvements. 

The imphasis is on maintabhg a healthy, proaudive range land resource. 

This prescription applies to sparsely forested or “-forested lands of high 

range proaUctivity (400 plus pounds of palatable forage per acre) within 

allotments. 

This prescription represents the “I managmt mtensity to be applied 

and allots up to 50 percent of available forage within one-half mile of water 

for utilization by livestock. Rejmtion and type ccanrersicm will be 

practiced on vegetation types where it is cost-effective and treabmnt is 

necessary to maintain or improve forage produdian. 

Element 

Protectim 

Range 

Rw;reaticn 

Use the fire suppression strategies of confhemnt, 

contmt, or cvntml for managerent of unplanned 

natural fires. control all unplanned human-caused 

fires. 

PrescriW fire may be used to increase forage 

production. 

Allow livestock to utilize up to 50 percent of 

available palatable forage within one-half mile of 

watex developnents. 

Apply the most intensive management on 

that ha^ 0-30 percent slopes. range 

Make water developnents available to “ize forage 

utilization. 

Treat vegetation on suitable range to maintain or 

increase forage prcduction. 

Develop AllObmnt Management Plans (AMPS) in an 

interdisciplinary manner with public involvement, 

mluding permittees, state or other federal 

agencies, and other inkrested orgamzations or 

individUalS. 

Rank each allotment on the Forest according to 

priority in terms of AMP update. 

Allow the dispersed recreation activities appropriate 

in Semi-primitive Ncm-bbtorized, Semi-Frhitim 

lul3torized, and Roaded Natural Ros classes. Allow OW 

use my on existing roads and trails. mvs may be 

134 
used off roads and trails unless restricted by the 

Winter I%br Vehicle Use Map. 

~a!e advantage of public fuelwmd gathering where 

that activity would aid in clearing for type 

anvexsicm projects. 

Visual Resaurces Meat or exceed the Partial Retenticm VQO. 

Wildlife Evaluate #e potential effect of any -e 

iq”ent pject on fish and wildlife habitat. 
Concentrated Recreation Area (#12) 

The purpose of this prescription is to manage ccolcen.trated recreation areas 

to maintain or enhance majm -ti& values and oppsrtunities. 

The -is is an providing a tsroad ramp of facilities and 'ties 

that will accarmDdate large nu" of people safely, conveniently, and with 

little resource damage. Other resource activities will last be prohibited, 

but they are seccoldary to recreaticslal. values and use and shDuld not detract 

fran them. 

El-t -t Direction 

cultwal Resources Integrate cultural resource interpretive 

opportunities with developd facilities. 

Diversity 

Fisheries 

pest Managmmt 

Protectim 

Raw= 

Recreation 

protect significant cultural resource values fran 

increased exposme to vandalism. 

Maintain a high level of diversity by al1ach-g for 

vegetative manag-t activities cmpatible with 

recreation objectives. 

Inprow fisheries habitat m"ate with increased 

recreaticmal use. 

Consider the risk fran landslide and seisnic 

prmesses when locating new campsites or trails. 

Kr" that the impads to the visual resouma and 

developed recreational facilities and programs ara 

appropriately considered in ernrirorrmental analyses 

studying the effects of propxed plans of operatiam 

for mineral exploratiam/developnents. Ensure that 

inpacts to these resources are mitigated to the 

lowest level "iably psible. 

Detect the presence of pests early, so that proper 

pest management measures can be applied to vegetation 

in highly susceptible ccolcentrated recreatim areas. 

Manage vegetatim to specifically include pest 

manag-t mideratiam. 

ccoltrol all wildfire. 

Maintain at a level cmpatible with recreation use. 

Maintain Roaded Natural and mal IEOS classes. 

control CamQing. Allow las dispersed camping unless 

designated in Manag-t Area Direction and amfine 

overflow "pancy to acceptable sites. con.trol 

136 
fuel- renuval "sistent with availability, FCS 

Class, andvaos. 

Azlow CBN USB m designated routes and -hrailS. 

may be used off roads and trails unless restrict& by 

the Winter mtor Vehicle Use Map. 

Develop full -hail systems to accamndate heavy 

dispersed activity and to protect sensitive riparian 

and water areas. 

Permit base facilities and access within this area to 

serve alpjne ski developnent. These will be 

identified and evaluated in project-level 

-tal analysis. 

Apply selection harvest, stand maintenance, and other 

silvicultural methods to maintain or enhance the 

recreatiQn benefits and attractions provided by a 

healthy and vipmus multi-aged stand. othar 

benefiting resources may include riparian areas, 

wildlife, and fish. 

Develop and implement silvicultural prescriptions 

that specifically include pest management 

ccolsideratians. 

osvs 

Visual Resources Meet the Retention VQO for all new, 

m-"ation-oriented facilities and the Partial 

Retention VQO for all other facilities, includiq 

recreation sites. 

Meet the Retention VQO when inplementing all other 

resauce activities. 

Wildlife Avoid critical or significant wildlife habitats such 

as key winter dear r-, migration routes, holdiq 

areas and fawnkg areas when developing -ation 

facilities. 

137 
Alpine Ski Area, Existing and Under Study (#13) 

The purpose of this prescription is to maintain and manage existkg dmrhJl 

ski areas for public use and to ccmplete slu area studies currently 1~1 

progress. 

The -is is on upgradkg and expanding facilities to meet allowable 

capacity (Skiers-At---Time) consistent with approved plans. The direction 

applies to exlst.ing facilities, expansion of existing slu areas and the 

cmstmction of new facilities that might ensue fm stu&es in progress.. 

This prescription applies to the area within the perrmt boundaries of the 

Mammth ?buntah and June. Phntain Ski Areas and the Sherwin Bowl area that 

is currently being studied in a separate en"enta1 analysis. 

El-t Managenen t Direction 

Minerals Recamnend withdrawal frcm nuneral entry. 

protection 

Recreation 

T* 

Use the fire suppression strategies of confmement, 

containment, or cantrul for managerent of unplanned 

natural fires. Control all unplanned human-caused 

fires. 

Allow the recreation activibes appropriate in the 

Rural ROS class. Allow no OW use. OSVs are 

prohibited except for corridors identified in the 

Winter Ivbtor V-cle Use Plan. 

Permit further expansion of areas already develop4 

for alpine skimg. Fxpansicm may include runs, lifts, 

base areas, and access to a degree that is often not 

Wtible with other resource tnanagerent options. 

Design and locate inp-ts to provide for user 

safety and to harmonize with the natural enviroment. 

Follow construction and reconstruckon standards 

specified in the approved Master Developnent Plan for 

the area. 

Allow llmited day use and interpretive developnents 

if Wtible with ski area developmmt. 

Establish --access and vetucle-access conb-uls by 

agreemnt between Forest Service and concessionaires. 

Maintain timber stands for health and vigor only. 

Timber harvest is incidental to ski area expansion. 

Visual Resources Meet or exceed the Partial Retention VQO for runs, 

lifts, and base areas as seen at middleground 

distances frcm Sensitivity Level 1 mutes and 

occupancy sites. 

138 
Wildlife 

Apply rehabilitation pradices where the above VQOS 

are not baing mt. 

"itox water quality to ensure cnnpliance with wadischarge requirements. 

Adhere to Ercsion preventian Plans for each ski area. 

The fol1cmi-g wildlife elements apply only to the 

expansion of existing facilities and those under 

study: 

Implement seascolal road closures as necessary to 

protect deer migratims to sumner fawning areas. 

Restrict the use of ski runs including construction 

These 

corridors are descxiW in Management Area Direction. 

Locate new base facilities vjhere they will not 

significantly impact miptim COITidDIs, fawning 

areasorstagirgareas. 

Ensure that new ski area facilities, associated 

developumts and roads dD mt impad major mule 

deer migration corridors so as to significanl3.y 

j.w=de - passage. 

deVe1opumt.s and roads maintain. the integrity of 

and main- in dear miptim lxrJ5.m. 

Ensure that new ski area facilities, associated 

major mule dear staging areas during spring and fall 

migration. 

139 
Potential Alpine Ski Area (#l4) 

The purpose of this prescription is to maintain the potential for alpine ski 

developnent on thchse areas of the Forest offering downhill skiing 

opportunities of the highest quality. Manage areas with this Prescription to 

retain their value as potential downhill ski developnents. 

The emphasis is on maintaining downhill nm integrity and future base station 

locations. 

When an area is developd for alpine ski-, Prescription #13 (Alpine Ski 

Areas, %sting and under Study) will apply. 

Elenent 

Facilities Recognize that those areas available for 

considexation for future alpine ski area devel-t 

ccmtain intrinsic scenic, vegetative, wildlife, and 

geologic values, as well as providing opportunities 

for dispersed recreaticol. Feasibility studies for 

any ski area mals should consider the follcwing: 

1. Developnent should reflect a "light-on-the-land" 

philc=JPhY. 

2. Terrain dfication for purposes of nms and 

lifts should be minimized. 

3. Structures and other facilities &uld mt be 

visible fran acljacent wilderness. 

4. Base facilities Involving overnight facilities, 

large parking areas, and other similar panit 

operations should be restricted to the psriphery 

of the developnent areas. 

5. Ldge facilities within the developnent area 

should be limited to day use and reflect a 

"warming hut" design and function that 1s as much 

in hanmny with the adjacent envimmt as 

possible considwing structural limitations. 

6. Construction of access mads within the 

developnent area should be limited to that needed 

to service day use facilities. 

7. Access for pwposes of lift construction should 

"ize earth disturbance by reliance on 

helicopters. Vehicle use for mtemnce of 

water bars, sediment pnds, and lift maintenance 

should utilize routes which lay lightly on the 

land. 

140 
Lands 

M' . Is 

pmtection 

RaKe 

Recreation 

8. Design of access roads should minimize cuts and 

fills. Aligrmnt sbould reflect a low design 

visual impads and accamadates access for other 

-ate uses. 

"ize re"l of vegetaticm. 

speed and jz-"ate curvature that minimizes 

9. Layout of facilitxes and strum should 

Issue land use permits My if they maintain alpine 

ski potential. 

Manage - activity to maintain alpine ski 

potential. 

Use the fire -on strategies of canfinement, 

ccoltainment, or antral for management of unplanned 

fires. 

~llow all raqe management activities as lorg as they 

are cnnpatible with maintainiq alpine ski potential. 

Al1ow.m future planned developnents to 

lxlq&e with base locations. 

Mk&l fiES. cCilX-1 &ll unplanned human-CaUSed 

G"te mtorized access needs with the 

transportaticm system needs for base developnent. 

Allow d.isp$rsed activities appropriate in 

Semi-primlt.Lve Nm-MAorized, Semi-primitive 

Imtmized, and Ftoaded Natural Ro6 classes. 

Allow OW use only on designated roads and trails. 

Osvs are prohibit& except for carridors identified 

in the Winter Ivbtor Vehicle Use Plan. 

Close or re-route designatea ove~s~3w trails during 

active timber sale operations. 

Timber Utilize uneven-aged managemat techniques (group 

selection or single tree selection) using these 

criteria: 

- at least three age classes, 

- each age class cmprises at least 10 percent of 

- at least twenty years between age classes, 

- one class in the upper third at end of rotation 

- openings up to two acres in size--up to five 

a- where terrain, stand characteristics, 

operational factors, or non-timber remuxe 

the basal area of the stand, 

period, 

141 
Visual Resources 

Wildlife 

objectives make this necessary, 

sawtimber. 

- proaud objective is large-diameter ("24") 

Chmse site preparation activities that are rmst 

canpabble with other resoucce needs. 

Implement precarmercial and. carmercial thinnings and 

sanitation cuttirgs to be ocmpatible with other 

resource needs. 

Pure stands of red frr will mt be entered during 

this planning period. 

Retain the integrity of the hardwood ccmpment. 

Meet or exceed the Partial Retention VQO. 

Implement seasonal road closures as necessary to 

protect deer migration to sumner fawning areas. 

Restrict the use of ski runs including ccolstruction 

and maintenance in deer migration corridors. These 

comicbrs are described in Managemmt Area Direction. 

Locate new base facilities where they will not 

sqnificantly impact nugration corrirkrs, fawning 

areas or stagiq areas. 

Ensure that new ski area facilibes, associated 

developwnts and roads do not impact major mule deer 

mig-raticm corridors so as to significantly me 

deer passage. 

Ensure that new ski area faalities, associated 

developnents and roads maintam the integrity of 

major mule deer staging areas during spring and fall 

nugration. 

142 
Developed Recreation Site (#15) 

The purpose of this prescription is to mintain developd recreational 

facilities to provide necessary user services and. to protect Forest resource 

values . 

The emphasis is on the reoogniticol of public demand for developed recreation 

site opportunities. 

This prescription is applied to all existing and potential developed sites, 

whether publicly-operated or amcessi~-o~M. The prescxipticm does 

not apply to alphe ski developerits. 

The txnmdaries of develop3 maticm sites are not mapped because of the 

snall scale of the map and the cunparatively low acreage of the sites 

(existing and potential developed sites total only app"atey 1,ooO acres 

on the Forest). 

cultural Resaurces hrotect significant cultural resources on developed 

recreational sites to reduce vandal-. 

Energy 

Minerals 

Pest MaIlaganmt 

Wign and implement intezpstive sites oriented 

aruund key cultural resource values. 

Pdt energy developnent whm anpatible with 

recreation develapnents and use. 

Rex"d withdraml fran mineral en-. 

management measures can be applied to vegetaticm in 

th- highly swceptible developad recreation sites. 

Manage vegetation to specifically include pest 

management wnsiderations. 

anlbxll all wildfire. 

Pdt no graziq in devel- sites. 

Maintain Smi-F?cimitive lulotorized, Roaded Natural, 

Roaded Wdified and Famfl ROS classes. 

Keep the size and extent of developnent consistent 

with ROS classifications. 

-9 - year-round use of facilities 

when3 needed and whw?3 not limited by water or 

sar!itation shutdown. 

oonfine vehicles to roads and padrins spaces. 

Detect the presence of pests early so lraoper pest 

prohibit QIN use in and djacent to sites except OIN 

143 
Riparian Areas 

TidEr 

Visual Resources 

Wildlife 

stag- areas. Ws are prohibited for reCreatian 

use. 

Design and locate developnents to reduce unnecessary 

vqetaticm and land-disturbing impacts. 

-de dispersed facilities that enhance devel@ 

site use: trails, signing, etc. 

mate and develop new sites to "ize impacts on 

riparian values. 

Manage timber to eliminate safety hazards and to 

maintain the recreational attxactions and values of 

sites. blaintain stands in a healthy, multi-aged 

ocoldition. 

miop and implement silvicultural presmiptims 

that specifically include pest managmt 

mideratims. 

Manage the vegetative sew in and adjacent to 

sites to meet the Retention VQO within the foreground 

zone. 

Meet or exceed the Partial Retention VQO for all 

facilities and developnents as seen fran Sensitivity 

Level 1 travel mutes or occupancy sites one-half 

mile or mre distant fran that site. 

Plant and maintain vegetation to provide screeniq 

and a natural-appearing setting that functionally and 

aesthetically satisfies users. 

mize the natural settiq and do mt daninate 

with facilities as seen fran within the develop& 

site. 

mate and develop new sites to "ize impacts on 

wildlife values. 

144 
Dispersed Recreation (#16) 

The plnpase of this presmiptim is to maintain the potential for both winter 

and sumner high-quality dlispersea recreaticsl OpprtUN 'ties. 

The mphasis is cm dispersed m-mtorized recreation to a"r&te the 

increasing public demand far mrdic slziing and slowplay without significantly 

deixa- fm sumner dispersd recreatilmal oppxhml 'ties. 

Geology 

Minerals 

protecticpl 

MaMgemen t DirectiQl 

Keep to a "I any fencing because of ew~y 

developnent that excludes recreational use. Large 

tracts of land will nut be fenced. 

Consider the risk fmn landslide and seisnic 

prooesses when locating mrdic trails. 

provide inf-tim to I-mrdic trail users on 

ptential risks fmn landslide and seidc precesses. 

Recarmend wiWd"l fnm mjnaal entry for base 

facility areas. 

Use the firs -ion strategies of Ocolfinement, 

m-t, ar cca-ltzol far management of unplanned 

MWal f-. "1 all unplanned hm-caused 

fires. 

Maintain fEos Classes as inventoried. 

Place parking areas in central locations to "ize 

their number.. Meet user demands for increased 

parking and encourage the utilizaticm of mass transit 

oppxhmities. 

provide additional parking and an increased trailhead 

system for dispersed nn-dic skiing. 

Permit base facilities and access within this area to 

sema alpine ski develapnent. These will be 

identified and evaluated in project-level 

-tal analysis. 

Permit OSV use in corridors as identified on the 

Winter Wtor Vehicle Use Map. Allow OHV use only on 

designated loads and trails. 

Permit camrercial developea nordic operaticols only in 

areas of existkg alpine base facilities or near the 

periphery of the Kescripticol bow. These will 

be modest day-use facilities. 

145 
Close or re-mute designated ovenirxm trails during 

active timber sale operations. 

Develop a recreation ccmpsite plan to include a 

cmrdinated trail system and support facilities. 

coordinate trail systems with adjacent prescription 

areas. 

Utilize uneven-aged manag-t techniques (group 

selection or single tree selection) using these 

criteria: 

- at least three age classes, - each age class caprises at least 10 percent of 

the basal area of the stand, 

- at least twenty years between age classes, 

- one class m the upper third. at the end of 

the rotation period, 

- openings up to .two acres in size--up to five 

acres where terrain, stand characteristics, 

operational factors, or wn-timber resource 

objectives make this necessary, 

sawtimber. 

- p?XdUCt ObJffitiVe iS lw€?-di2lE&er (-24") 

chcose site preparation activities that are nwst 

"ptible with other resource needs. 

Implement precarmercial and "ercial thinnngs and 

sanitation cuttings to be cmpatible with other 

resauce needs. 

Plan cutting units, access routes, and Skid-eail 

locations to cxniplement dispersed recreation 

opportunities. 

Manage red fix consistent with the Forest-wide 

standards and Guidelines. 

Retain the integrity of the hardwxd ccmponent. 

Visual Resources Meet: or exceed the Partial Retention VQO. 

Maintain the Retention VQO as viewed fm Sensitivity 

Level 1 roads and trails, recreation sites, and 

within all concen.trated recreation areas. 

Reroute nordic trails if necessary to maintain a 

natural-appear- landscape frun them. 

Wildlife Maintain the integrity of wildlife habitats. 

146 
Semi-primitive Recreation (#17) 

me purpose of this prescriptian is to limit vehicular access to existdesignat& mutes to protect and maintain recreation and/or wildlife values. 

These routes will be identified in the upaate of the mtor Vehicle Use Plan, 

which will be done when the Inyo National Forest Land Managemant Plan is 

in@ementea. The public will be included in the analysis and identification 

process. 

Existing designated route access will be maintained. Repair and realignments 

of these designated routes is permitted to ptect. resource^ or resolve 

ccslflicts. (xlrrent road mileage will neither haease nor decrease fmn the 

designat& routes identified in the @at& lvbtor Vehicle Use Plan. 

The eqhmis is on pmvidiq semi-primitive dispmed recreation 

opprtunities, both motorized and m-mtorized. 

This prescription applies to those areas that presently provide 

semi-primitive rec=reation opp" 'ties. 

Element Manam t Dkectim 

Facilities Maintain exktirg roads at their current maintenance 

levels after designation. Close and/or obliterate 

those roads not designated for use. 

Recreatim 

Close new mining roads to public access. 

Manage- s under existirg mining laws and 

regulati-. 

Use the fire suppmssion strabqies of confinmmt, 

MtIE& fires. ~trol Ed1 Unpld hUman-CaUSed 

Obliterate 

theseroads afterthey are abandclned. 

COBl tainmnt, or amtrol for management of unplanned 

fires. 

Allow the dispersed recreation activities appmpriate 

in primitive, Semi-Prjmitive Ncsl-lulotarized and Semiprimitive Wtorized Ros classes. 

Manage r%zreaticmal and scenic opprhml 'ties to 

Inairla or enhanc0 their values. 

Provide for trail access carsistent with managemant 

objectives for the area and Ros class. Allow OW use 

only on designated roads and trails and in the Poleta 

Canym designated open area. Allow (3sv use off mads 

and trails unless restcided by the winter Pbtor 

Vehicle Use Map. 

Allow mly develop3 recsreaticoldl facilities 

CcBlSistent with Ras Classes. 

147 
visual Rescxrrces 

Wildlife 

Meet or exceed the Partial Retention VQ3. 

Maintain high habitat quality in key fawning areas, 

winter rarqe, h0ldi.x-g areas, and key migration 

routes. 

Manage vegetation on key wildlife areas for 

recomnended forage-t0-m ratios. 

riparian areas where necessary to enhance 

fawning habitat. 

148 
Multiple Resource Area (#18) 

The purpose of this prescription is to allow vehicle access on existing 

routes and areas designat& as apen. Roads can be cxmstzu- or upgraded to 

facilitate vehicle access for a full ramp of - activities. 

Theemphasisisonpmvidiragfartheuseof allresources. 

This prescription applies to lands managed without an in&vidual resource 

emphasis. 

Eleoent &"mt Dizecticm 

Facilities 

Minerals 

Range 

TiUbX 

Visual 

Allm roads or other facilities to be cclnshructed or 

and Other uses. 

Manage minarals under existing mining laws and 

regulations. 

Use the fire suppression strategies of oonfinement, 

containment, or cmtrol for management of unplanned 

natural fires. 00n.trOl all Urplanned hUman-Caused 

fires. 

Allm the use of the range by livestock, as specified 

wad& in SupPCat of mjnf%al, range, recreation, 

in jndivim graziq permits, where grazing 

allotments werlap areas to which this management 

prescription is applied. 

Allm the full use of public roads for access to 

ranp allotmnts. 

Allm the recreaticm activities appmpriate in 

Semi-primitive Nm-WAorized, Semi-primitive 

Iulotorized, or Roaded Natural Ros classes. 

pmvide developed facilities to meet user needs and 

requirements. 

Allow OHV use on both existing and new Planned 

routes. OWS may be used off roads and trails unless 

restricted by the Winter Wtor Vehicle Use Map. 

provide perscolal use fuelwood in designated areas. 

Meet VQOS as irnrentoried in the Roaded Natural RC6 

class. 

Do mt exceed the Partial Retenbon VQO in 

Semi-primitive Nm-MAorized and Semi-primitive 

MDtorized ROS classes. 

149 
Wildlife Manage road and trail systems to maintain habitat 

quality for wildlife and fish. Road and trail 

design, constructicm and maintenance will allow for 

"ents of wildlife and fish species between 

important portions of their hane ranges. 

150 
Management Area Direction- 
Management Area Direction 

Management Area DireCtian provides geruxal directim for management Of an 

area whxe burdaries are defined with reference to its unique 

characteristics . The clirezh 'an for each area addresses the management 

situaticms and resource dtim that are specific to it . 

The Forest is divided into twenty Manag-t Areas . Each area is "aged 

under a &fferent set of prescriptim that reflect vaqq resouTce 

emphases . In addition. the Forest-wide Standards and Gudelines apply to all 

the areas . 

Eescriptxms of each Manag-t Area are displayed in this section wrth maps 

that indicate the area's prescription boundaries . 

me Manageanent aral tkir iocatim in this chapter are: 

No . 

1 . 

2 . 

3 . 

4 . 

5 . 

6 . 

7 . 

8 . 

9 . 10 . 11 . 12 . 

13 . 14 . 15 . 16 . 

17 . 18 . 19 . 

20 . 

- 

Management Area Page 

MonoBasin ............................................. 152 

Lee Vining .............................................. 155 

Walker-Parker ........................................... 160 

JuneLakeLoop .......................................... 164 

Glass Mountain .......................................... 170 

Pizona ................................................. 175 

Upper Owens River ........................................ 179 

Mammoth Escarpment ..................................... 184 

Mammoth .............................................. 190 

Reds Meadow-Fish Creek ................................... 196 

Convict.McGee ........................................... '200 

Benton-Casa Diablo ....................................... 204 

White Mountains ......................................... 208 

Rock Creek-Pine Creek ..................................... 213 

Bishop Creek-Buttermilk ................................... 217 

Coyote ................................................ 221 

Owens Valley Escarpment ................................... 225 

InyoMountains .......................................... 229 

Golden Trout ............................................ '233 

South Sierra ............................................ '238 

- 

151 
MANAGEMENT AREA # 3 

i l9 

Mono Basin 

152 
MANAGEMENT AREA #1 

Mono Basin 
Mono Basin (#1) 

Descripticm 

The P4x-o Basin Managwent Area co- to the hnmdaries of the Pin” 

Basin National Forest Scenic Area established by the California Wilderness 

Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-425). It includes the lands imnediately 

P4x-o Lake, the mrthem three-quarters of the I%rn Craters, and abut two 

mles of the Sierra Escarpnent to the west of Pin” Lake. Frivate land 

mholdmgs are numerous and include residences, grazmg land, and a few 

busmesses. The city of Los Angeles owns considerable acreage. Also 

mcluded is a county Park, cemetery, and the area kr” as Mom Lake Tufa 

State Reserve. 

Topography is nearly flat surmundmg Mom Lake, mcludmg places where 

recedmg water levels have exposed about a mile of lake bttm and tufa 

fonnations at the south end. Over fifteen young volcanic wnes create a 

startlrng backbp to six-fat tall bitterbrush and sage. The Eastem Sierra 

Escarpnent west of the lake is very steep, and ccmp~sed of lwse rock with 

pinyon/juniper cover. The high point here is approxunately 10,614 feet at 

Mom Dane, ccxnpared to about 6,370 feet at the lake. 

Cultural sites include prehistoric campsites and part. of an historic ralroad 

grade “J fm ivkmo Mills to Bodie. 

Recent volcanic activity, evidence of n”~ glacial advances, and perhaps 

the oldest lake m North America make the area important fran the standwint 

of natural history research and interpretation. 

Block pmce unpatented mining claims cover the Mom Craters. Approximately 

four square miles of Jeffrey pine forest is located just east of the craters. 

Portions of several cattle and sheep allotments extend inb the Management 

Area. 

Current recreabon use exceeds 150,000 visits per year, many to the south 

tufa area. Recreation activities include huntjng, canping, exploring unique 

geologic features, and bird watching. 

P4x-o Lake has historically pmvidd habitat for mre than 40,000 California 

gulls ciurq the nesting season. This represents 20 percent of the world 

population and 95 percent of the state ppulation of California gulls. The 

lake is also habitat for larye rnrmbers of migratoxy water birds, such as 

eared grebes, Wilson’s phalarope, and sxmy plovers. 

Marlagalen t Area DirerztiCil 

The Sac Area will be managed under its own plan. Until ths Managmt 

Plan is approved, interim management ‘on will be followed. The 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines apply to the Scenic Area and its 

canprehensive Management Plan will be tiered to the Forest Plan. 

154 
MANAGCMCNTAREA 2 

----- 0 5 IO 

Prescription Allocation (Rw) for Management Area #2: Lee Vining 

Number Name 

Rxl Designated Wilderness 

Rxz Proposed Wilderness 

Rx3 Mountain Sheep Habitat Emphasis 

Rx5 Research Natural Area 

Rx 12 Concentrated Recreation Area 

Rx 15 Developed Recreation Site 

Rx 17 Semi-Primitive Recreation 13,146 

Total 40.383 

Lee Vining 

155 

- 
~~~~~~~ 

MANAGEMENT AREA #2 

Lee Vining 

0 NOT TO SCALE Prelcrlpllon Numbers - Pr~aCrlplwn Area Boundary Managemen1 Area Boundary 

156 
Lee Vining (#2) 

Descripticm 

The Lee Vming Managmt Area includes Lee Vining Creek and Wll creek 

(Lundy) drainages,. the southerrnrost portion of the Haver Wilderness, and the 

mrthenumst tip of the me1 Adam Wilderness. It is located on the Eastern 

Sierra Escarpnent generally west of the Town of Lee Vining and east of 

YoSemite National Park. Fn"=n . t features include the Town of Lee vining, 

and Lundy, Saddlebag, Ticga and Ellery Lakes. Most of the. land is in 

National Forest ownershl 'p. 'I" patented minirag claims, Southern California 

Falson lands in part of the canycol bAtcnt3, and the Tcwn of Lee vining are 

exceptions. 

Top3graphy is generally very steep and rocky with the notable exceptions of a 

high, sloping, generally inaccessible bench between the two canyons, and the 

Dana Plateau. Elevations range fran 6,500 feet near Lee Vining to 13,053 

feet at Mt. Dana. Access is essentially restricted to canyon bottams, lakes, 

and roads. The Management Area contains the Ticga Lake Further Planning 

ma, evaluated in the RARE I1 prccess as ham an urmcdified nakral 

appearance and providing visual prwkction to the Ticga Pass Road. 

Vegetation is sparse on the steeper slopes where mtain -any, various 

other shrubs, and grasses prevail. "be slopes low in Lee Vming Canyon 

have gccd stands of pi~-~y~n/jUniper and sage. The riparian areas contain 

heavy stands of aspen and willm with scme conifers (Lee Vining Canyon has 

eight species of conifers), and spectacular meadows. The bench between the 

canyons contains aspen, lo2gepole pine, and fir. The higher elevations are 

mstly alpine passes with scme lcdgeple pine and nmmtain hemlock. 

Cultural sites include the oldest camp site in the Wzxm Basin, located at the 

Lee Vining Ranger Station, and several 100-year-old minirag buildings 

includirg the tawn of Bennethnlle. 

The four lakes all have southern California Edisan dams, with a hyOelectxic 

per plant located in each canyon. The two patented claims are still active 

m the area. One of these maintains a four-wheel-drive road to the 

wildexness boundary southwest of Lundy Lake. 

There are portions of three grazing allotments in the eastern portion of the 

area. 

The Management Area gets major recreation use fm destination-oriented 

campers and fishermen. The area contains State Route 120, the. east entrance 

to Yosmite National Park, s1x Forest S&ce campgnxmds, two resorts 

(special use permits), and Cbmty campgrcxmds. Campgrounds and resorts are 

usually full all s"r. 

The Hall Research Natural Area (Hall RNA) is located within this managme& 

area. It is devoted to the study of alpine vegetation. The Hall RNA is 

abut nine square mles in size and contains numerous alpine lakes. 

In 1985, twenty-seven Sierra Nevada mtain sheep were reintrcduced into Lee 

Vmirq Canyon to increase the papulation network of *s sub-species. Areas 

Fishing on the four lakes is very popular. 

157 
considered impoaant for these sheep (3,ooO acres) will be managed with a 

muntain sheep emphasis. 

Lundy &n has also been designated as a potentral mnmtain sheep 

reintroduction site. An additicmal enviromtal analysis will be &ne prior 

to a munixin sheep reintxduction. This will det- management 

objectives. The Lee Vhmg Canyon and Lundy Canyon mun- sheep will be 

managed as one ppulation. 

Managenen t Area Directicsl 

CulturalR~ ' 

- Maintain the historic site of Eennettville in a state of arrested decay, 

and interpret for the public. Bennettville is recognized locally as an 

important site. 

Geology 

- Rvqhasize the explanatim of glacial geology in any intapretive displays 

in Lee V3dl-Q Canyon. 

Range 

-Abolish the Sheep and Goat Lee Vinixq &e& Allotmat and manage the 

allotment area for perpetuation of nrnmtain sheep. 

Recreation 

- pursue developnent of a self-service information display at the sumnit of 

Lee Vinirg canym. 

Lee vining and Lundy can-. 

- Pursue the acquisition of a recreation land base for developnent in td3-1 

- Repare a recreation ampsite plan for Lee Viniq Canyon only after the 

Forest has acquired a recreation land base in the Canyon. 

- Do not rehabilitate Junction Chpg.-omd to the extent that elimination 

ceases to be an option whw the canposite plan is developd. 

Visual Resaurces 

- Develop a -i&r viewshed analysis and plan for State Route 120 fran 

the Junction of U.S. 395 to Tiqa Pass. 

MuLlmize the visual impact of per prcduction facilities, "ity 

utilities, and the Lee Vinirg Ranger Station canplex. 

- ., 

Water 

- Contjnue to c"a ' te with southern California Ediscrm to limit reservoir 

fluctuations to those that are reasonable for required aperatians. 

158 
- Negotiate with public utility entities to rem water to portions of the 

following dewatered streams: Lee Vw creek, Mill Creek, and Wilson 

creek. 

Wilderness 

- Recannend the 920-acre Tiqa Lake Ftrther Planning Area for wilderness 

designatim. This recamnendaticol is a preliminary administrative 

reccnmendatim that will receive further review and possible mdificatim 

by the Chief of the Forest Service, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the 

President of the United States. Fjnal decisions on wilderness 

designation have been reserved by the Corgress to itself. 

Wildlife 

- CixmEnate managmt of muntajn sheep in Lee Vinirg Canyon with the 

Califorma Deparhnent of Fish and Game and Yosmite National Park. 

- Take advantage of opportunities to extend mnmtain sheep range consistent 

with other “gmt objectives. 

159 
MANAGEMENTAREA # 3 

____ , 0 5 10 

Prescription Allocation (Rx) for Management Area #3: Walker-Parker 

Number Name 

Rxl Designated Wilderness 

Rx4 Mule Deer Habitat Emphasis 

Rx 11 Range Emphasis 

Rx 12 Concentrated Recreation Area 

Rx 15 Developed Recreation Site 

Rx 17 Semi-Primitive Recreation 

Total 21.685 

Walker- Parker 

160 
MANAGEMENT AREA #3 

Walker- Parker 
Walker-Parker (#3) 

Description 

The Walker-Parker Management Area includes the Sierra "front wuntxy" between 

Lee Vhiq and the June Lake Loop, and a snall prtion of the Ansel Adams 

Wilderness. It primarily lies west of U.S. 395, but a Weage-shapsd part 

extends into Pumice Valley east of U.S. 395. Ninety-five percent of the area 

is visible frcm any point on a fmmile Stcetch of U.S. 395. It includes 

all of Walker and Parker Creeks, as well as Parker Bench. pnrrunen . tfeahres 

include Mt. Gib&, Koip Peak, Parker Peak, Walker and Parker Lakes, and 

Parker Bench. Nearly --third of the area is owned by the City of Los 

kqeles. Other private land coIlslsts ' of a few private parcels and four or 

five residences. 

Top3graphy is alnnst flat on om-quarter of the area (includkg all the ks 

&geles lands), ris- precipitously alq the Eastem Sierra Escarpnent. 

Moraines extend cmb the flats from each of the two canyans. Elevations 

rqe fran 6,500 feet in the east to 12,979 feet at KDip Peak. 

Parker Bench ccoltains about four 

square miles of aspens interlaced with grass/sage openings or mtain 

mahogarry thickets. This area is extremely valuable as mule deer fawning 

habitat and sumner range. The middle one-third of the area contains stands 

of conifers including white fir nearly 200-feet tall at the west end of 

Walker Lake. The north end is pinym/junipr, and the flats are sage/grass 

or irrigated meadows. Vegetatim at the higher elevatiuns is typically 

sparse sub-alpine. 

Mrmerous prehistoric sites exlst, and Bloody Canyon served as a major 

prehistoric travel route to the Wnw Basin from the San Joaquin Valley. 

A large pzirtim of the Casa Diablo deer herd sumners in this Management 

Area. The area between Parker and Walker Lakes is especially important as 

fawnjng habitat for this deer hard. An estimated 1,250 deer fmn this herd 

sumner between Deadman creek and Lee Vjnjng CYe&. 

Large parts of three grazing allotments are wi- this area. Much of the 

Los Angeles lands is irrigated and grazed. 

Recreation activities are dispersed camping, fishirg, and huntu-g. 

The City of Los Aqeles aqueduct traverses most of the area, adding Walker 

and Parker Creeks as it rum toward Grant Lake. Six miles of Rush Chxk is 

generally dry because of similar di-iuns. Cain Ranch (a City of Los 

Angeles canp ccnrplex), the area's dmp, and a gravel pit are all located on 

Crty of Los Aqeles lands. 

The vegetation is diverse and spectacular. 

162 
- Where possible, utilize the coordinated Resouroe Planning process and 

others to lnvolve the Los Angeles Lleparhnent of Water and power and 

private landowners in resolving grazirg and riparian conflicts. 

Recreation 

- provide for dispersed day use and merrught cqjrg opprturuties 

consistent with the Roaded Natural ROS class in the area in Prescription 

#11. 

- Provide for develop3 day-use facilities, parkirg, and consistent access 

in the area in Prescription #12, particularly in the Walker Lake area. 

- Ebphasize Semi-primitive Non-lvL3torized recreation activities and 

opportunrties m the area in l?rescriptiun #4. 

Visual Resources 

- Develop a corridor viewshed analysis and plans that include U.S. 395 and 

State Route 158. 

- Water 

- Negohate with public utility entities to return water to portions of the 

folluwiq dewatered streams: Rush Creek, Walker Creek, and Parker Creek. 

Wildlife 

- Ebphasize the importance of the Casa Diablo deer herd in manag-t 

decisions. 

163 
I-. 

r 

0 

0 

W 

3 

I 
MANAGEMENT AREA #4 

June LakeLoop 

NOT TO SCALE 

165 
June Lake Loop (#4) 

Descriptim 

The June Lake Loop Managmt Area includes a snall portion of the &el 

Ada Wilderness and all lands regarded as the June Lake Lmp. The area is 

bounded on the northeast by U.S. 395, the west by the Eastem Sierra 

Escarpnent and the south generally by June Mountain. Prarmnent features in 

the "loop" are four lakes (June, Gull, Silver and Grant), June i"tain, and 

ReversedPeak. hrarunen . t features in the Wilderness are Gem and Waugh Lakes, 

Rcdger and Blacktop Peaks, and Mts. Lye11 and Davis. Private lands within 

the area include the town of June Lake, and City of Los Aqeles lands near 

Grant Lake. 

Toposraphy consists chlefly of a spectacular brseshoe-shapd glaciated 

canyon about a quarter-mile wide Wed by cliffs on steep high mrames. 

~gh gentle peaks lie above this canyon on June Wx"ain and Reversed Peak 

and east of U.S. 395. The westem portion rises to the steep Eastem Sierra 

Escarpnent. The entire area is drained by Reversed creek and Rush Creek. 

Elevaikon ranges fm 7,050 feet below Grant Lake to 13,114 feet at the top 

of Mt. Lyell. 

Vegetation consists of heavy stands of lcdgeple pine and Jeffrey pine on the 

bgh mrth-fachg slopes of June Mnmtain and Reversed Peak, to grass/sage in 

much of the northeast one-half of the area. Scattered Jeffrey pine and 

occasional large patches of mountain many dot areas around Reversed 

Peak. Vegetation alorig the creeks is typically riparian, containing willow, 

aspen, and grassy meadms. High elevation vegetation is typically 

sub-alpine. 

Port." of this area are miportant as smmx range migrabon mutes and 

bldmg areas for the Casa Diablo deer herd. The Yost Lakes and Reversed 

Peak areas are considered important smmx range for this deer herd. The 

Hartley Springs area is located witlun the migration corridor between winter 

and "er range. 

One sheep allotment extends intn the Management Area. The area also 

conkibutes a minor awunt of timber fmn stands on the north slde of 

Reversed Peak. 

Major recreakon use OCCUZ~S at a rate of one million recreational visitor 

days per year, utilizing the "loop's" four lakes, six public cwunds, 

three permittee campgrouolds, five marmas, ski area, pack station, and 

considexable recreation-oriented facilities in the private sedor. The 

"loop" is a year-round destination resort area. The area also contains a 

major trailhead mto the Ansel Adams Wild-ss. The June Lake Loop will 

also provide much of the overnight base, in both public and private 

facilities, for users visi- the recently established Mom Basin scenic 

Area. 

Grant Lake 1s a City of Los Weles reservoir and as such includes a portion 

of the Los Angeles Aqueduct. Lake levels fluctuate, partially negating this 

lake's value for recreation use. There is also a southem California =son 

166 
per plant and penstocks fran Agnew and Gem Lakes. As a result of these 

penstocks, Fishtail Falls flms mfrquently. 

mnagmml t Area Direction 

Geology 

- Emphasize the explanatmn of glacial and/or volcanic geology in any 

interpretive display around the June Lake Loop. Decide which is most 

appropriate based on view and daninant features identified fran the 

interpretive location. 

Lands 

- Excharge National Forest System lands into the private sector for 

cc”nity expansion when: 

1. The most appropriate use of the National Forest System lands over the 

long term is in the private sector; 

2. Federal, state, county, local and Forest S-ce planning msses 

identify and support conveying Cmnershp of the parcel fran National 

Forest System status to the private sector: and 

3. The use intended for the f&al land being exchanged meets the intent 

of the current appruved Canmnu ’ty General Plan. 

- Present proposed developnents on National Forest System lands to other 

governments for their cm”t when those governments have a vested 

lnterest in the propsal. 

- Allaw developnent on National Forest Sys- land when it is clearly 

dmtxated that the rnfrastructure of a a”nity can support the 

demands of the proposed developnent and benefits fran developnent 

outweigh adverse impacts on the “unity. 

Minerals 

- Reflect high level rerreaticm values m environmental analyses for 

geothermal developnent. 

~ Recreation ~ 

- Permit developnent of June Pbmtam Ski Area to 7,000 SAOT before 

developing any adj0mi.q potential ski areas. 

- prepare a recreation composite plan to inventory, coordinate, and program 

the full sumner and wmter recreation develapnent potential in the June 

Lake Imp. This does not include the expansion or develogmnt of June 

Pbuntain and is the area in Prescription #12. Construct new sites as 

funds becane available. coordinate with the c“ity of June Lake to 

deterrmne the needs of the cannunity when ocmpleting the recreation 

ccenposite plan. 

167 
-Identify and prcgram disperses trail facilities in the areas in 

Prescriptia-s #4, #12, and #17. Include hiking, equestrian, and bicycle 

opprtunities. 

-Manage the areas in FTesriptia-s #4 and #17 for their Semi-F?cjmitive 

- Pursue consku&on of a bike trail arod June Lake Loop. 

- Consider alpine ski developnent for the Hartley Springs area. 

Non-Motorized recreation activities and opprhmities. 

This would 

be part of any emulative effects StUCiy generated in the Mamnoth/June 

area. 

- coordinate with Calix- and WXKJ County to plan and develop parkiq, and 

support facilities for mrdic, ."bile, or snowplay 'ties 

along U.S. 395, State Routes 158 and 203, the Lake Mary Road and the 

Scenic Loop Road. 

Visual Resources 

- Develop corridor views?xd analysis and plans that include U.S. 395 and 

State Route 158. 

- Minimize the visual inpa& of tramnission lines, p3wer plants, and 

private land developnentS. 

- Pursue opprhmities to relocate the 11% line out of the Oh! Rtdge 

- Enamrage and work with the camunity of June Lake and Gnmty to 

develop scenic resource element guidelines and mitigation measures as a 

part of any local p1arrih-g effort. 

Campzpmund develop3 site. 

Water 

-Allow developnent m the M"th/June area where awte water is 

available after natural resource needs are mt. Allow for the 

exploration and developnent of new water xnrrxes on National Forest 

System lands for "unity purpses only when such opprtunities have 

been exhausted on private lands. 

-Manage the Twm Springs watershed abwe the June Lake F'ublic Utility 

District water supply intake with all the precautions needed to ensure 

that water is provided at a quality level consistent and cmpatible with 

State Basin Plan objectives for danestic supply. 

- Adhere to the June Wnmtain Ski Area Erosion h-evention Plan. 

- Conclude negotiations with Southem California Edison and other licensed 

public utility entities to manage reservoir levels in Agnew, Gem, and 

Waugh Lakes to enhance recreakon, visual, and other natural resource 

values. 

168 
- Imkate negotiations with the City of Los Weles Deparhwit of Water 

and Power to manage Grant L&e reserirorz’ for the enhancement of 

recreation, visual, and other natural resource values. 

Wildlife 

- Fnphasize the imp3rtance of the Casa Diablo deer herd in management 

decisions. 

169 
MANAGEMENT AREA # 5 

Prescription Allocation (Rx) for Management Area #5: Glass Mountain 

Number Name 

Rx5 Research Natural Area 

Rx9 Uneven-aged Timber Management 

Rx 10 High Level Timber Management 

Rx 11 Range Emphasis 

Rx 14 Potential Alpine Ski Area 

Rx 15 Developed Recreation Site 

Rx 17 Semi-F’rimltive Recreation 

Rx 18 Multiple Resource Area 1.608 

Total 130,089 

Glass Mountain 

170 

- 
I I I I I I I I1 II I I I I I I 
Glass Mountain (#5) 

The Glass Mountain Managfmmt Area is located for the most part east of U.S. 

395 and Mzum craters and exten& for about twenty-five miles east to the 

Forest boundary east of Black "&ain. The south boundary includes the 

drstinct ridge forming the north lip of the Lcmg Valley Caldera. The north 

boundary is the Forest boundary, Iunning just below timber line and along 

' t features include Obsidian Dcme, Bald Mountain, 

. Private land inboldiqs mist of 

State Route 120. Prormnen 

Sagehen Peak, Glass, and Black Mourrtains 

dispersed UnaeVelOpea 40-acre parcels located around meadows. 

Top3graphy is &ly gentle, flat to rolling, with slopes seldon exceeding 20 

percent that drain toward Wnm Lake and Adobe Valley. Exceptions include 

lava flows and portions of the Wnm Craters at the west end, sharp canyons at 

the east end and the steeper slopes lea- up to the crest of Glass 

Mountain. Elevation rariges fran 6,600 feet at Taylor Canyon to 11,123 feet 

at Glass Mountain. 

Vegetation is ccmnercial timber an appra&nately 55 percent of the area and 

includes lodgepole pine and Jeffrey pine. The Jeffrey pine here and in 

Management Area # 7 make up the largest mtiguo~~~ stand of pure Jeffrey pine. 

in the world. These timber stands generally have a grass/sage unddq. 

mst of the remainder is vegetated with pinyon/j~ni~ and sage/grass 

cxmnnmities. Also present are dispersed meam and sand flats. The 

Craters, lava flows, and the south-facing slopes of Bald and Glass i%untare essentially unvegetated. 

Prdustoric use is significant, with Glass Mountain being an important 

obsidian saxma. Glass Mnmtain obsidian has been found in prehistoric sites 

m the Midwest. PWm Mills, a lumber null in the late 18oOs, and appurtenant 

railroad grades and logging related structures occupy a portion of the area. 

Sam11 Meadow contained a snall sawmill near the turn of the century. 

Evidence of it is still visible today. 

A major mining operation atop Phno Craters &acts block pumice for 

processing in a local mill at Lee Vinirg. The operation employs abut 

thlrty-five people, counting all phases. 

All or part of nine grazing allotrnenss are located in the area. Over 50,000 

acres is considered suitable range. 

Recreatim us8 is dispersed canpjng, hunting and wwd gather-. In the 

winter, snowmobiling and cr~~s-wuntry skiing are popular activities. 

Thtm is harvested and fuelwood is cut an the area. Several timber stands 

are suitable for goshawk habitat. 

Sane important deer win- range exists in the eastem portion of the 

management area. bst of these deer migrate around the south end of the 

Glass "ntains. One migration route, apparently used m low-snm years, 

transects this management area ammd the north end of the Glass Moun-. 

Sane areas in the Glass Wnmtains are also used as sumner range. The Hartley 

Most allotments are utilized by sheep. 

172 
Springs area is located withm the migration corridor between winter and su~~ner range of the Casa Diablo deer herd. 

pronghom use the northeast portions of the Management Area. 

are the result of transplant endeavors in 1982, 1984 and 1985. 

A mall population of sage Fuse use the mrthexn portion of the Management 

Area. strutting grounds are located here. 

The Managewnt Area contains two Research Natural Areas; Indiana S&t with 

a Jeffrey pm cnmunity, and Sentinel Meadow with lcdgepole and llmber pine 

Comrmnities . 

Managenen t Area Di" 

Cultural Resources 

These animals 

- Pursue developnent of a Mcolo Mrlls historical interpretive site. 

Inmrpxate the Mono Mills Railroad site into the mterpretive plan for 

the Mono Ba~m Scenic Area. 

Geology 

- Encourage continued geologic exploration and research relating to 

post-caldera formation, seismic and volcanic activity and the prediction 

of future seismic activity and volcanic mpkons. 

Range 

- Consider placement and bniq of water availability for deer and other 

wildlife when developlng water sources for livestock. 

- Utilize plant species that also benefit wildlife when revegetat3ng 

rangeland. 

- Maintain or develop a vegetative ma~c when regenerating range forage. 

Recreation 

- Pxg"m and develop suprt facilities for both nordic and sxmmbile 

access alq U.S. 395 when oppcrtunities and funding bewme available. 

- Manage Hartley Sprbgs &"d in its current status until a 

ccmpr&ensive e"mntal analysis is ccmpletd on the Hartley Springs 

area. 

- Maintain dispersed facilities throughout the area. Do not turn them into 

developed sites. Examples are crooked Meadow, Sawmill Meadow, Sentinel 

Meadow, and Pilot Spring. 

- Inventory, design and ~aogram the developnent of an mterpretive auto 

bur oriented towards the geolcgic/volcanic chain of topgraphic features 

mcluding the Wno Craters, F'"l, Wilson Butte, and Obsidian Dane in 

Management Area #5 and selected features in Managenent ?+rea #7. 

173 
owrdinate intwp-etive planniq for auto tour and inkxpretive 

facilities with #e interp.-ative plan for the kbm Basin Scenic Area. 

- coordinate with Cal-&am, state P& and Recreatian, and "J county to 

plan and develop parking and SupPCat facilities for nordic, sn"bile 

and slowplay w%=-h- 'ties along U.S. 395, State Routes 158 and 203, the 

Lake Mary Road and the Scenic Lcop Road. 

Timher 

- Maintain plantation stocking at the greatest density acceptable to timber 

"gment where cover needs exist for deer (e.g., around madaws and 

along deer migration routes). 

-Utilize existirag roads rather than new road ccmdzuction to "ize 

qcts on wildlife where practical. 

Visual Resources 

- Develop midor viewshed analysis and plans that include U.S. 395. 

-Plan for additional powerline con&sEh 'on with the objective of 

eventually lnmirg the e2dStil-g 115Kv line along U.S. 395. 

Wildlife 

- Develop watex sources for deer and other wildlife as appropriate. 

174 
7 

.+ 

N 

U 

3 

DJ 
MANAGEMENT AREA #6 

Pizona 
Pizona (#6) 

Dssxxiptim 

The Pimna Manag-t Area, also kn” locally as the “Pi-” mtq, is an 

isolated portion of National Forest that begins six miles east of Nnm Lake 

and extends beyond the Nevada border. It lies north Of I’43nQcnErcy Pass and 

Adobe Valley, and is bordered on the northeast by the Toiyabe National 

Forest. prcrmn ’ ent features are occasional springs and low rolling hills. 

Private land consists of dispersed undeveloped 40-acre parcels in conjunction 

with grassy flats or springs. 

Topography is generally flat to mOaerately steep scab rock, rim rock, and 

rocky canyons. Elevations range frcm 6,000 to 8,000 feet. canycols, althugh 

not deep, run in all directions, and orienting oneself can be difficult. 

Dramages dead end in sinks when? no readily available water exists. The 

only available water sources are occasional minor springs or pcolds. 

Vegetation is ahmst universally pinyon/junipr with a grass/sage understory 

and an Occasional dry grassy flat. 

Prehistoric cultural sites are numerous and often well-pres& because of 

linuted access and dry climate. Thare are few historic sites and very little 

evidence of past “g activlty or opera- claims. 

The most distimyishing feature of this area is the existence of a population 

of wild horses. The 75-150 wild horses are part of the I’43ntgmery Pass wild 

horse herd that ranges within the southeast portion of this management area. 

The herd utilizes adjacent Toiyabe National Forest, Eureau of Land Management 

and private lands. Tim grazing allotments exist but one has not been used in 

recent years, partly because of ccqetition for feed with the wild horses. A 

coordinated Resource Planning process that invvlves all interested 

individuals and groups is being used to develop management strategies for the 

wild horse territory. 

Recreation use is extremely limited, consisting of caranercial guide-outfitter 

operations or an occasional hunter or off-highway vehicle. 

A major interstate utility right-of-way, the Pacific DC Intertie tranrmission 

line, bisects the southwestem part of the Management Area. 

The southern portion of this Management Area is used as winter range by the 

Casa Diablo deer herd. 

Managenen t Area Direction 

Lands 

- Recognize the mute paralleling the Pacific DC Intertie tranrmission line 

as having the hghest potential for a north-south utility corridor on the 

Forest. 

177 
Range 

- Manage the "Pi- Cauntrf to provide for the use and -ts of 

wild horses. Allow the Cl" ' ted Resource Planning process that is 

currently being cxmdum to establish wild harse rumbsrs and 

requirements. 

adjaCent to the herd's territoq. - Seek opp3rtunites to recognize and coordinate wild horse use on lands 

-pursue the aoquisitmn of private lands to maintam wild horse and 

wildlife water and forage needs. 

- Allm natural predators to regulate wild horse numbers. 

Recreation 

. -M<& the dispersed MtllIF5 Of the -tion CCCllITh h thrS 

management area. Do not allow developd facilities for recreation. 

Pennit camtercial outfitting and guiding to the extent "@Able with 

managmtmt of the wild horses. 

178 
MANAGEMENT AREA # 7 

0 5 10 

Prescription Allocation (Rx) for Management Area #7: Upper Owens River 

Number Name 

Rx9 Uneven-aged Timber Management 

Rx 10 nigh Level Timber Management 

Rx 11 Range Emphasis 

Rx 12 Concentrated Recreation Area 

Rx 15 Developed Recreation Site 

Rx 16 Dispersed Recreation 

Total 55.720 

Upper Owens 

179 

River - 
MANAGEMENT AREA #7 

Upper Owens River 
upper Owens River (#7) 

The upper 0." River Managawnt Area is located mately abare and to the 

northwest of Lake Crowley. Included are the subdrainages of Deadtinan Creek, 

the upper Owens River, Little Hot CYesk, Dry Creek, and portions of Hot 

Bear Flat, Little Antelope Valley and the Deadman/Inyo Cratfxs volcanic 

~ Creek. Praun ' ent features include Lookout Mountain, Deer Mountain, Smokey 

~ fOmlatiOns. 

with the exception of the land imnediately adjacent to the 0den.s River, the 

remainder of the area is National Forest. A snall fringe of the lnwrprated 

Tm of Mammth Lakes is located in the southern portion of the area. U.S. 

395 traverses in a northwest/southeast direction and is the major access to 

the area. 

Topography is characterized by numerous snall drainages with moderate side 

slopes and flat ridgetops. Elevation ranges fran 6,960 feet in the Hot Creek 

dramage to 8,796 feet atop Deer Wuntain. The eastem portion contains 

mderately rolllng rangeland mth sage and bitterbrush side slopes and grassy 

valley bottcms. Higher elevat%xs are characterized by the Jeffrey pine 

forest. 

As the primary watexshed for Lake Qowley, the area provides an important 

source for danestic water for the City of Los Argeles. The upper Owens River 

is an important trout fishery. 

~ 

~ ~ 

~ 

The Managawnt Area is within the Lorig Valley Known Geothermal Resource Area 

(KGRA). Seven lessees currently hold geothermal leases on approximately 

38,190 acres of land wittun the Management Area. Eqloration, including 

wells drilled to a depth of mre than 6,000 feet, has been conducted by 

private industry and the scientific cx"ity. There is one operating 10 

megawatt powerplant on private land within the Management Area. Carmercial 

developers have applied to I" Cnunty for the rights to build two additional 

power plants on private land. Camnercial developers have applied to the 

Bureau of Land Management to build a single per plant on National Forest 

system land. 

All or part of seven grazmg allobwnts are located m the management area. 

Recreational use is pr-ily of a cbspersed nature. The Inyo Craters, a 

popular day-use site, focuses on the intapretation of geologic history. ~ Deb, Lower Deaclxn, Glass Creek, and Big Springs -unds provide 

wemight cqing facilities. 

~ Timber stands include nearly pure red fir; mixed stands of red fir, white 

~ of Jeffrey pme. Because of logglng activity, numerous single-lane and 

fir, ldgeple and Jeffrey pine; pure stands of lodgepole; and a pure stand 

two-lane dirt and gravel roads bisect the area. Loggiq debris and dead and 

dawn & form an jnlprtant source of firewood for the adjacent Town of 

~ Mammth Lakes and numerous other cx"ities as far south as Lone Pine, 

- 

~ Califorma. We is camtsrcial fuel& l"g . onthearea. 

181 
Because of its proximity to U.S. 395, a designate3 scenic highway, proximity 

to the Town of Ma"i5-1 Lakes, and visibility fran high elevation points such 

as Mamnoth lvbuntain and Minaret Sumnit, the area requires special attention 

to meet established Visual Quality Objedives. 

The area serves as important habitat for mile deer during the spring and fall 

migaticns. A major deer migation corcibr for the Casa Diablo deer herd 

extends fran Managenient Area #12 (Emtm-Casa Diablo) around the south end of 

the Glass bumtains, and follaws the westem slope of the Glass mtains to 

a staghg area m the Upper (xuens River. 

A large pqnilation of sage grouse (an es"ate3 1,000-1,200 birds) uses the 

Caldera area, includjng the eastem half of this Managesent Area. 

winter ranges are oxcentrated mstly on Bureau of Land Managesent and City 

of LQS Fmgeles lands in the vicinity of Csowley Lake. Sumner habitats for 

this species include the entire basin. There are three lv" slzuttjng 

grounds in this Management Area. 

Fish 

- Manage O'Harrel canyon creek dtrainage to provide for recwery of Lahontan 

cutthroat -trout. 

Geology 

- Cnntinue cooperation and mordination of gsophysical exploration and 

research with the scientific ccnnnmity. 

- Enoourage cantinued geologic exploration and research relating to 

@-caldera formation, seisnic and volcanic activity and the predicticn 

of future seisnic activity and volcanic eruptions. 

Range 

- ccolsider placement and timing of water availability for deer and other 

- Utilize plant species that also benefit wildlife when revegetating 

- Maintain or develop a vegetative msaic when regenerathg range forage. 

- Encourage water spreading to enhance forage for livestock and sage grouse 

- Develop watering locations away fran riparian areas. 

wildlife when developing water so- for livestock. 

rangeland. 

where feasible. 

Recreation 

-prosram and develop support facilities such as parking areas and 

trailheads for both mfic and "ambile access along U.S. 395 and the 

182 
Scenic Loop Road when opprhmities and fundiq becane available. OSV 

access to the Inyo Craters will be permitted to wntinue. 

- Develop a recreation ccmposite plan to inventmy, coordinate, and ~orogram 

the N1 sumner and winter recreation develapnent potential west of U.S. 

395. Include the area in PreSQlipticns #lo, #12 and #16. Cnnshct 

prcgramred facilities m funds bemne available. 

of the ccIIITp3nity of Manoth. 

- mhibit dispersed camp- within two miles of the private land bmdary 

- Pursue reconstruction of Big Sprirgs &qq"d at a location mre 

suitable for the purpose. 

fiparian 

- Manage riparian areas to maintain high habitat quality for fish, 

especially in threatened and endangered species waters, wild .trout 

waters, and the meadow reaches of the "s. 

Timber 

- Maintain plantation stcdung ' at the greatest density acceptable to timber 

manag-t where thexe are cover needs for deer (e.g., around meam and 

along deer nugration routes). 

- Utilize existing roads for timber harvest where practical to minimize 

impacts on mldlife. 

Visual Resources 

- Develop corridor viewshed analysis and plans to include U.S. 395. 

- Establish a mssing point for a major powerline route serving the 

potential geothermal area to the west of U.S. 395 at the least 

visually-sensitive pint. 

- Plan for additimal powerline ccu-~~tn~&on with the objective of 

Wentually "irg the existiq 115Kv line along U.S. 395. 

Wildlife 

- Maintain the productivity of meadaws for sage grouse. 

- Allm managwent activities that do rot significantly intexfere with key 

sage grouse habitat. 

- Maintain or enhance the integrity of key winter ranges, h0ldj.r~~ areas, 

migration routes, and fawning areas for mile deer. 

183 
MANAGEMENT AREA # 8 

Prescription Allocation (Rx) for Management Area #8: Mammoth Escarpment 

Number Name 

Rxl Designated Wilderness 

Rx4 Mule Deer Habitat Emphasis 

Rx9 Uneven-aged Timber Management 

Rx 12 Concentrated Recreation Area 

Rx 13 Alpine Ski Area. Existing and Under Study 

Rx 14 Potential Alpine Ski Area 

Rx 15 Developed Recreation Site 

Rx 16 Dispersed Recreation 

Rx 17 Semi-Primitive Recreation 

Total 38.267 

Monoche Mln 

Mammoth Escarpment - 

184 
MANAGEMENT AREA #8 

Mammoth Escarpment 

185 
Mammoth Escarpment (#8) 

Description 

The Manoth Escarpnent Managment Area stretches from San Joaqun Mxntain on 

the northwest boundary southerly, brdexirg the Ansel Adams Wilderness, to 

M”th Mountarn and along the Manmth ctest to Bloody and Laurel Iubuntains 

on the southeast boundary. A small prtion of the John Muir Wilderness is 

lncluded at the south end of the Management Area. P ‘ t features are San 

Joaquin Mountain, Minarf?t Smt, Mamnoth Mountain, Mmn~th Lakes Basin, 

Manm~th Rock, the t%“th Crest, and Bloody and Laurel i%untains. Private 

inho~dings include a 1.5-acre tract adjacent to Lake Mary and a 3.75-acre 

parcel adjacent to the Valentine Reserve and Lake Mary Road. 

Toposraphy rises from gentle slopes aloq the lawer reach of Sherwin C%ek to 

very steep, often precipitous terrain aloq the I”th Crest. Elevations 

range fm 7,200 feet at the eastern tip of the area to 12,544 feet at the 

crest of BloOay Mountain. The lands form a spectacular and impOrtant SdC 

backdrop from U.S. 395, a designated scenic highway. 

Vegetation is characterized by sage/bittakush and “tam mahcgany in the 

southern portion of the escarpnent, and mixed fir and ldgepole pine stands 

in the north. lvbuntain mahcgany, l&geple, whitebark, and limber pines are 

found at higher elevations. Riparian areas supprt .stands of aspen, water 

birch, andwillow. 

The Management Area has a few active mhiq claims. 

Small portrons of three grazing allotments extend into the Manag-t Area. 

Developd recreation is the primary use on the area. This Manag-t Area 

has mre recreation visitors than any ooher in the Forest Service. Mammth 

Mountain Ski Area, the largest facility of its type in the United States, is 

located here. There is potential for additional alpine ski opprtmities m 

the area. 

The M“th Lakes Basin, a series of alpine lakes nestled in a bawl-shapd 

area imnediately southwest of the Tawn of Marrmoth Lakes is inpxtant for both 

sumner and winter recreation purposes. It is also hipxtant as a watershed 

for dawstic water use in the Town of Marrm3th Lakes. The area includes 

numerous sumner lmws, loages and resorts. 

In addition to alpine skiing, many opprbmities for “ihc skiing are 

offered in the Mamnoth Lakes Basin and in i”KJi3-1 Meadow. Altbugh trah 

are set in these areas, they are not formally designated as mrdic ski 

areas. Because this area interfaces with the Tawn of Mammth Lakes, its 

value for day-use activities and open space adjacent to the cc”ity must 

also be recognized. 

Appmximately 4,000 deer are depndent on this area for migration mutes and 

sumner range. The area is important to the Sherwin mule deer herd as a 

migration route m the fall and winter, with Solitude Canyon, Mammth Pass 

and Deadman Pass servhg as mjor migration corridors. The area east of 

Sherwin crreek is an imprtant stagirg site in the spring as the deer herd 

186 
awaits the melting of 470~. 

herd by providing fawruq habitat. 

Special uses in the area include elecbmnic permits for sites on Ma"th and 

Lincoln muntains, organization camps along Sherwin Creek, and mts to the 

Mamoth County Water District for danestic water and sewer activities m the 

Mamoth Lakes Basin. As a part of the permit agreement, dams in the Mamoth 

Lakes Basin are maintained by the Ma"* County Water District. Water use 

fm the Lakes Basm is conblled by a Master operating Agrxment between 

the Forest Service and the Mamnoth county Water District. 

mnagmEn t Em=a Direction 

Cultural Resources 

Glass cseek contributes to the Casa Diablo deer 

- Wize the mterpretation of effects of recent wlcanisn on abrigmal 

life. 

Facilities 

-Conduct a clmnrlative effects study of the Ma"th/June area when a 

developnent propssal in this area requires an Envirormaental Impact 

Statement. The Ma"th/June area is defined by U.S. 395 on the east; 

Highway 203 on the south; the John Muir and Ansel ?+dam Wildernesses on 

the west; and the riagelme. of the June Lake ccmiplex on the north. 

__ 

Fish 

- Manage Glass Creek drainage above the campground to provide for recovery 

of the Lahontan cutthroat trout as approved by the Lahontan Cutthroat 

Rout Recovery Plan. 

Geology 

- Bnpixsize glacial and bedrock geology at inteqretive sites within the 

Lakes Basin. 

- Lands 

- Consider m land exchaqes mv01vi.r~~ Shezwin Meadow until final decisions 

are made on the ski area propxed for Sherwin Bawl. 

- Continue elechronic site use on Mannnth and Lincoln muntains consistent 

with existing developnent plans. 

Mmerals 

- Lirmt access for exploration activities to methods not requirq road 

C0nstxuction. 

Recreation 

- Develop recreation canposite plans to inventory, c~~rdinate, and program 

the full sumner and winter recreatim developat ptentml in the area 

187 
inP?32swx 'ption #12 (~akes Basin). &"ct programned facilities as 

funds becane available. 

-identify and prcgcam dispersed trail facilities in the areas in 

prescriptions #12, #14 and #17. Include hiking and equestzian trail 

opprtunitxes in all areas and bicycle trails in the area in Prescripticol 

#12. Include 'ties for muntain bike trails within the 

bb-mgment kea. Interface trail system with the cnnmmib. 

- Maintain levels of ressnroirs in Mammth Lakes Basin to desirable levels 

for recreation use and sceru 'c enhancement during .the entire sumner use 

SWEK.XI. 

- Wize day-use activities within the Marmpth Lakes Basin by developneeded day-use facilities to ccq1-t overnight campgrounds. 

-Limit expansion of resart capacity in the Mammth Lakes Basin to 10 

percent above 1985 levels. 

- Encourage public transprtation in the Mamnoth Lakes Basin for sumner and 

winter day-use. 

Manmth to the Forest. 

- mize developnent of front -try trails, particularly those linking 

- Limit nordic capacity (Skiers At One Time) in Mammth Lakes Basin to 

1,203, unless a special study indicates an inneased capacity is socially 

and envimmmtally acceptable. 

lands adjacent to Valentine Resatve. 

- Maintain -t us8 paw and open space On National.Forest System 

Visual Resources 

- Develop a corricbr viewshed analysis and plan that includes State Route 

203 and the Lake Mary Road. 

- Develop special mitigation measures alorg State Route 203 fran the "n 

of Mammth Lakes to Base Lodge 1 to soften ski area inpacts for the 

sumner-oriented visitor. This locality has been develop3 as an 

elongated base area for Ma"* "tab Ski Area and the designated VQOS 

may not have been mt. 

- ccastruct all ski area developnent in areas in Prescriptions #13 and #14 

to meet the Retentim Ve3 as seen fran trails and use areas in Managexat 

Area #lo (wilderness). 

- F"uage and work with the Town of Marmpth Lakes and Mono County to 

develop a scenic resource element, an anhiteshnal element, guidelines, 

and mitigation measures as a part of any local p1annb-g effort. 

188 
Water 

- Allow developnent on National Forest System lands in the Mammth/June 

area where adequate water is available after natural resource needs are 

met. Allow for the exploration and developnent of new water sources on 

National Forest System lands for cu"ity purp3ses only when such 

opportunities have been exham on private lands. 

the Water Managesent Plan for Mammth Lakes Basin. 

- Manage the Glass creek watershed above the Crestviay water supply intake, 

and MarmvJth Lakes Basin alxnre the Mammth Lakes Cu"I 'ty water supply 

intake with all the precautions needed to ensure that water is provided 

at a plity level consistent and carpMtible mth State Basin Plan 

objectives for dcmestic supply. 

- Work with re-ible agencies to assure ccmpliance with provisions of 

- Recqnize the value of maintainirg "hished streamflows in managmt 

decisions. 

- Adhere to the Manmth Mountain Ski Area Erosion Prevention Plan. 

- Manage water resnums within Mammth Lakes Basin to provide adequate 

pmtecticn of natural resources, and to seme recreational demand alcolg 

with water supply needs. Satisfy municipal water supply needs after 

natural resources needs are met. 

Wildlife 

- Maintain the integrity of key winter ranges, h0ldh-g areas, migration 

mutes, and fawnkg areas for mule der. 

189 
MANAGEMENT AREA # 9 

Prescription Allocation (Rx) for Management Area #9: Mammoth 

Number Name 

Rx 11 Range Emphasis 

Rx 12 Concentrated Recreation Area 

Rx 15 Developed Recreation Site 

Total 8.414 

Mammoth 

190 

- 

Mammoth (#9) 

Description 

The Mamoth Managemnt Area cxmtains private land within the Town of Mammoth 

Lakes, National Forest System land, and land owned by the City of .Los 

Angeles. The M”th/June Lake mrt, Hot Fish Hatch-, Hot mek, 

and Sherwin Creek &“md are irrrpOrtant features in this Management &ea. 

The area contains the adnunistrative facilities of the Wth Ranger 

District. Facilities include a major visitor center and District Office 

ccanplex, a warehouse building, a housing area with six goverrrmentawned 

houses and fifteen trailer pads for private house trailers, a grazing pasture 

and tack facilities. 

Toposraphy is p”ma ‘ tely mderately rolling terrain in the Mammth Creek 

dramage. The western prtion of the area contains red fir and Jeffrey pine 

forest, with the eastem portion cxnpised prjmarily of a 

grass/bitterbrush/sage vegetative type. 

Recent land excharge efforts have consolidated land ownershl ‘p within the Town 

of Mmmth Lakes lea- only two parcels of National Forest System lands 

remaining in the Town. These lands are identified as the Shady Rest and 

Wc”k parcels. Land exchange efforts in the past have been oriented 

primarily tmiard consolidation of mership and providing lands for ccmmnmity 

needs such as school and hospital sites, industrial park sites for axmiunity 

and private needs, and land for affordable housing developnent. Because of 

the current growth -1s of the newly inoozporated Town, it is anticipated 

that future land exchanges will be -sed by the cunnunity to seek to 

prrJm.de “zty facilitxes in fllpport of the current destination resort 

philosophy. 

Because of the proximity to the Town of Mamnoth Lakes, many National Forest 

land uses are diredly related to the fllFpart of this popular resort 

cc“ity. Uses include the facilities of the Marmath County Water District, 

Southern California Fdison major power tran5nission lines, the Mammth/June 

Lake Airport, ccoltinental Telephane CanrmniCatiDn facilities, a camunity 

park, and the Hot Creek Fish Hatchery operated by the State of Califomia. 

In a&tion to the private land, the City of Lof: Angeles also 0w1ls several 

parcels m the eastem portion of the area. 

The area contams portions of two grazing allotments. 

The area is impoaant as a de deer migratim route and staging area in the 

fall and spring. 

Recreation use is heavy at Sherwin (=reek Caqgmud, Shady Rest and Old Shady 

Rest campgrounaS imnediately adjacent to the Tawn of Mammth Lakes, and at 

Creek and on Forest lands imnediately adjacent to private land in the 

Town. Hot Creek Interpretive Site, a popular day-use ma, focuses on the 

interpretation of the geolqic resource. 

Earthquake Fault Interprative Site. Heavy disperses use also occurs al0I-g 

192 
Base Loage I1 and the proposed Base me VII, important access points for 

the Mammth Pbuntam Ski Area, are also located within the Managmt Area. 

Because of its proximity to the -sed Sherwin Bowl Ski Area, the westexn 

phon of the unit will play an impoaant part in the developrent of base 

and other canplmtary facilities if Sherwin Bowl is develaped. 

The visual corridors along U.S. 395, a designate3 scenic hghway, and State 

Route 203, the primary entry pmt for the Town of Mammth Lakes, are 

important viewsheds to the traveling public. 

Cultural Resources 

- -tam and enhance cultural resource interpretive sites such as Mannmth 

creek cabm, VIS cabin, Indian Caves. 

Facili'bes 

-Allow developrent of new slu base areas carmensurate with local 

trarqmrtaticm system plamirg. 

Flsh 

- Maintam productivi.ty of the Hot Creek fishery in Section 25, Township 3 

South, Range 28 East. 

- Mamtam resnuces affectkg Hot Creek Fish Hatchery. 

- Study Laurel Pond for intrcduction of fish in coordination with 

Cali€omia Deparbnmt of Fish and Game. 

- Manage according to Hot Ckeek Wild Trout Managmt Plan of 1986. 

Geology 

- Continue to coopate with and coordinate geqhysical exploration and 

- Encourage contmued geologic exploration and research relating to 

pxt-caldera formation, seisnic and volcanic activity and the prediction 

of future seisnic activity and volcanic eruptions. 

research with the scientific "unity. 

- Where appropriate enphasize geothermal resoucces at mterpmtive sites or 

in guides that cover the area. 

-Exchange Forest Service lands into the private Sector for cc"ity 

expansion when: 

1. The mst appropriate use of the National Forest lands over the long 

texm is in the private sector; 

193 
- 

__ - 

5 - 

_1 !2E2. State, county, lccal and Forest Service plarmirg precesses identify 

and supprt CcBlVeying ownershl ‘p of the parcel fran National Forest 

System status to the private sector; 

intent of the current approved Camnnu ‘ty General Plan. 

I 

and si 

3. The use intended for the federal land baing excharged meets the E- E 

m% 

si% 

SEi- 

.EF; - 

I _e 

- 

~ - 

_I 

= - ~llow 110 federa land exchanges north of State Route 203 with the mth 

Lakes ca”ity durjng this pl- pericd. 

- Present proposed developnents on National Forest System lands to other 

“mwx~ts for their camnent when those ”ats - have a vested 

interest in the pnsp3sa. 

-I. --I 

-Allow developnent 011 Nahonal Forest System land when it is clearly U”. -- -A 

denmstrated that the infrastnl- of a cannunity can support the 

demands of the proposed developnent and -fits fnm developcent 

outweigh adverse inpacts on the on”ity. 

Recreation 

-Provide trail interface oppr-tunitxs with the cnnnunity of Mammth 

Lakes. 

- 

= -

~~ - 

m. 

-Maintain open-space areas adjacent to tha Tam of Mammth Lakes for 

passive recreation use. ESE 

- Prohibit dispersed canping throughout the Management Area. 

- Prohibit developnent of Shady Rest Park beycola existirag perimeter roads, 

- and mrth of the perline rights-of-way. 

- Allow developrent of Mamnduh c2eek Park by the Town of Mammth. 

- Identify and program the expansion potential of the Shady Rest and 

Sherwin creek &“md ocmplexes and develop as funds becane avalable. - 

~ - 

-. - Nly develop the inl%rpretiw potential of the Hot creek geologic site I 

as funds becane available. 

%?

mx. Visual Resources 

- - Develm a corridor viewshed analvsis - and ~lans - that include State Route m 

203 an; U.S. 395. ~ 

=

I - &: - Mitigate the visual impacts of existing major uses ~II the area seen frun 

U.S. 395 and State Route 203 east of the Town, as this is the major 

gateway to the Mananoth area. 

~ 

~~ 

5 

- Water -. 

I -- 

-a 

!BE&. 

- Allow developnent on National Forest System lands m the Ma”th/June ~~~ 

area where adquate water 1s available after natural resouTce needs are 

met. Allow for the exploration and developwnt of new water sources on !s%a = - = 

~ - 

-Y 

194 - 

--
National Forest System lands for cu"ity pwrpses only when such 

opportunities have been exhausted on private lands. 

- Support state water quality ccoltrol requirements and local ordinances to 

mitigate adverse impacts of urban -f€ onto National Forest System 

lands. 

Wildlife 

~ - ccoltinue to enhance and maintain waterfowl habitat at Laurel Pd. 

- Maintain the integrity of key win- ramps, holdirg areas, migration 

mutes, and fa- areas for mle deer. 

195 
MANAGEMENT AREA # 10 

0 5 10 

Prescription Allocation (Rx) for Management Area #lo: 

Reds Meadow-Fish Creek 

Number Name 

Rxl Designated Wilderness 

Rxa Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Rx 12 Concentrated Recreation Area 

Rx 15 Developed Recreation Site 

Total 73,318 

'Included in designated wilderness acreage 

**Included In concentrated recreation area acreage 

Reds Meadow-Fish Creek196 
MANAGtMENT AHFA #lo 

Keds Meadow-Fish Creek 

197 
Reds Meadow-Fish Creek (#lo) 

Description 

The Reds Meadow-Fish Cceek Management Area includes Reds and Agnew Mea-, a 

porhon of the Ansel Adams and John Kuir Wildernesses, and that part of the 

Sierra National Forest in the John Kuir Wilderness administered by the Inyo 

National Forest. Devils Postpile Natmnal bb-nment, ~dministered by the 

National Park Service, is located in the center of the Managment Area. 

prominent features are the Minare ts, a distinctive "needle-like'' formation 

along the fitter Range escarpnent, the Reds Meadow Valley, Devils Postpile, 

Minaret Falls, the high cwnixy in the Wildernesses with their many major 

peaks and lakes, Fish creek Gorge, and the headwaters of the Middle Fork of 

the San Joaquin River, a Wild and Scenic River candidate. There are no 

private land inholdings in the Management Area. 

Topography is characterized by U-.sha@ valleys, steep to precipitous slopes, 

basaltic outcrops and cinder cones to 13,157 feet at the crest of Mt. Ritter. 

Vegetation is as varied as the elevat"l chfferences, rang- from mixed 

chaparral/mntane chaparral to pure lodgepole pine and red fir stands, to 

subalpine whitebark and limber pines. 

There are rm grazirg allotmnts within the Managemnt Area. There are two 

outfitter-guide pasture permits. 

Recreation is the prmary resource. me Reds Meadow Recreation Area, 

lncludrng the Devils Postpile Natmnal Wnunnmt, is an important developed 

recreation ccmplex for day visitors, overnight campers and fishemen. Agnew 

Meadow and Reds Meadow serve as heavily used trailheads into the Ansel Adams 

and John Muir Wildernesses. A Camwcial facility provides a rustic resort 

experience with lodging and pack services for backwmixy visitors. Day-use 

visitors are required to ride a public transportation system which is 

provlded to reduce -traffic congestion during the heavy use pried (July to 

early September). 

mnag€lE?l t Area Direction 

Geology 

- Emphasize glacial, bedrock, and volcanic geology at interpretive displays 

and in guides that cwer the area. 

Recreation 

- Develop a recreation -site plan to inventory, ooordinate, and program 

the full sumner recreatim developrent potential in the area in 

Prescription #12 (Reds Meadow). construCt programned facilities as funds 

beccme available. 

- Esrpana txansprtation systens and access alte.rnatives that de-mphasize 

the private auto. Look at shuttles and a wide rqe of trail 

opprhmitiies such as walking, horses, and bicycles as a psible 

replacement to private auto use. 

198 
-Continue to coordinate with the National Park Service to share 

admirnstxative and fiscal responsibility for the existng shuttle system. 

- Manage to maintain primiiave recreation experience opprbnities durirg 

wrnter months. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

- Maintarn the existing wild and soenic attributes of the Middle Fork of 

the San Joaquh mver and allow I'Q activities that would preclude this 

candidate river fran wild and sceruc designation. 

199 
MANAGEMENT AREA # 11 

INYO NATIONAL\ FOREST 

ISI 0 5 IO 

Prescription Allocation (Rx) for Management Area #11: Convict-McGee 

Independence 

Number Name Acres 

Rxl Designated Wilderness 32.000 

RX 11 Range Emphasis 1792 

Rx 12 Concentrated Recreation Area 2 566 

Rx 15 Developed Recreation Site 71 

Rx 17 Seml-Pru"we Recreation 5,650 

Total 42,079 y,' 0::;: 

ManDcnc M!" 

Convict - McGee LII 

200 
MANAGEMENT AREA #I1 

Convict-McGee 
Convict-McGee (#11) 

Desccipticm 

The Convict-McGee Management Area located southwest of Lake Crmley and U.S. 

395 contains all of the Conmct creek, McGee Creek, and Hilton Creek 

dramages. Three-quarters of the management area is a part of the John Muir 

Wilderness. Pmninent features are Convict Lake, Mt. Nxrison, Bloody 

Mnmtain, Mt. Baldwin, Red Slate Wnmtain, Mt. mrgan, and Stanford Peak. 

Private land lnholdings consist of 120 acres along Hilton and Whiskey Oxe.k.s, 

and 240 acres along Conmct Creek owned by the City of Los Aqeles. 

Toposraphy is rugged and steep. 

terrain rising to the Eastern Sierra Escarpnent. 

feet on lower Wskey creek to 13,163 feet on Red Slate Wuntain. 

Vegetation varies fm the open sage/bitterbrush-&"ted nwraines and the 

pinyon pme/muntm mahogany-dcminated int-ate slopes to patches of 

subalpme whitebark pme. Scattered pockets of aspen add to the vegetative 

diVerSlty. 

The Management Area ant- hu grazing allotments and a snall section of a 

third. 

The Md;ee creek drainage includes several c- and is a papular 

trailhead intn the John Muir Wilderness. Outfitter and guide services are 

amlable fran a pack station into the upper McGee Creek. 

The area 1s important to the Sherwin-Euttdlk mule deer herd as a migration 

mute in the fall and wmter. This Management Area also includes the 

southern portion of the She" deer herd staging area. 

i'braines doninate the 1- slopes, with the 

Elevations rqe fm 6,900 

-t Area Direction 

Geo1m 

- nnphasize glacial and bedrock geology at mtespretive displays and in 

guides that mer the area. 

Recreation 

- pursue developnent of a loop path around Convict Lake that would tie into 

exlstrng developed shorelme paths. 

- Rehabilitate the tralhead area of McGee Creek. 

- provide shade in the newly constructed Md;ee creek Caqxgmund. 

- Develop a ampsite plan before expanding day-use and ovemight capacity. 

Visual 

- Develop a corridor viewshed analysis and plans to mclude U.S. 395 within 

and adjacent to th~s Managexmt Area. 

202 
- Allm no new overhead lines to ccmpy existiq utility mutes as seen 

fnm U.S. 395. Relocate existing -lines as opprtunities arise. 

- Reduce the visual inpact of the Gmvict sewer plant facility by uskg 

vegetative scxeeniq. 

Wildlife 

- Maintain the intqriiq of key winter rqes, holding areas, migration 

mutes, and fawning areas for mule deer. 

203 

I 
MANAGEMENT AREA # 12 

Prescription Allocation (Rx) for Management Area #12: Benton-Casa Diablo 

Number Name 

Rx4 Mule Deer Habitat Emphasis 

Rx 11 Range Emphasis 

Rx 17 Semi-Primitive Recreation 

Total 81.950 

Benton-Casa 

204 

Diablo - 

Benton-Casa Diablo (#12) 

Description 

The Eienton-Casa Diablo Management Area lies hetween Lake Crowley and Ha~mnil 

Valley. prormnen ' t features include Kelty Peak, Casa Diablo Mountain, Bannex 

Faage and rhens River Gorge. 

The area is characterized by a broad volcanic tableland punchated by 

muntain peaks of the Benton P43mta.h Range. The western portion of the area 

drains toward Lake -ley, the southern portion toward the Owens River, and 

the eastem portion Ward Chalfantvalley. Elevations range fran 5,800 feet 

111 the CMens mver Gorge to 10,560 feet at Kelty Peak. !I'he area has several 

hspersed parcels of private land inholdings, and several square mles of 

city of Los Angeles ownership in and around the Owens River Gorge. 

Vegetation ranges frcm a sparse Jeffrey pine forest intermixed with imuntain 

mahogany and pmyon pine to pinyon-junipez and sagebm-bitterbNsh smb. 

The Management Area is highly mineralized and contains many mining claims. 

It is also valued for livestock grazing and contains all or part of eight 

graziq allotments. Recreationists Visit in light nu" for prjmitive 

caniplng, fishicg, fuelwood gatherug, and other dispersed uses. The area is 

well served by roads and .trails. A mall group of PrColghDm (approximately 

twenty es) migrate fran winter habitat in Hamnil Valley to the Crowley 

Lake Basm where they sumner. 

The majority of the wmter range for the Casa Diablo deer herd, 1,500 

animals, is located in this Management Area. A major migration corridor 

extends fran the Winter ranges emmd the south end of the Glass "ntains 

and then follaws the base of the Glass mtains paralleling the Owens River. 

ManagerrPn t Area Direction 

BXE 

- Consider placement and timiq of water availability for deer and other 

wildlife when develop- water sources for livestock. 

- Utilize plant species that also benefit wildlife when revegetating 

rangeland. 

- Maintam or develop a vegetative msaic when regeneratirig range forage. 

- Manage grazlng to minimize effects 

Visual 

-Utilize only existing pmerline 

overhead lines. Do not create new 

206 

on fish and wildlife. 

mutes for the location of additional 

mutes through the area. 
___ 

Water 

- Negotiate with public utility entities to return water to po~3~ons ofthe 

OWms River Gorge. 

Wildlife 

- Develop water sources for deer and other wildlife where needed as identified 

m the deer herd management plan. 

-Protect mprtant sage grouse wintering grounds and s.hrutting 

gmunck/nesthg ccmplex fm dek-tal dxsturbance. 

- Mmtain the integrity of migration corridors used by prongl” and mule 

deer between Long Valley and Hamnil/(3alfant Valley. 

207 
MANAGEMENT AREA # 13 

Prescription Allocation (Rx) for Management Area #13: White Mountains 

Number Name 

Rxz Proposed Wilderness 

Rx3 Mountain Sheep Habitat Emphasis 

Rx5 Research Natural Area 

Rx7 Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest 

Rx 12 Concentrated Recreation 

Rx 15 Developed Recreation Site 

Rx 17 Semi-Primitive Recreation 

Rx 18 Multiple Resource Area 83.885 

Total 436656 

'Included in Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest acreage 

White Mountains 

208 

- 

White Mountains (#13) - 

E?i% 

s 

e- 

!!?% ~~ 

~ -_ 

T__ - 

DescriptiQl 

The White Mountains Management Area straddles the California-Nevada brder 

within the Great Basin Gecgraphic province. l?anhent features include 

bristlecane pine (the oldest living trees), Bnmdiuy Peak (the tallest peak in 

Nevada at 13,140 feet), White MDuntain Peak (14,248 feet), Paiute cutthroat - 

trout (a threatened species), '~oaa desert mnmtajn sheep (a special interest 

species). The vast majorib of the area is National Forest System land with 

cnly a few scattered parcels of private land inholding~. 

nrnmtain peaks, plateaus, rugged carrycols, and fcothills on the east. Elevahons ~. 

-^ 

- ~- ~~~ 

H = 

~~ - 

~ 

~ - 

~~ 

-. 

=isl.l 

~ 

s!s?E3i I_. -- 

-er 

E _- 

- 

I 

~~ 

~ 

-. The area is characterized by an abrupt, steep escarpnent on the west; high 

range fran 4,600 feet on the Wauwba Rcad at the Forest boundary to 14,248 feet 

at the sunnit of White Mountain. 

Vegetation ranges fran alpine fellfields to bristlecone and limber pine forests 

- 

"Lu 

I

I 

-- ._ -- 

~~~ 

-. 

- 

.- 

~~ 

I_ 

to pinyon-jmper wccdland to sagem and scrub at the lower elevations. E- - 

~ 

~~ - ~~ ~ 

= 

I 

= - -The White Nnmtain wild horse hard ramps rrostly m the canyons within the 

northeastern prtion of the Manag-t Area fm Queen Carryon in the north to 

Indian Garden CXe& in the south. l?mr@" antelope, transplanted in the 

vicinity of Hamnil Valley in 1982, range the northwestem bnmdary of the 

Management Area. 

The White Mnmtains are mcderately mineralized with numerous unpatented claims. 

Recreaticmal use focuses primarily on the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, ~ 

hunting, and to a limited extent trout fishing. The Wversity of California 

maintains three high elevation research laboratories der permit. Livestock 

grazing is an impoaant use. The Management Area contains all or part of ten 

grazing allotments. The area is largely unmade and unaltered by human 

activities. There are mm"s of impoaant prehistoric native American a 

habitation sites. The scienkfic value of the remnant bristlecone pine wood is 

imneasurable. 

_-_ ~~ 

- 

-- -- 

= 

-=. 

I 

~~ ~ 

~~ 

~~ 

__ - ~ 

-. 

~~~ - 

~~ - = 

_I -- 

~. 

~ 

I 

~~ ~~ 

-. 

A -. 

~~ ~ 

~- -- ~ 

- 

~ __

- 

~~ 

~ - 

-3 - 

??%?

-. -_ ~~ 

L 

-~ 

~~ - 

=~ - 

EE- -. 

The Managemnt Area contains one established Research Natural Area (RNA) and one ~ - 

~ 

_. 

~~ - 

- recarmended for establishnent. The White Mnmtajn RNA was established in 1953 ~~ - 

~ 

for its bristle" pine wrmunity: the McAfee RWL is recorrmended for its alpine 

fellfield. The Wee RNA is partially located in the White i%untain Scienhfic 

Area. This area was designated under a U-3 (Recreation) classification by the m 

Rqional Forester in 1971. This classification is m longer appropriate for the 

area under the regulations. Any mad closures or other restrictions needed to 

protect the scientific values of the area are nm under the jurisdiction of the 

sBuw 

5zF 

-- 

- -- = 

~ 

~~ 

~~ 

~ - 

~ - e* 

EBS 

B. R€a

M 

Forest Supervisor. 

A portion of this Managmt Area is being recamended for wilderness 

as having outstanding scenic attractions and recreabonal challenges. designation. It includes the mte i%mW Further Planning Area, identified - 

~ - 

~ 

==r

 

~~~ -

. 

- 

210 
Geology 

- mphasize the Great Basin Physicgraphic Province and sedimentary geology at 

interpretive sites and in guides that cover the area. where appropriate, 

emphasize information on the White mtain seismic gap, geology of the 

Bristlecone Pine Forest, history of local mining districts and the presence 

of inprtant fossil groups. 

Lands 

-Continue efforts to resolve conflicts between continuous broadcast and 

intennittent broadcast users at the Silver Peak electronic site. 

- Participate with the Bureau of Land Management in the study of -sting and 

potential payerline corridors. Include in this study the need for 

additional north-south utility lines paralleling the existirag Oregon-Sylmar 

INM: transuission line and for new east-west corridor locations. 

- Declassify the white Mountain Scientific Area. protect the scientific 

values of the area under the authority of the Forest Supervisor. 

Range 

- Exclude portions of the Perry Aiken Flat allohent fran cattle grazing to 

protect mtain sheep habitat. 

- Issue no grazing pennits for the road corridor along State Route 168 from 

the Forest boundary northeasterly through Westgard Canyon to the junction 

with the Wte muntain Road (No. 4SO1). and along White Mnmtain Road to 

Sierra View, in order to protect native plants and wildflowers for public 

viewiq and enjoyment. 

Recreation 

- Ooordinate tnanag-t of the Poleta OW Area with the Bureau of Land 

Management and the LQS ?ugeles Deparhnent of Water and Power. 

- Allow OHVs to travel anywhe~ in the Poleta OHV Area. 

- -pare or u-te a recreation ocmposite plan for areas ~II Prescriptions #7 

and #12 that would Imrentory, coordinate, and prcgram their full sumer 

recreation developnent potential. construct new facilities as funds beme 

available. 

- If the White i"tains are designated as wilderness, consider "inuzrng 

trail wns.truction so as to continue the existq limited access within the 

area. 

-Manage the white l-4n"cain.s to emphasize Prinutive and Sa-Prinutive 

Nzm-mtorized ROS class activities and oppn%mities except in areas 

designate3 as Prescription #18, which will emphasize Semi-Prinutive 

211 
Timber 

- prohibit fuelwood gather- awe 8,000 feet elevation 

Pbuntains. 

Visual 

- Wte the White Wmtains sensitivity level mapping fran 

mutes. 

Wilderness 

in the White 

.trails and OHV 

- Reammend 120,000 acres in the tugher elevatims of the White Wmtains 

Further PLannkg Area for wilderness designation. This -tion is a 

preliminary administrative -tion that will receive further review 

and possible modificatmn by the Chief of the Forest Service, the Secretary 

of Agriculture, and the President of the Wted States. Final decisions on 

mldemess designation are made by ccolgress. After designaticm by Corgress, 

a mlderness managem& plan mll be developed by the Forest. 

Wildlife 

- Examine the potential for habitat imprWement on mountain sheep wmter range 

using prescribd fire. 

- Prepare a plan for the remvery and ccmservation of Nelson mnmtain sheep. 

212 
0 ___ 5 10 

, 

MANAGEMENT AREA # 14 

Prescription Allocation (Rx) for Management Area #14: Rock Creek-Pine Creek 

Number Name 

Rxl Designated Wilderness 

Rx3 Mountain Sheep Habitat Emphasis 

Rx4 Mule Deer Habitat Emphasis 

Rx 12 Concentrated Recreation Area 

Rx 15 Developed Recreation Site 

Rx 17 Semi-Pru"we Recreation 

Rx 18 Multiple Resource Area 

Total 70,484 

Rock Creek-Pine Creek213 
MANAGEMENT AREA #14 

Rock Creek-Pine Creek I 

NOT TO SCALE 

214 
Rock Creek-Pine Creek (#l4) 

Description 

The Rock Creek-Pme Creek Management Area straddles the InyO-Wm county line 

and U.S. 395 fran Sherwin Smt to Tan’s Place. The rural camwuties of Sunny 

slopes and Swall Meadows are located in thls Managaent Area. About half of the 

Management Area is ~II theJohn Muir Wilderness. Frc” ’ ent features are Wheeler 

Crest, Mt. i%rgan, Mt. Abbott, Rcck Creek Lake, and the concentrated recreation 

use facilities of Rock Creek Canyon. 

The area is characterized by the lugged Eastern Sierra Escqent, steep 

dramages, mountain meadows, and the Bishop tuff geologic formation. Elevations 

range fran 4,860 feet near Round Valley to 13,748 feet atop Mt. Morgan. The 

area contauls several drspersed parcels of private land and patented mrrung 

Claims. 

Vegetation ranges fran subalpine forest, mixed coniferous forest, and 

pmyon-juniper to sagebrush and scrub. 

One of the world‘s largest tungsten mines is located 1~1 the Pme Creek 

drainage. The me has been inactive for the past few years and its status is 

uncertain at thm tune. 

Surromertm camping and fishing in Rock Creek Myon are the most popular 

recreation activities. A resort under permit provides increasingly popular 

nordic ski and winter rmuntameer- services in Rock Creek Canyon. The area 

also cont- rest of one grazing allotment and supports key mter range for 

the Sherwin deer herd. A snall band of Sierra mountain sheep have been 

reestablished at Wheeler Crest. Portions of this Management Area are extremely 

important as a winter range and nugratim corridor for several thousand deer of 

the Shexwin-Buttexmilk deer herd. 

Range 

- Allow no increases in grazing where this would significantly degrade fish or 

wildlife habitat. Amend AMPs to include mitigation measures and take 

corrective action where grazing is significantly impact- wildlife habitat. 

Recreation 

- Review the future use determinatmn decision for the area under permit to 

Rock Creek Loage so that cxmtinued high quality nordic oppxhmities are 

provided to the public. Reex” the future use determination for the Rock 

Creek Pack Station (Lot 13 Pine Grove Tract). 

- -pare a site plan for the day-use extension of the Tuff C3qgmud. 

- filly identify and program dispersed trail facilities in the area m 

Prescription #12 (Rock creek) and Lower Prne creek fran Rovana to 

Scheelite. Include hdcixg and equestrian tral facilities. 

215 
- -pare site plans for Pine &e& Caqgnmd below Scheelite and for the 

txailhead area in Upper Canycm. 

Visual 

- Develop a corridor viewshed analysis and plan that includes U.S. 395. 

- Allm m new overhead lines to cempy existing mutes as seen fm U.S. 395. 

- Water 

- Manage the Rock Creek watershed abave Tan's Place, the Paradise "ity 

water supply mtake, and the Pine Creek watershed atare the Rovana m"ity 

water supply intake with all the precautions needed to ensure that water is 

provided at a quality level cansistent and capatible with State Basin Plan 

objectives for dmestic supply. 

216 
~ 

MANAGEMENT AREA # 15 

0 5 10 

Management Prescription (Rx) Allocation for Management Area #15: 

Bishop Creek-Buttermilk 

Number Name Acres 

RX 1 Designated Wilderness 39,416 

Rxz Proposed Wilderness 4,138 

Rx4 Mule Deer Habitat Emphasis 17,919 

Rx 12 Concentrated Recreation Area 6,164 

Rx 15 Developed Recreation Site 160 

Rx 17 Semi-Primitive Recreation 2.100 

Total 69,897 

i;---I Monache Mln 

Bishop Creek-Buttermilk - w 

217 
MANAGEMEMT AREA #15 

Bishop Creek-Buttermilk 
Bishop Creek-Buttermilk (#15) 

Description 

The Bishop Creek-Buttermilk Managmt Area includes a portion of the Sierra 

Escarpnent and lies south and west of Bisbp. More than half the area is in the 

John Muir Wilderness. Fnnunent features are Mt. Tan, Basin Mountain, Mt. 

Hmphreys, Mt. Emerscol, Mt. Darwin, Table Mountain, Lake Sabrina, South Lake, 

Bishop creek, Hortcol creek, and the Buttermilk country. The area contains many 

parcels of private land, including the rural camunities of Starlite E&tes, 

Aspendell, and Hawgem. 

The area is characterized by steep, rugged muntains and canycms, muntain 

meadows and pristine lakes. Elevat" range fm 5,000 feet along lower Bishop 

Creek to 13,986 atop Mt. HL"yS. 

A portion of the Management Area is being recarmended for wildarness. The Table 

Mountam 'Arther Platlning Area was evaluated in the RARE I1 pnxess as 

presendrg the wilderness attributes of the region. It is contiguous to the 

John MLur Wilderness and currently provides wilderness-type recreation 

opprtumties . 

Vegetation rarges fran subalpine forest to pinyon-junipex, sagebrushbitterbrush, and desert scIuh. 

The area contains one grazing allotmat and supports key winter range for the 

Buttermilk deer herd. Elderkny Canyon is a potential m3untain sheep 

transplant site. 

The Managmt Area contains the Bislmp Creek ccolcentrated use recreation area, 

making it best lamwn for camping and fisl-drg opportunities. Lake Sabrina and 

South Lake are large, man-made reservoirs which are the focal point for boat 

fishing. Thousands of visitors use this concentrated recreation use corridor 

annually. 

Managenen t Area Direction 

Facilities 

- Do not increase current standards for road access and maintenance within the 

area in Prescription #4. 

__ 

Fish 

- Consider the South Fork of Bishop Creek for a resident trvut fishery. 

Range 

- Allow EO increases in grazing where this would significantly deyrade fish or 

wildlife habitat. Amend AMPs to include mitigation measures and take 

corrective action where grazing is significantly impacting wildlife habitat. 

219 
Recreation 

- Develop a recreatmn conposite plan to inventory, mordinate, and program 

the flll~ner and wintez recreation developnent potential in the area in 

Prescription #12 (Bishop Creek). Cbnsbxct developed Sites as funds becane 

available. 

- Identify and program dispersed trail facilitia in the area m Prescription 

-Close all roads to CMV mbized e above Wells upper Meadow in the 

Buttermilk area between "ber 15 and April 15 to reduce adverse impacts 

on this key winter deer raqe. 

-Ehphasize Semi-Prhitive I%brized and Semi-mimitive Non-MAorized 

activities and opportunities in the area in Prescription #4 fran April 15 to 

"her 15. 

#12 to include hjking and questxian opparturu. 'tie. 

Visual 

- Develop a comi&r viewshed xdysis and plan to include State Route 168 

(Bishop Creek), the South Fork of Bishop Creek, and the North Lake Road 

within this unit. 

- Work with CalTrans and Inyo Cbmty to reestablish vegetation on cuts and 

fills where feasible along major roads in Bishop Creek. 

Water 

- Manage Bishop Creek watershed above the Plant Four fx"i-ty wa- supply 

intake with all the precautitms to ensure that water is provided at a 

quality level consistent and ccmpatible with State Basin Plan objectives for 

danestic supply. 

- Recarmend the 4,138-acre Table Mnmtain Further Planning Area for wilderness 

designation. This "er&tion is a preliminary ahhistxative 

-tion that will -ive further review and pssible modification by 

the Chief of the Forest Service, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the 

President of the united States. Final decisions on wilderness designation 

have been reserved by the Cmgress to itself. After designation by cca7gress 

a wilde?mess management plan will be develop3 as an irmendment to the John 

Muir Wildamess Managewnt Plan. 

220 
MANAGEMENT AREA # 16 
MANAGEMENT AREA #16 

, Coyote 

222 
-- Coyote (#16) 

Description 

The coyote Management Area lies southwest of Bishop on the east slop of the 

Sierra Nevada. The area consists mostly of coyote Flat. This is an ancient 

plam that was m existence prior to the uplifting of the Sierra mnmtain 

block. Tixs ancient plain sulvived the uplift intact and nod lies as a perched 

high plateau surrounded by precipitous, glaciated mountain and canyon 

topzgraghy. The area also includes a very snall portion of the John Muir 

Wilderness in the southwestern sector. other pnrrunent features include Coyote 

Ridge, Lookout Mountain, the Hunchback, Round Pbuntain, Sugarloaf, a portion of 

the Inconsolable Rarge, and Baker and Coyote Cree?~~ Sane parcels of private 

land inholdings are dispersed thruugbut the area. 

Steep, rugged terram and flat tableland topography characterize the area. 

Elevations range from 4,000 feet four miles northwest of Big Pme to 13,501 feet 

along the Incomlable Range. Vehlcle entry is via a single off-highway road. 

The area is largely waded and undisturbed by man’s mfluences. 

Vegetation 1s characterized by limber pine at the higher elevations, rqq 

into lodgepole-Jeffrey pine, pw-juniper, and sagebrush. 

Sane “rg (primarily for tungsten) has occurred, and many mining claims are 

present. 

Cattle grazing is an important use as the area contains four grazing 

allotments. The area is generally sawdxwd fran December through April with 

little use except by an occasional c~oss-coun~ skier. 

Recreatimsts value the area for its off-highway accessibility and its 

prmtive canping, fishing, and hunting opportunities. 

Potential exists for a Sierra Nevada nrnmtain sheep transplant into Shannon 

Creek. Lu.ier @oris of thls manag-t area are used as winteq range by the 

Goodale deer herd. 

mnagmen t Area Directim 

EX5E 

- Allow no mreases in grazq where this would significantly degrade fish or 

wildlife habitat. Amend AMPs to include mitigation measures and take 

correcbve action when grazing is significantly impactjng wildlife habitat. 

Recreation 

- Eqhasize Semi-Primitive Ken-Motorized and Semi-primitive Motorized 

activities and opportunities in the area in Prescription #17 (Coyote-Baker 

Creek). Develop a canposite plan to include OW opprtumties, mtain 

brke and equestrian trails, locations of ROS classes, and limited overnight 

canping facilities to maintain a quality level of use with minimal resource 

damage. 

223 
Water - 

- Manage Coyote Ox?& Watershed above the Plant Four Camrmnity water supply 

intake with all the prezauticns needed to that water is pruvided at a 

quality level amsistent and cmpatible with State Basin Plan objectives for 

donestic supply. 

224 
NANAGENENTARCA # 17 

Prescription Allocation (Rx) for Management Area #17: 

Owens Valley Escarpment 

Number Name 

Rxl Designated Wilderness 

RX 3 Mountain Sheep Habitat Emphasis 

Rx4 Mule Deer Habitat Emphasis 

Rx 12 Concentrated Recreation Area 

Rx 15 Developed Recreation Site 

Rx 17 SemvFrrmitrve Recreation 

Rx 18 Multiple Resource Area 

Total 188,370 

-I Owens Valley Escarpment - 

225 
MANAGEMENT AREA #17 

226 
Owens Valley Escarpment (#17) 

Description 

The mens Valley Escarpnent Management Area extends fran Big Pine Creek on the 

north to wolaoga Peak on the south. A large portion of the John Kuir Wildemess 

1s within the Managemmt Area boundary. All of the area is within Inyo county. 

praninent features are the Eastem Sierra Nevada Escarpnent with its many peaks 

over 13,000 feet in elevation, and Mt. Whi-, the highest mnmtain in the 

contiguous United States. Several isolated parcels of private land inholdirags 

cccur at the lower elevatim below the wilderness baundary. 

The area is ccmprised of steep to precipitous rugged terrain in the canp and 

derate to gentle slopes on the alluvial fans and benches. Elevations range 

frcm 5,000 feet to 14,495 feet at the sumnit of Mt. Whitney. All of the 

drainage flows eastward into Owens Valley and is finally absorbed into the Los 

Aqeles Aqueduct system. 

Vegetation ranges fran subalpine conifer forest with foxtail, limber, and 

wlutebark pines in the higher elevations to junipr, pinyon pme, and the 

semidesert "ities of sagebrush, shadscale, blackbrush, and bitterbrush m 

the lower elevations. 

Riparian areas con- a mixture of water birch and willow with scattered 

pockets of black oak. The vegetative makeup provides key winter forage for 

deer, tule elk, and muntain sheep. 

Five dmestic cattle grazing allobwnts provide spr- and early sumner forage 

for local ranches. 

concentrated recreation use exists in Big Pine Creek, Oak Creek, Independence 

Creek, and Lone Pine Creek. Dispersed recreation use includes fishing, hunt-, 

and hiking throughout the Management Area. Major trailheads that access the 

Wilderness are located m Big Pme Creek, and at Onion Valley and Whitney 

Portal. 

Frm U.S. 395 the ent~re Management Area presents the scenic backdrop lowyn as 

the "Sierra Escarpnent. " 

This Management Area contajns habitats imprtant for the Mt. Baxter, Mt. 

Williamson and Mt. Langley muntain sheep papulatim, and includes the 

California lvlountain Sheep Zoological Area. Lmmr portions of the Management 

Area are alSo imjxrbnt as winter range for the Goodale and Wmache deer herds. 

Taboose Creek is a ptential site for reintrcduction of Sierra Nevada mountain 

sheep. 

Managernen t Area Direction 

Facilities 

-Coordinate with Inyo County to "ize the vegetative disturbance on 

roadsides in the area in Prescription #12. 

227 
Fish 

~ 

- Manage Tinemaha creek watershed at and above the meadow reach to prwide for 

rewvery of Lahontan cutthroat trout as directed intheapprovedrecwery 

plan. 

Lands 

- Mamtain the 120-acre isolated parcel of National Forest system land in 

Sections 29 and 32, Ww&u 'p 15 South, Range 36 East for land exchange or 

Forest Service ac'hninistrative use. 

Range 

- Allow 110 increases in grazing where this would sigruficantly degrade fish or 

wildlife habitat. Amend AMPs to include mitigation measures and take 

corrective action where grazing is significantly impacting wildlife habitat. 

Recreation 

- Develop all overnight and day-use oppnAunitiffi in the area in Frescription 

#12 (Big Pine, Independence, and Lane Pine Creek drainages). 

Canyon for dispersed recreation. 

- Develop a trail frun Sage Flat Camggmund to Glacier Loage in Big Pine 

- Water 

- Manage Big Pine eeek watershed above the Sage Flat and Big Pine "ity 

water supply intakes, Independace Creek watershed above the Seven Pines and 

Grey's Meadow Sm Hane Tracts cnnmmity water supply intakes, and the 

Lone Plne Creek watershed atuve the Forest boundary with all the precautions 

needed to ensure that water is provided at a quality level wnsistent and 

"patible with State Basin Plan objectives for domestic supply. 

228 
MANAGEMENT AREA # 18 

INYO NATIONAL FOREST 

0 ___ 5 10 

Prescription Allocation (Rx) for Management Area #18: Inyo Mountains 

Number Name 

Rx2 Proposed Wilderness 

Rx5 Research Natural Area 

Rx 18 Multiple Resource Area 113,059 

Total 163,921 

Monocns Mf" 

lnyo Mountains '-1 

229 
MANAGEMENT AREA #I8 

lnyo Mountains 

0 Prercriplion Numberr - Prrrrriplion Arfa nomdary -ManagemcnI Area Boundary NOT TO SCALE 

230 
Inyo Mountains (#18) 

Description 

The Inyo bbuntams Manag-t Area consists of a large, rugged mtain range 

located app"ate1y eight nules east of Independence, California. The range 

runs north and south with slopes fm the surnnit facing both Cwens Valley and 

Saline Valley. hormnen ' t features are Waumba Mountain and Squaw Peak. The 

entire area is within Inyo County. 

~0th the east and west slopes of the mnmtain range are extremely steep and 

rugged. Lack of water is one of the most notable characteristics: there are no 

perennial streams. Elevations range fm a lau of 3,700 feet about five nules 

northeast of IndepenaenCe to 11,123 feet on Waumba Mountain. 

Vegetation is typically sa-desert with sagebrush in the lower elevations 

givzg way to pinyon pine m the higher elevations. A scatterq of bristlecone 

and limber plne exlsts above 9,500 feet. 

The Winneduwh Paiute ~~t located in the southern part of the Management 

Area northeast of Independence is a striking monolitluc landmark visible fm 

Owens Valley. 

parts of the area are highly mineralized, and unpatented "g claim activity 

is prevalent, although no major prcdmtion is evident. 

The Saline Valley burro herd ranges in the fmthills of the Inyo I%un- alq 

the eastem boundary of the Managemnt Area fm Whippoorwill Flat south to the 

South Fork of Willow Creek. 

There are two grazing allotments, one under permit and one vacant because of the 

lack of water. 

Recreational activity is lmted to &Spersed canping, and no developed sites 

are proposed. A Research Natural Area for pinyun pme is proposed on the 

northeast slopes of Waumba Nnmtain near Whippoorwill Flat. 

Three meys since 1981 in the southeastem portion of the Managanent Area have 

indicated a population of about thirty Nelson mnmtain sheep. 

A portion of this area is being reconnended for wilderness. The Pamte Roadless 

Area was evaluated in the RARE I1 process as having a hgh degree of natural 

appearance with unique features and many opportunities for solitude. There are 

few recreational opprhmities because of rugged terrain, lack of access and 

little water. 

Managemen t Area Direction 

There are no private land inholdzrgs. 

Facilities 

- Place the Waumba, Papmse, Squaw Flat and Badger Flat roads on the Forest 

Road System to be maintamed at Level 2 (low-level maintenance). 

231 
Facilities 

- Participate with the Bureau of Land MaMgfmmt in the Study of existing and 

potential powerline ccxri&xs. Include in this study the need for 

-ti& &-south utility lines paralleling the eKisting --Sylmar 

INDc tr~ssion line and for new &-west corridor locatim. 

Range 

- Al.10~ IID increases in wing this would Significantly fish a 

wildlife habitat. Amend AMPs to irclude mitigation measures and take 

corrective action whers g~azing is significantly ir?pading wildlife habitat. 

Wilderness 

- Remrmend 47,942 acres in the southeast Corner Of the P&Ub-MaZOLUb 

Further Plannirg area far wildemess designation. TNs lTecQnnendation is a 

preliminary adnhistrative nxmmmdation that will receive further review 

and possible rmdification by the Chief of the Forest Service, the Secretary 

of Agriculture, and the president of the United States. Final decisicm on 

wilderness designation are made by (xmgres. After designation by CcmgYeSs 

a wildemess management plan will be aeVelOpea for the area. 

Wildlife 

- prohibit overnight camp- 1/4 mile of sprjrg water sources that are 

- Protect, maintain or develop water sources wiWrin the area for wildlife and 

necessary for wildlife "ival. 

vegetative diversity. 

232 
MANAGEMENT AREA # 19 

INYO NATIONALI\FOREST 

I L'. L I Prescription Allocation (Rx) for Management Area #19: Golden Trout 

Number Name 

Rxl Designated Wilderness 

Rxs Research Natural Area (660) * 

Rx8 Wild and Scenlc Rivers 

Rx 12 Concentrated Recreation Area 

Rx 15 Developed Recreation Site 

Rx 17 Semi-Primitive Recreation 

Golden Trout I I 

233 
MANAGEMENT AREA # 19 

Golden Trout I 
Golden Trout (#19) 

Description 

The Golden Trout Management Area corresp3nds to the boundaries of the Golden 

Trout Wilderness an the Inyo National Forest and includes the Horseshoe Meadow 

enclave alq with a comer of National Forest land outside the wilderness 

northeast of Timosea Peak. P ' t features are wcologa, Cirque, Trail, Kern, 

and olancha Peaks, Tenpletcol Mnmtain, Golden Trout Creek, headwaters of the 

South Fork of the Kern River, and the North Fork of the Kem River gorge. 

Several isolated parcels of private land mbldings remain in the Wilderness, 

and the City of Los Aqeles ~WILS sone land in the Horseshoe Meadow enclave. 

Toposraphy is typical of the upper Kern Plateau country. Lccated mostly west of 

the Sierra Escarpnent, the terrain is not so sharply defined, but is rolling and 

punctuated with evidence of volcanic activity (e.g., Templeton Wuntain is a 

cder cone), gramtic peaks and outcrops, and my high-wm- meadows. 

Elevaticols range fm 3,700 feet on the eastem boundary of the Mamgmt Area 

to 12,900 feet at Cirque Peak. 

Vegetation is qute diverse. Ponderosa pine and Jeffrey pine daninate the lower 

montane coniferous forest belajl 6,500 feet. The upper nnntane coniferous forest 

is found between 6,000 and 10,000 feet and is amprised of three carmunities: 

the mixed conifer (white fir-sugar pine-incense cedar) forest, the red fir 

forest, and the mnmtain junipr woodland. The subalpine forests are dcrninated 

by lodgepole pine. Westszn white pine and limber pine are restricted to 

isolated pockets within the lcdgepole pine forest. Foxtail pine is is found on 

the Kern Plateau and extends mrth to Gnian Valley. The next papulation of this 

tree species lies over 300 miles north in the Klamath Mmntains. This &sjunct 

&skibution is unique amq subalpme -tree species. Foxtail pine, which is 

closely related to bristlecone pine, also attains great age. 

The chapparal CamRUllty covers dry, rocky slops usually where the conifers are 

absent. Camuon species of the chaparral cxnnnmities are buckbrush, white", 

manzaruta, mtain mahcgany, antelape bush, and squaw -ant. A large 

muntain meadow ccmtunity of grasses, sedges, rushes, and forbs is important to 

deer, livestock, and pack stock. Alpine fellfields including pereMial herbs 

forming cushions or mts, are found above timberline. East of the Sierra crest, 

the follcwing four plant cc"ities are present: pw-junipex, sagebrush 

scrub, shadscale scrub, and creosote bush. 

The Golden Trout Wilderness is unique in being the native hane of the golden 

trout, California's state fish. 

All but a small portion of the Managewrit Area is occupied by six grazing 

allotments for cattle. 

m, backpacking, and pack stock use are the primary dispersed recreation 

activities. 

The Last Chant% Meadow Research Natural Area Supporting foxtail pine was 

established in 1982 and is located east of Horse- Meadow. The Managmt 

Area contains the headwatexs and 20 miles of the South Fork of the Kern River, 

235 
and 11 mles of the North Fork of the Kern River. Both of these have been 

designated as Wild and S-c Rivers. 

This Managemmt ?+rea is the focus of intensified watm restoration 

ackvities. Efforts were begun in 1933 to restore damaged stream channels. 

Since that time, a-tely 800 emxion wntrol structures have been 

installed, pmtectjng abut 500 acres of meadowland fran gullying and 

accelerated erosion. 

The area contributes significantly to both the sumner and winter needs of the 

Ivl3nache deer herd. 

Olancha Canyon has the potential as a site for Sierra Nevada mnmtain sheep 

transplant priding an envi"mtal analysis. 

mnag€nE€l tAreaD- '081 

Fish 

- Strive to attain high quality habitat as defined in the Habitat Capability 

Model for all golden trout streams. Manage the habitat as the best that can 

be achieved given the incised dtions of stream channels as defined by 

quantitative methcx%lcgies such as GWS, UJWISH, etc. 

-Work with the Los Arageles Deparbnent of Water and power to maintain a 

wntin- water flow for fisheries in b- Creek below the penstock 

diversion. 

Range 

- Pennit cattle entry on or abut June 25, but make every effort to avoid 

encroachment on luwm fawning areas through mitigatjq measures shown in 

individual grazing allotment plans. 

- Allow m increases in grazlng where this would significantly degrade fish or 

wildlife habitat. Anerd allotment plans to irclude needed mitigating 

measures andtake 've action grazing is significantly impacting 

wildlife habitat. 

Recreation 

- In oooperation with the City of Los Angeles, close all roadside zones below 

the 320-acre trailhead area to off-road par- and use except for 

designated vista points or mterpretive sites. coordinate the closure with 

the developnent of a campiq facility at the Horseshoe Meadow !mailhead. 

Visual 

- Continue to mitigate the negative visual impact created by Horseshoe Meadow 

Road with soil stabilization structures and vegetative measures. 

236 
- Water 

- Mamtain existing meadows to arrest further degradation before initiating 

total watershed restoration projects. 

- Place watershed restoration priorities in areas where sedunent reifuctim, 

fish habitat, and visual resources wDuld receive the most benefit. 

- Negotiate with public utility entities to retum water to portions of 

Cottanwood creek. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

- Manage the South Fork of the Kern and the North Fork of the Kern Wild and 

Scenic Rivers in acoordance with final legislatim. Prepare a river 

mana.gment plan for each designatd river including final classifications 

and Ixxu7dary descriptions. 

237 
MANAGEMENT Auen # 20 

Rx 15 Developed Recreation Site 

.. 

Rx 17 Semi-Prn"we Recreation 15.340 

Total 75471 

'Included in designated wilderness acreage 

"Included in wild and scenic rivers acreage yi l9 I' 

South Sierra 

238 
MANAGEMENT AREA #20 

South Sierra 

@ Prercription Numbers - Presrriptlon Area Boundary -Management Area Soundary NOT TO SCALE 

239 
South Sierra (#20) 

The South Sierra Manag-t Area is the southem extreme of the rny0 National 

Forest and is wed on the north and west by the Golden Trout Wildemess. The 

south boundary adjoins the Sequoia Naticnal Forest. The area contains a little 

mre than one half of the South Sierra Wilderness. 

The county line runrung . north and south between rny0 and ware chmties divides 

the area. praninent features are Olancha Peak, "ache Mountain, Brawn 

Mountam, the Sierra Escarpnent, and broad, high--try meadows. Isolated 

parcels of private land inholdirgs OCCUT at Bakeaven and Monache Meadows, and at 

Sage Flat. 

Topq-ra&y rises sharply fmm the c)wens Valley to the Eastern Sierra Escarpnent 

where it assuws rmre ncdmate slops and rolling texrajn westerly to large 

centrally located meadows. tbnac3-e Wnmtain is a cinder cone - &matic 

evidence of volcanic activity. Elevations raqe fmn 4,240 fet in (xuens Valley 

where 01- Creek leaves the Forest bclundary, to 12,123 feet at Olancha Peak. 

Vegetation in the westam prticm of the area is characterized by old-growth 

p"sa and Jeffrey pine and rex3 fir on Kingfisher Ridge, lweple pine on 

the law flats, and me in the meadows. In the middle portion, ccslt&nhg part 

of the South Sierra Wilderness, vegetation is ty@cally upper mtane coniferaus 

forest between 8,ooO and 10,ooO feet elevation. Eastward fmm the Sierra 

Escarpnent isolated pockets of Jeffrey pine and white fir mcur in the Haiwee 

Pass-Bald Mountain vicinity. These stands are not considered for cannercia1 

harvest due to their isolation. Pinyon pine on the upper slopes merges into 

semi-desert chaparral with greasewccd and sagebrush on the lower slopes. 

Industry has expressed considerable jntd in the geathennal potential of the 

western portian of the Managanent Area. 

Portions of three grazirag allotments for cattle utilize the upper meadows and 

Recreation opprhmities mist of hiking and backpa- in the wilderness 

portion and off-highway use and cycling activities in the "ache Keadzws area. 

No developed recreation facilities exist, but dispersed uses such as hunt-, 

fishing, and canping are ppular. In the Olancha creek vicinity, activities are 

linuted to huntjng and a snall a"t of fishing. 

The south Fork of the Kern River which transects the Managemat Area has been 

designated as a Wild and Scenic River. 

The Mmache Meadows portion of the Management Area is key to the Monache deer 

herd as a spring-fall holding range. Lawer elevations frontjng Owens Valley 

pmde deer winter range. Several migration mutes occur within the Manag-t 

Area. Monache Meadow is also a critical, high-quality fawning area. 

the 1- Slopes frcolcing (huens Valley. 

240 
Manag” t Area D-cm 

EGF 

- Permit cattle entry on or abut June 25, but make every effort to avoid 

encmacbmt on I” favmirg areas through mitigating measures shown in 

individual grazing allotment plans. 

- Allow M increases in grazing where this would significantly degrade fish or 

wildlife habitat. Amend AMPs to include mitigation measuces and take 

corrective action where grazing is significantly impacting wildlife habitat. 

Recreation 

- Refer to the mche OHV F”mmtal Assessment for n”g-t direction 

for OW use in this area. This assesgnent also det- any increased 

road mileage in the area and takes precedence over any restrictions defined 

in Prescription #17. 

- -e dispersed recreation in -&e Meadows by lhi- developed 

facilities. 

- Restrict access to mche Meadows by off-higlmay vehicles. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

- Manage the South Fork of the Kexn Wild and Scenic River in accordance with 

final legislation. prepare a river manag-t plan for the river that 

includes classifications and boundary descriptions. 

Wildlife 

- Maintain the integrity of major migration corridors, fawning habitats and 

staging areas for mule deer. 

241 
CHAPTER V 

Rock Rockwell 

Monitoring 

and Ev ation 
-CHAPTER V. Monitoring and EvaluationForest planning is a dynamic process that does not end with publication of 

the Plan. Wuutoriq and evaluation activities provide mformation to help 

detsxmine whether or not Inyo National Forest programs are meeting the Plan’s 

objectives. It is through this process that corrections and adjusbnents are 

made in management activities, the degree of implementation is assessed, and 

the need for change is deterrmned. 

Mxntorirg and evaluation are separate, sequential activities. P4zxmtmu-g 

consists of collecting information fm selected sources to measure the 

effects of Forest Sennce activities. This information will indicate whether 

pxgrams are consistent with the objectives and casts projected m the Plan 

and whether they are adhering to the Plan‘s Standards and Guidelines and 

respondrng to the public’s and management‘s expressed con“. 

In the evaluatxm stage, information obtained in mantoriq is ampared with 

Plan requirements. When differences are noted, the= significance will be 

evaluated. The Plan can be irmended at any time if morntoring results 

indicate that it is needed. An “nt muld requrre an envlro-tal 

analysis to detennine whether the amendhnen-t represents a sipficant change 

fran the Plan. If the proposed charge fm the Plan is significant, 

preparation of an tal Impact Statement and formal public 

involvement are required. If not, the kind of public involvement and the 

decision documentation that is needed will be determined by the typ and 

magnitude of the pwsed change. 

The purpose of the Mcolitorrng Plan is to assess the success of Plan 

lmplementatian and de-e whether the Plan needs to be amended or whether 

managemnt activities need to be remsed. 

Monitoring Process 

Results of mnitoriq and evaluation will be reprted periodically as 

&splayed in the Wmitoring Plan Tables. Data sxmmes for the &bring 

Plan include: 

1. Management Reviews. General Management Review, m am Review and 

Activity Review. 

2. oqwiq Inventories and Mmitoriq proSr ams. Soil prottuctivity 

mmitoring, water quality monrtoring, forest inventory plots for timber, 

range utilization inventories, threatened and endangered species 

“Ltoriq, etc. 

3. Managaent Attairmrent Reports . Target accanplishmmt reprts filed by 

Forest Supervlsix’s Staff and District Rangers three times per year and 

forwarded to the Regional Forester. 

The Mcolitoring Plan is designed to mmibr hplementation of the Plan. It is 

not intended to replace ongoing detailed, resource specific mnitoring. 

Results of the detailed current “Ltoring ef5ortS will also be used to 

evaluate Plan iq~lementation. 

242 
Wtoriq will be performed by appropriate individuals throughout the Forest 

as follows: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Forest Staff. Each Staff Officar is responsible for preparirg a mre 

detailed resomce "itoring plan for his/her respective function, with 

assistance fran the District Rangers: providing technical advice and 

support in implaentkg the -toring Plan: periodically reviewing 

activities to ensure -1-tation of dtoring plans; and assemblhg 

the nwnitmrmg results at the close of each Fiscal Year. 

District Rangers. Each District Ranger is responsible for assisting the 

 ores st Staff officers in preparing more detailed mnitoring plans for 

each resource; monitoring the a" work plans of reso- specialists 

reporting to himm: enmrirg that monitoring is carried out accmding 

to the plans, and Suhnitting the results of mnitoring to the appmpriate 

Staff Officer. 

Land Manag aent Planning Staff Officer. At the close of each Fiscal 

Year. the Land Manaaement Plannins Staff Officer will incormrate all 

-bring jmformati&, evaluate 6 results with the ~~re~t Staff, and 

formally report findings and rexmwdatirms to the Forest Supervisor. 

Evaluation Process 

The Molitorirag hraluation Process displayed on the next page illustrates the 

steps necessary for an effective monikring and evaluation plan. Based on 

the results of this process, need for further action is to the 

Regional Forester. 

Evaluation of the results of the site-specific monitoring prcgram will be 

wted and available for public review. The significance of the results 

of the dtnring pxgram will be analyzed by the Forest Suprvisor. Based 

on the evaluation, there may be a need for further action. Managanent 

actians are a result of the nunitoring and evaluation precess can mclude: 

1. No action needed. Pkmitoring indicates Plan Ws, Objectives, and 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines are achieved. 

2. Refer reccmnended action to the appropriate line officer for iq"ent 

of application of Standards and Guidelines, Prescripticas, or Managamant 

Area Direction. 

Modify portims of the Plan as a Plan Amendment. 

mfy ?iwcription boundaries as a plan A"t. 

Revise the projected schedule of cutguts. 

Initiate revision of the Plan. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

Plan modificatim and/or revisim will be mde in accordaTlce with the 

National Emi"m tal Policy Act and National Forest Management Act 

regulatims. Resource activities, pactices or effects to be mnitored are 

displayed in this secticsl. 

243 
Monitoring Evaluation Process 

l&glementatfoon 

Revfse or 

amend Forest adjustments & 

continue 
The follcwuq tables display har the management acllvities cn the Forest will 

be -tored. TMS informtim will be used to evaluate Pian 

91-tatim. The tables unm the foll- calm: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

0. 

ACtlVlty to be Measured. 

Mcautorirq objective. 

WtorM Technique. 

wed Precision and validity. Recisicn is the exadnes or a-acy 

of "mnt techniques. Validiity is the axpected probability that 

inf-km u"#i Smplirg will reflect actual cax3itlcns. 

Both precisian and midi- are quantitatively rated as either high, 

medim, or 1m acmrding to wbther the "n "mt is wih 

lo$, 33, or 508 of the -le mean, rsspectively. 

A dsscxiptim of lm+~ the data will be gathered. 

StandKd of onl€ar isan and Variatim fmn the Stardard Requiz-* hnther 

-. 'Ihe anticipated rasult, level, or status of the acticn, effect, 

or resixme to be -tared d the variatim of observations in 

relatim to the standatd. When this limit is exceeded, the cause of the 

variatim mrst be rectified a the rmitarirg prcess mfied, as 

apprcpriate. 

Average Annual cbst. 7% Forest's best sstimate of the e"l Cost of 

mnitorirq. RLis is a& is in additian to the armual -iated 

funzticlml costs. If the costs are sham as ZJXo, they aTB illzlllded in 

the a"I q-iated fmctim costs. 

245 
INYO NATIOmAL FOREST PLAN IMPLEMENTATION MOMITORING PROGRAM 

Iflyo National Forest Plan Cmplementation Monitoring Program 

APPLIES TO ALL RESOURCE ELEMENTS {Res~nsible Official Forest Supervisor) 

Implementation of Ensure compliance with Sample project 

Management Directmn Forest Plan direction plan and 

and Management Envrronmental 

Assessments for 

compL1ance 

High Ongoing/ 

Annual 1 y 

Any deviation from Plan direction 

(Responsible Official Land Management Planning Staff Officer) 

Annually/ 

5 years 

H1gh 10% difference between predicted 

and actual costs of Implementing 

the Forest Flan 

Cost and Benefits 

of Implementing 

the Forest Plan 

Validate predicted 

versus actual Plan 

Implementation costs 

33% variation from benefit/cost 

ratios predicted in Forest Plan 

Petepmlne the ~COnomic effects of 

Plan Implementation 

5 years 

I 

Annually/ 

Annually 

Compare actual vs High 

predicted outputs 

At tamment reports 

10% deviation from predicted 

outputs over a five year period 

Resource Output 

at tainment 

AIR QUALITY Watershed Staff Officer) 

Air Quality Evaluate compliance Monitor AQRV in- Varies Contxnuous California Air Resources Control 

with State and Federal. dicators by with Tech- Monitoring/ Board standards Any deviation 

Air Quality standards photography, n1que 5 years from designated federal and 

~n designated Class 1 meaSUrt5WIlL state standards 

and Class 11 ansheds analysis, and 

recordation 
CULTURAL RESOURCES (Responsible Official 

protective measures of protective measures 

taken to achieve +'no 

effect" status ml cultural resources from 

land use projects and 

other resource management activities 

t 

Asses3 target to cbmplete a total Culural 

Resource Inventory's by 

the year 2030 

Monitor ststus 

of inventory 

High 

Annually/ 

5 years 

Annually/ 

Annually 

10% deviation from target to 

inventory 40,000 acres per YU~F 

I 

I 

$ 6,000 

I 

4 
INYO NATIONAL FOREST PLAN IMPLEMENTATION MONITORXMG PROGRAM 

Inyo National Forest Flan Implementation Monitoring Program 

.. . .. . 

DIVERSITY 

vegetatrve 

Divers1 ty 

FISH 

Threatened and 

Endangered Fish 

(Responsible Official 

Ensure Chat the Forestwide distribution of 

all successional stages 

meet Forest Servsce 

Guidelines & PrescriptionsF that spatial and 

structural 

maintained 

areas, and 

prescribed 

diversity is 

In r1parxan 

that the 

quanhty, 

quahty and dlstributim of snags and down 

woody material is maintained 

(Responsible Official 

Wildlife Staff Officer) 

Compare existing Low 

and longterm 

minimum levels 

Sample range, 

recreation, tsmber and prescribed burn proJects to determine the cumulahve effects *n 

successional 

stage, spatla1 

and diversity 

WiIdlife Staff Officer) 

10 years 

Ensure compliance wrth GAWS inventory Medium/High 3 years/ Existing population censuses, 

recovery plan Forest- or existing and 3 years recovery plan crlterla 

wide Standards and patentla1 h01- Project EAs, 

Guidelines tats Population ENS, and 

inventories reports 

coordinate with 

California Fish 

and Game for 

existing and re1ntrOduCed POPulations 
Trout Streams 

PEST MANAGEMENT 

Damage and 

Populatlm$ 

(Responsible Offim&l Wildlife Staff Officer) 

Medium Acthities that cause deviation 

from Forest Service Guidelines 

require an environmental 

analysis 

Forest Integrated Pest Management Coordinator, State and Private FomGtry, 

and Forest Pest Management) 

Early detection and Aerial and 

evaluation of pest re- ground SU~VGYS, 

hted problems on S~~ve~llaIlce, 

commercial timber, lands timber stands 

and other Porest lands examinations and 

other ~~SOLWC~- 

specific examinatnons 

Medium Annually/ 

As needed 
Inyo IYational Forest Plan Implementation Monitoring Program 

PROTECTION (Responsible Official Fire Management Staff Officer) 

Variation - 5O;(: between actual 

and predicted acres burned 

within a Management Area 

Validate predictions of Prom fire report High 

acres burned by wild- compare actual 

fire for next Porest acres burned 

Plan update with predictive 

tab2es 

10 years 

RANG€ (Responsible Offlclal Range Staff Officer) 

Ensure proper level of 

forage utilization in 

riparian areas and 

meadows and others AOP 

compliance 

Conduct sample 

field surveys 

Medium Annually/ 

5 years 

15% deviation from standards 

as expressed in allotment 

management plans or Range 

Management Handbook 

Range Forage 

Improvement 

Annwallyl 50% deviation From predicted 

results 

Determine effectiveness Conduct 500 per field 

of browse release pro- surveys followjects ing browse release prqects 

Medium 

5 years 

Range Condition $38 * ~00 

and Trend 

Determ~ns the effects 

of grazing levels on 

the range resource 

Update AMPs as per 

Manual and Plan 

Permanent and 

paced transects 

Downward trend in soils or 

vegetatmn on range allotments 

Annually/ 

10 years 

Wild Horse $14 000 

and Burro 

Determine effectiveness Monitor: wild 

of wild horse manage- horse numbers & 

ment sex ratios and 

vegetat1vc Conditm of habitat 

High 
RECREATION (Responsible Official Recreat~on Staff Offher) 

Annually/ 

5 years 

Determine total recrea- RIM system and Medium 

~OII US^ check PA- other sampling 

efficients by ROS techniques 

Cl&S$ 

Photograph and/ Medium $10,000 

or field measurement 

Annually/ 

3 years 

25% deviation from standard 

prescribed in the OHV monitoring 

plan 

OHV use on land Determine if adverse 

and other Resources effects on natural reRIPARIAN (Responsible Official* Watershed Staff Officer) 

Ensure that management Field surveys Medium 5 years/ $ lf000 

prescriptions and Forest 

Ser~he Guldellnes adequately protect meadows 

and riparian areas and 

their assbezated values 

Ensure that spatial and 

structural vegetative 

diversity 1s maintained 

in riparian areas 

Protection and 

Divers1 ty 

20X deviation from forest Service Guidelines 

Determine whether miti- Field review of MediUm 

gation measures for applied mitigasmall hydro pwjects & tmn measures 

geothermal development 

are sufflclent & effect1ve 1n "ntalnlng 

riparian vegetation & 

other riparian dependent 

re sources 

Protection and 

Mi t igat 1011 10 years Per Project 

I 
Inya Natronal Forest Plan Implementation Monitoring Program 

TIMPER 

Reforestat ion 

Suitability for 

Timber Production 

(Responsible Official 

(Responsible Official 

Determination of SUCcess of regeneration 

prac t ices 

Determine if lands 

classed as not suited 

for timber productum 

are suitable 

Wildlife Staff Officer) 

Population trend High/High 

censuses, Baseline 

and Past-proJeCt 

surveys for imput 

into EAs Use 

applicable teehniques identified 

1n Interim or 

Species Management 

Guides 

Timber Management Officer) 

Described in PSH High 

2470 Includes 

sampling of specles 9 surV~v81 , 

phhting stock 

and density 

ProJ ect evaluation and timber 

inventory 

High 

Annually/ Forest Standards & Guidelinesc 

Annually fbF Species Management Guides, 

spec1flc Sensitive Plant HandbooklNa new 

pfOJeCtS "acts to plant populations 

that do not have species manage3-5 Years/ ment plan, UII~~SS recommended 

3-5 Years or by the Forest Supervisor 

according 

Interim or 

Existing 

Management 

Guldss 

Annually for Land6 identified 85 unsuited 

projects ex- for any reason are determined 

amined & at suited and are 1OX of current 

least every suitable lands 

10 years for 

all lands 

$12 , QOQ 
c 

Timber Management Officer) 

Annually/ 

10 years 

High 3Q% of acres and 10X of allow- $ 1,000 

able sale quantity volume: for a 

decade, by prescription, or by 

forest type 

VISUAL RESOURCES Recreation Staff Offlccr) 

Field reviews & 

photo points 

High Annually1 

10 years 

VQO and EVC as defined in PSM 

2380 

the planned VQO on total projects 

5% failure to achieve 

$ 2,000 

Trend of Visual 

Character 

Determine if desired 

character stated in 

plan 1s being approached or maintained 

Field reviews 

with landscape 

contra1 po1nt 

photo method 

High Plan and PSW-91 Of 1973 Indlcation of trend away from the 

stated goal 

Field reviews Medium 

and photo point 

Plan and Planning records and 

plishmcnt of visual resource 

improvement proj ects in any year 

FSM 2380 Less than 50% ~CCO~- 

Visual, R~SOUWX 

Improvement 

Determine if an active 

program of visual resource improvement fs 

being carrkd out 

WATERSIEED: -. -. SOILS AND WATER (Responsible Off~clal 

Verffy adequacy of Observations & 

Prescriptions, Standard measurements, 

and Guidelines in main- and validate the 

taming and impraving use of BMPS rn 

soil productivity project activity 

Medium Annua 11 y / 

5 years 

Improvement and maintenance 

measures 90x GUCCeGSfulp 90% of 

prescribed BMPs are implemented 

Soil Productivity $14 000 

I 
lnyo Natmnal Forest Plan Implementation Monitoring Program 

WATERSHED: SOILS AND WATER [CON'T~ 1 ---- -F . . ... 

Water Quality 

Management 

Watershed Improvement 

WIILPLIPE 

Goshawk 

(Responsible Official 

Assess compliance with Review of preBMP dhectlonF and to pared EAs, recontinue t* evaluate view of contract 

the effectweness of provlslons, 

BMP field activity 

reviews, water 

quahty analysis 

field obsepvations 

High 

Evaluate effectiveness Observations and Medium 

of watershed improve- measurements 

ment measures 

Watershed Staff Officer) 

(Responsible Official Wr.l.dlife Staff Officer) 

Ensure project compli- Survey all 

ance with Forest-wlde known nest sites 

Standards and Guideline within areas 

Determine population & managed for timhabitat trends ber annually 

Survey 50% of 

known nest $3 tes 

outside of areas 

managed for tunber annually 

Medium 

Ongoang as Implementing documents for 

part of EA thme projects are found to be 

and contract missing needed water quality 

review pro- mitigation measures Water 

cess, and as quality objectives v~ohted 

field trips Two field reviews idefitify 

are taken mitigation measures are not 

Annual ae- being implemented 

tiv1ty rev1ew 

Annually/ 

5 years 

Annually/ Forest-wide Standards and Guide 

Annually lines and habitat capability 

Specific pro models 

JeCt EAs or 

reports 

$12 1000 
Cnyo National Forest Plan implementation Monitoring Program 

WILDLIFE (CON T 1 (Responsible Official 

Mule Deer Insure compPiance with 

California Fish & Game 

Deer herd management 

plans, Forest-wide 

Standards and Guidehnes, Management Area 

Dlrectlon 

Peregrine Falcon Vel+lfy tWst1ng and reResovery productive success of 

peregrine falcons Implement recovery plan 

Two nesting pairs 

Sierra Nevada and Insure compliance w5th 

Nelson Mountain Forest-wide Standards & 

Sheep GuldG1lneSF and ~~COV- 

€my plans 

Wildlife Staff Offleer) 

Coordinate cornpkance counts 

with California 

Fish and Game, 

evaluate habitat 

far spee1fic 

proposed project 

Field surveys of 

historic nest 

areas and high 

potentla1 nest 

sites 

Conduct herd 

composition 

counts wlth Cab 

ifornia Fish and 

Game, of existing populations, 

will be ~~VWItorled every 

other year 

Winter Bald Eagle Implement recovery plan Survey known win 

Habi tats Evaluate trends of hab- tep areastsurvey 

ltats delineated to capability of 

to meet recovery goals of delineated 

Determine trend of win- habitats for 

ter popurat1ons speclflc proposed proJects 

Medium 

Medium/ 

High 

Medium/ 

High 

Annually/ Previous census information, $ 8,000 

Annually Porcst-wlde Standards and Guide 

Specific EAs lines, Management Area Direction 

and reports state deer herd plans, deviation 

from standards of these documents 

+/- 10% change HI papulation 

levels over 5 years 

I 

Annually1 Establishment of two nesting& 

Annually pa1 I+#5 Comparison of sightings 

from year lo year No ac#Xve 

site in 5 years or decline in 

sightings over 5 years 

2 years 

$ 2,000 

$ 8,000 

Annually/ Forest-wide Standards and local $ 2,000 

Annually recovery plans, and Habitat 

Specific EAs Capability Models and Forestor reports wide Standards and Guidelmes, 

devlatlon from the above OF +/- 

25% change in population levels 

I 
Inyo Natmnal Forest Plan Implementa#Jon Monltorlng Program 

Other State listed 

or sens1trve species 

as afffected by 

specifu proJects 

Sierra Nevada red 

fox, pine martenm 

fisher wolverines 

and spotted owl3 

gmat gray owl 

Appropriate 

vey methods 

AppX1cat1on 

development 

Praj ec t Past population surveys, Habitat Capability Models, Forestwade Standards and Guidelines, 

or 1owers habitat capability 

for species 

$ 8,000 

and 

of 

Threatened 

Endangered and 

SensltlVe Spes1es 

Management 

Ensure that management Sample EAs and 

activities afford pro- conduct f2,eI.d 

tectum of ad1 Threat- surveys of COW 

eneb Endangered and phted project 

Sensltlve specaes as 

prescribed in Plan 

Annually/ 

Annually 

Medium $ 4s00r, 

Trends of Habitat Medrum Annually/ 

5 years 

$ 6,mo 

Management Indicator MI$ are consistent with view of pro~ects 

I 
Cnyo National Forest Plan Implementatron Monitoring Program 

Quantity and 

Distribution of 

Snags and Downed 

Logs 

Relatronshxp 

between MIS and 

Represented species 

WILDERNESS 

Aclu&l Use 

Compared to Planned 

(established) 

Desired Conditions 

(Responsible Official Wildlife Staff Officer) 

To validate that main- Field survey to 

tenance of MIS habitat determine if recapability maintains presented species 

habitat for the species are present 

they represent 

Medium 

Medium 

(Responsible Official Recreation Staff Officer) 

Medium 

Annually/ 

5 years 

Annually/ 

5 years 

Annually/ 

5 years 

Any detectable decline h snags 

and downed logs from shown 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines 

70% of species represented are 

present 

Any decline in campsltc condition Class below Class I11 

$ 2,000 

$20 g 000 

I 

CHAPTER VI. Glossary 

A 

- AMB: 

secondary emphasis on expansion of developed recreation. 

- AMC: Tlus is a Forest Plan Alternative Wch has been eliminated. It 

recamends all Further Planning Areas for wildemess designakon. 

AMN: - See Amenities Alternative. 

The Forest Plan Alternative whch emphasizes mldlife habitat with a 

- AMP: see Allotment Managanent Plan. 

E: See Analysis of the Managmt Situation. 

- AOP: See Annual operating Plan. 

APCD: Air Pollution Contml District. 

AQRVs: 

_. Asp: 

- Am: 

Acre-foot: The a"t of water or sediment that wuld cover one acre to a 

depth of one foot (43,560 cubic feet: 326,000 gallons). 

i%hinistrative Cost: Costs of requured g-al aCmhistration which are 

prorated over fixed, variable, and investmnt costs. 

Administrative Facilities: Those facilities, such as ranger stations, work 

centers, and cabms, wtuch are used by the Forest Service in managq the 

National Forest. 

Age class: one of the mtervals, usually 10 to 20 years, into Wch the age 

range of vegetation is bvided for classification or use. 

Air Quality Related Values (AQRvs): A feature or property of an area that is 

affected in scme way by air pollution. Identified values are visibility, 

odor, flora, fauna, soil, water, geologic feature, and cultural resources. 

Allotment: See Range Allotmnt. 

Allotlwnt Marlagmml t Plan (AMP): A cmprative plan between the Forest 

Service and the range permittee which sets forth the agreed upcol managanent 

scheme for the allohat. Besides grazing activlixes, the plan can cover 

other resources, such as soil, wildlife, fisheries, and riparian areas. 

Allowable sale Quantity (Asp): The maximum quantity of timber that may be 

sold frcm land capable, available, and suitable for timber proaUction for a 

tlme period: usually expressed on an average annual basis. 

See Air Quality Related Values. 

See Allowable Sale Quantity. 

See hmal Unit I%". 

258 
Alluvial Fan: A geologic feature consisting of rock and soil depsited by 

running water at the base of a steep slope in the shap of an inverted cane. 

Amenity (Amenity Val=): A resource for which metary market values have 

not been (or cannot be) established; also called a mn-priced value. 

Amenities Alternative (AMN): The Forest Plan Albnxitive which maximizes 

Wilderness, wildlife, and primitive and semi-primitive dispersed recreation 

are mized. 

amenities with little regard for the effects an cam&h .ty outputs. 

Analysis of the t Situatim (W): A step in the Forest p1am-d~~ 

mss in *ch the Forest's ability to mlv -- - aoods - and Senrices in 

response to society's demand for those g&s and services is determined. 

Animal mit Mcplth (ALM): The a"t of forage reqnred ' tosupprtamature 

caw for one mnth. 

rmnualoper a ting Plan (AOP): The cooperative plan between the Forest Service 

and the grazmg pennittee which sets forth the agreed LIPCEI managemnt of the 

allotment on a sasonal basis. 

ArterialRoads: SeeRoads. 

Assign& Value: A mcoletary value that represents the price ccolsumars would 

be willing to pay for Forest outputs, whether or not such prices are actually 

paid to the Federal Gwernment by cnm"~ In Forest planning the term 

assigned values refers to both market and "arkat outputs because it is 

~ti-1 policy to provide rmSt Forest outputs at either no charge to 

co~lsumers or at a price less than the willingness to pay price. 

(Region 5 uses loo0 lbs./mth or 26 lbs./day.) 

B 

BA(;Ts: 

- BIM: 

BMPs: See Best Management Practices. 

ESS: See Base Sale Sckdule. 

Backgrmrnd - (- , Natural Eackg"d ): The ever-present 

envi"isntal dtim or effects above which a phex"n must manifest 

itself in order to be detected. 

Base Sale S&edule (ESS): The timbar sale schedule in which the quantity of 

timber planned for sale and harvest for any future decade is equal to or 

greater than the planned sale and harvest for the preceding decade. This 

planned sale and harvest for any decade must not be not greater than the 

long-term sustained yield capacity of the land. 

See Best Available ccoltrol Techiques. 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Deparhnent of Interior. 

259 
Benchmark: An analysis of the supply potential of a particular resource or 

of a set of resources subject to specific manag-t objectives or 

constraints. Eaxhnarks define the limits withjn which alternatives can be 

formulated. 

Benefit: 

Benefit-Cost Analysis: An analytical approach to making choices on the basis 

of receiviq the greatest benefit for a given cost or prcducing the required 

level of benefits at the luvest cost. Also referred to as cost effectiveness 

analysis when the benefits cannot be quantified in tenns of dollars. 

Benefit-Cost Ratio: Measure of e"ic efficiency, CarpNted by dividing 

total benefits by total costs. Usually iwth benefits and costs are 

&scounted to the present time. 

The total value of an output or other outcnm. 

(Also see Discounting.) 

Best Available ccntrol l"iqw%s (=): An emission limitation for air 

quality subject to the regulaticm of the Clean Air Act. 

Best Managanen t Practices (m): Manag-t actions that are designed to 

maintain water quality by preventive rather than corrective means. 

Bitterbrush: 

mule deer and danestic livestock. 

Board Foot: The amount of wood amtained in an unfinished board one inch 

thick, twelve inches long, and twelve inches wide. 

A species of shrub considexed palatable and nulxitious for both 

C 

QS: 

- CDF: 

CDEG: 

CEE: See Wt-Efficiency Alternative. 

9: 

CEpA: 

CFR: code of Federal Regulations. Detailed documentation of federal laws. 

ClGiC: See Culmination of Mean Annual Increment. 

E: 

CNPS: California Native Plant Scciety. 

CXRJFISH: A ccrrpxlter model designed to analyze the condition of riparian 

areas in relation to past and current livestock grazing managmt and to 

estimate the canpatibility of grazing with asscciated aquatic resources. 

Capable, Available and Suitable land for timber production. 

California Department of Forestry. 

California Departnent of Fish and Game. 

See Comcil on Envirormimtal Wity. 

See California hvirormimtal Quality Act. 

Califorma Native Diversity Data Base. 

260 
- CRP: See coordinated Resource Plamxhq. 

- am: Seearr€!nt~program. 

volcanic mtain after an eruption. 

Caldera: A bowl-sham geologic feature rep re sen^ the collapse of a 

California tal Wity Act (CaQA): Following the passage of NEPA, 

the California State Legislature passed an Act in 1970 to declare state 

policy which will ensure the lorq-tenn protestion of the envimmtsnt. The 

Act will encourage the developnent and maintenance of a high quality 

e"mt ncw and in the future; provide the -le of California with 

clean air and water, enjqment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic 

emi"atal qualities, and freedan frun pollul%on: and prevent the 

elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man's activities. 

canapy: The mre or less oontinuaus cover of leaves and branches 

collectively foned by the crcwns of adjacent trees in a shrub stand or 

forest. 

Capability: The potential of the land to produce resources and supply goods 

and services under a set of management practices and at a given level of 

managemnt intensity. Capability depends up3n site conditiom such as 

climate, soils, and geology, as well as the application of manag-t 

practices such as sivicultme. 

Capital Invesimmt: Investment in facilities such as roads and struchms 

with specially appropriated funds. 

class I propert ies: Archaeological or historic sites that have been 

detennined eligible for or naninated to the National Register of KistOric 

Places. 

class I1 propert: ies: Archaeological or historic sites that have not been 

evaluated against the eligibility criteria (36 CFR 604) for inclusion on the 

National Register of HLstoric Places. 

class I11 propert ies: Archaeological or historic sites that have been found 

to be not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Clearcutting: Hanresting of all trees m one area for the purpose of 

creatiq a new, even-aged stand. The area harvested may be a patch, stand, 

or strip. 

Collector Roads: See Roads. 

Carmercial Spec ies: 

carmodity (- "ty Value): 

has been established; also called a priced benefit. 

Cr Lmt: A unit of forested land, usually between 3,000 and 15,000 acres 

in size, defined by natural and "ade features and used to facilitate 

Tree species suitable for industx ial wood mcts. 

A resoucce prcduct for which a met- value 

timber p1W. 

261 
Ccmcenbted Recceatitm Area: 

(if develaped) potentially receive high-density recreation use. 

A land area that currently recieves, or could 

Condition Class: 

density, and age. 

Description of the existing forest in terms of size, stock 

Confmt: Restrictq fire within determined boundaries established 

either prior to the fire, during the fire, or in an escapd fire situation 

analysis. 

constraint: A Imtation: action which cannot be taken or which must be 

taken. 

canslrmptive Use: Use of a resource that reduces the supply. 

cxmtahW¶ t: s- ' a frce, and any spot fires thexefm, with control 

Ime, as needed, whxh can reasonably be expected to check the fire's spread 

undex prevailing and predicted conditions. The mnnal tactic is indirect 

attack and burn to hunan-made or natural barrier with little or 110 mop-up. 

cxmthgency Level: A priority setting and decision-mkiq meethod which takes 

mto account fire situatmn factors that may significantly affect national, 

Regional, or Forest fire situations or individual fire re- actions. 

~trol: TO cmplete the mtml line around a fire, any spot fires 

therefran, and any interior islands to be saved, bum any unb- area 

adjacent to the fire side of the mtrol line, and 0001 down all hot spots 

that are mate threats to the m-1 line, until the llne can reasonably 

be expected to hold under foreseeable conditions. The mml tactic is 

direct attack on the fire, if possible, and mop-up. 

coordinated Resource Planning (CRP): A ~IWXBS that irnrolves all agencies, 

special mterests or individuals concerned with the management of a specific 

project, resource or issue. 

Corridor: 

and utility facilities are or will be located. 

Cost: The price paid or what is given up in order to a-, produce, 

The mnnal tactic is surveillance only. 

A lmear strip of land in which existing or planned transprtation 

acccnrplish, or maintain anything. (See Wonnu 'c cost. ) 

Cost-Effeive: Achieving a specified level of outputs under given 

metions for the least cost. 

Cost-Ef f iciency Altermtive: Tlus Forest Plan Alt-tive "izes cost 

efficiency with a mix of land allocations and managemat practices available 

on the Inyo National Forest. 

Cost-Efficiency: A measure of how prductive an mput is in prcd~cir~~ 

outputs. Measured by Present Net Value (PNV) in Forest planning. (See 

Econcmic Efficiency. ) 

262 
tal Quali (q): An advisory council to the President 

tal policy Act of 1969. The CEQ 

Councilcm~ ty 

established by the National E”mn 

reviews federal prcgram for their effect on -the ewimnmnt, conducts 

envi”enta1 stu&es, and advises the President on envirornnental matters. 

Caver: 

conditions, especially duriq reprc&ction. 

Cubic Foot: The amount of timber &valent to a piece of wood measurirag one 

foot by one foot by one foot (6.5 board feet on the Inyo National Forest). 

Cubic Foot second (cfs): Udt measure of streamflow or discharge, 

&valent to 449 gallons per minute or about tv.u acre-feet per day. 

olllminatian of Mean A“l Inceement (m): The pint where the amage 

annual growth of a stand of timber 110 longer inmeass. 

Cultural Resources: Culwal resources are the tangible and intangible 

aspeds of Cultural systems, living and dead, that are valued by a given 

culture or contain infonnaticm about the culture. CUtural resources include 

but are mt linuted to sites, strudures, buildings, districts, and objects 

associated with or representative of people, cultures, and human activities 

and events. 

current Prcgram (CUR): The No Action Alternative. This Forest Plan 

Alternative rep~~~~~’cs the dtion expected to exist in the future if 

current manag-t diretion continued “qed. 

Vegetation used by wildlife for protection fm predators and weather 

D 

- DEZi: See Dimter Breast Height. 

DUS: Draft tal Impact statement. (See Ehvirolnnental Impact 

Statement. ) 

- Dwp: 

DeMnd Analysis: A study of the factors affectkg the guantity and price of 

a gd or semice that muld be used or purchased by a”ers if made 

available. 

Depenaent speci es: A species for which a habitat element (snags, vegetative 

type) is deemed essential for the species to OCCUT regularly or to rewce. 

City of Los Argeles, Departmrit of Water and pawer. 

Devaloped RecreaticIl Site: A relatively snall, distinctly defined area where 

facilities are pmvided for concentrated public use (campgmunds, picnic 

areas). 

263 
Develcrpllen t Scale: A preaeterminea sale for recreation site developnent 

whxh guides the degree of site m=dification and kind of facilities tn be 

installed as shown below: 

Recreation 

opportunity Develspec- opnent class Scale Levels of Site Modification 

~"n site rmdificatim. Rustic or rudimentarv .. primitive 

Semi-Primitive 

Pbbrized and 

Nm-bbbrized 

Roaded Natural 

and Roaded 

Modified 

Rural 

Urban 

improwments designed for protection of the sit; 

rather than canfort of the users. Use of synthetic 

materialsexclude3. Mini" contmls are subtle. No 

obvious regimentation. Spacing informal and extended 

to minimize mtacts between users. btorized access 

mt provide3 or pezmitted. 

Little site dfication. 

improvments desi@ prjmarily for protection of 

the site rather than the canfort of the users. Use 

Mini" COntJmlS are 

subtle. Little obvious regimentation. Spaciq 

informal and extended to minimize wntacts between 

users. Pbtorized access provided or etted. 

primary access over primitive roads. Interpretive 

services info-, ahmst subliminal. 

Site modification moderate. 

for pmt&on of site and canfort of users. 

Conteqoraq and N&.C design of imp"nts is 

usually based on m of native materials. 

Inconspicuous vehicular traffic wn~ls usually 

prwided. Roads may be hard surfaced and trails 

formalized. Developnent: density about 3 family units 

per acre. primary access may be wer high standard 

roads. Interpretive services infomml, but generally 

direct. 

Site heavily modified. Scme facilities designed 

strictly for canfort and wnvenience of users. 

Luxury facilities not provided. Facility design may 

incoIporate synthetic materials. Extensive use of 

artificial surfacing of of roads and trais. 

Vehicular Waffic control usually obvious. primary 

access usually over paved roads. Developwnt density 

3-5 family units per acre. Plant materials usually 

native. Intexpretive services often formal or 

sinlctured. 

High degree of site mdification. Facilities mostly 

designed for canfort and cornreruence of users and 

usually mclude flush toilets; may include showers, 

bathhouses, laundry facilities, and electrical 

Rustic or rudimentary 

of synthetic materials avoided. 

Facilities about equal 

hoolrups. SynthStiC matSrialS OCmMnly used. Formal 

264 
walks or surfaced trails. Re@msntation of users is 

obvious. Access usually by high-Speea highways. 

rleve1-t density 5 or m3L-a family lmits per acre. 

Plant materials may be foreign to the - t. 

~ormal inwtive services usually available. 

Designs fommlized and architecture may be 

mtmprary. Mowed lawns and clipped shrubs rot 

"l. This category applies to private lands. 

Diarreter Breast Wght (m): 

the ground. 

Di.scotmt Rate: The interest rate which is used to reduce casts and benefits 

occurring in the future to their value in the present. The higher the 

discount rate, the lower the present value of future benefits and costs. 

(See Dismuntlng and Present Value. ) 

Discounted Benefit: 

Di.scotmted Cost: 

Disccunting: An adjushnent made to costs and benefits to canpensate for the 

fact that dollars -veil or spent in the future have a lower value today 

than dollars in the present. For example, it would be preferable to receive 

$100 this year rather than one year fran IYXY because it could be irnrested at 

4 percent simple intd and be worth $104 in one year. Thus, given the 

choice between receiving benefits worth $100 today or benefits worth $100 one 

year €ran today, one would chsxse to receive it today. Discounting reduces 

fuhre costs and benefits to reflect that fact and enables canparisom to be 

made between benefits and costs cccumirq at different pints in time. 

Dispersed Recreatim: Outdoor recreation which cccws outside of axskucted 

and maintamed recreational facilities (scenic driving, hunting, backpacking, 

The diameter of a tree measured 4.5 feet frun 

The pent Value of future benefits. 

The pent value of future costs. 

mrdic skiing). 

District Fhrqsr : The official reqxmsible for a6mbAstmj.q the National 

Forest System Lands on a Rarqer District. 

Diversity: The distribution and abundance of different plant and aruinal 

ca"ities and species within an area. 

Diversity Index: A mathematical expression of the relative degree of 

wildlife habitat diversity per unit of area: DI = TP 

2/Axpi 

where TP is the total perimeter of an area, plus any b-able edge within 

the area in meters or feet, A is the area in square mters or square feet, 

and pi is 3.1416. 

265 
E 

- EA: See Ehvi"enta1 Assessnent. 

- EIc: see mdiq Irrventory constraint. 

- EIS: 

- EPA: Enviromtal Protection Agency. 

- EPP: 

See Environmental Impact Statement. 

See Erosion Frevertion Plan. 

- Eve: see Existing visual condition. 

Econanic Cost: Total fixed and variable costs for -is, including costs 

incurred by other public and private parties, opprhmity costs, and cost 

savings. 

Econanic Efficiency: A measure of how efficiently inputs are used to achieve 

outputs when all costs and benefits can he identxfied and valued. Usually 

mea"& by present Net Value or Benefit-Cost ratios. 

Species: Plant or animal species identified by the Secretary of 

the Interior and listed ~II the Federal Register as in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a sipficant *on of its range. 

Ehding Imrentory Canstraint (EIC): Constra.int to ensure that the total 

tlmber volume left at the end of the planning horizon will equal or exceed 

the volume that would c" in a managed Forest. 

hvi"zntal Analysis: An analysis of alternative actions and their 

predictable short- and long-term mvimrnnental ccolsequences. 

hvircgrrmental Asses-t (FA): A mise public document required by the 

regulations implementing the National Ehinm" tal Policy Act that briefly 

provides sufficient evidence and analysis for detenninrg whether to prepare 

an enviromtal mipact statement or a finding of m significant jmpact. 

hvimrnnental Consequences (Effects OT Impact s): The physical, biological, 

social, and ecollQRic results of jmplemntirg a given alternative. 

Rlvi"zntal Impa ct Stawt (EIS): A statement of the environmental 

effects wtuch would be expected to result frun proposed alternative 

managamat actions. 

Erosim: 

water, or gravity. 

mian Preventian Plan (EPP): An integrated erosion plan which states the 

Best Managenent mactices necessary to protect the soil and water resources 

on slu areas. The techruques, the scheduling of work, and tlit priorities for 

treatment are all addressed in the plan. 

The detachment and "ent of soil fm the land surface by wind, 

266 
.>it: 

high lands. 

A steep land form characterized by a face abruptly terminating 

EVen-Aged Management of forest stands that results in .trees of 

essentially the same age gr"J together. The following methods pxduce 

even-aged stands: 

t: 

Clearcutting: The reimval, in a single cut, of all trees in a stand 

laryer than seedlings. 

Sheltenvood Cutting: The lpIlloMl of all trees in a series of txo or mre 

cuts over a period of mt mre than 20 years. 

Seed Tree Cutting: Similar to clearcuttirag, except that a few of the 

better trees of the desired species are left scattered over the area to 

provide seed for regeneration. 

Everl-AgEd Stand: 

mall differences m age. 

&sting Visual Mtim (EVC): A descriptim of the degree to which the 

natural landscape has already been altered. 

A forest stand mnpssed of trees having no or relatively 

F 

- FEIS: Fhal Enlvirconnenta3. Impact Sht-t (See tal Impad 

Statement. ) 

- mfC: 

- FIL: 

FLPMA: 

- FLW: The benchmark which maximizes Present Net Value (PNV) for "-market 

reSOurCeS. 

- FPA: Further Plannirg Area. (See Further Plannxg.) 

- FSH: ForestSemiceH~. 

- FSM: Forest Service Manual. 

- Fvc: 

- FY: 

Final Cut: Generally, ramval of the last trees left in a stand; 

specifically, rem3val of the last see3 bearers or shelter trees after 

regeneration is established under a sheltemcd system. 

Federal Energy Regulatory carmission. 

See Fire Intensity Level. 

Federal Land policy and Management Act. 

See Future Visual ccolditian. 

Fiscal Year--Ozbber 1 .through SeptgiaW 30. 

267 
Fire Intensity Level (FIL): A n*rmber on a scale of one to six (one baing the 

lowest), which reflects the rate of heat release (Bnr/seccold) per unit of 

fire front (in feet). 

Fixed Cost: A Cost CQrmitted for the planning perioa. In Forest planning, 

the total cost of the "I level be"&. 

Forage: All browse and herbaceous plants that are available to feed 

livestc& or wildlife. 

Forb: Any herbaceous plant other than grasses or grass-like plants. 

F- , Middlegmmd, E2dq"d: 

Foreground - the portions of a view behen the obsenrer and up to 1/4 or 

1/2 mle distance. 

Middleground (middle distance) - the space betsueen the foreground and the 

background; the area located fran 1/4-1/2 to 3-5 miles fran the viewer. 

Backg-mund - the view beginning 3-5 miles fran the observez and as far 

into the distance as the eye can detect the presence of objects. 

Forest and Range land Renewable Resources Planrung ' Act of 1974 (FWA): An Act 

of Congress requiring the preparation of an assessment of the nation's 

renewable resoutces and a -am -- for their management. . Forest p1anxh-g is a 

Of this MtiOrlal P-SS. 

F-St Highways : A designate5 forest road under the juriscliction of, and 

maintained by, a public authrity that is subject to the Highway Safety Act. 

Forest Highways are designated, as such, where the use and developnent of 

National Forest System lands affect the public road system necessitates 

Federal investmnts to ensure these roads are safe and adequate. 

Forest Supw.-v isor: The official responsible for adhninistering the National 

Forest System lands in a Forest Service administrative unit (one or mre 

National Forests). 

FORPLAN: 

planning alternatives. 

w: 

natural material both live and dead. 

Fuelwood: 

Further Plarolinq: A category into which cerkun * roadless areas on the Forest 

were placed by the RARE I1 stuay and in which they were retained by the 

Califomia Wilderness Act of 1984. Reccmwdations for the manag-t 

(wilderness or milderness) of Further Planning Areas will be made in the 

Forest plan. 

A linear pr0gramnh-g mdel used for develop- and analyzing Forest 

Any material capable of sustainirag or carrying a forest fire, usually 

wood cut into short 1- for burning. 

268 
FWIDX! visual COIlditicn (EVC): Describes the projected appearance of the 

hdscape (fran ~tural to altered) under each alternative by the fifth 

decade. 

G 

GAWS: 

Gamespec ies: See Harvest Species. 

See General Aquatic Wildlife system. 

GenealAqua tic Wildlife Systen : A canbined aquatic data base and 

information system. It is the quantitative methcd used to inventory, 

"itor, describe, and predict fisheries habitat cnndition and wlnerability 

fm exlsting to potential land uses. 

~ Goal: 

sc"e in the future. 

may not have a specific date for wnpletion. 

Goods and services: The various outputs, including onsite uses, puroaUced by 

forest and rangeland renewable resources. 

GrazkKJ: (3x"ph 'on of forage by animals: typically used to describe 

drmestic livestmk use (under permit) of National Forest land. 

Grazing Allotmst: See Range Allotment. 

Grazing permittee: See Range Permittee. 

A concise statement that describes a desired dtim to be achieved 

It is nonnally cqiressed in broad, general tm and 

Gnmndwater: Subsurface water in the part of the gmmd that is wholly 

saturated. 

Gmup Selectim: The cutting method in which trees am remnred periodically 

in small groups resulting in openings that do not exceed an acre or two in 

size. The result is an uneven-aged stand. 

H ~ ~~ 

H20: - 

=: High Voltage Direct Current. 

Habitat: The sum of envi"enM anditions of a specific place that is 

occupied by an organism, a population, or a cn"ity. 

Habitat Capab ility Model: 

suppcrt a given wildlife species or group of species. 

Hacking: 

Harvest spec ies: 

human conmnption. 

The benchmark which maximizes water yields for five decades. 

A set of habitat factors determined necessary to 

A mthcd of gradually releasing birds of prey into the wild. 

Species of animals or fish that are hunted or fished for 

269 
Herbicide: 

Holding Area: See Stag- Area. 

I 

A substance used to inhibit or des- plant growth. 

ID Team: See Intenksc$plinary Team. 

- IPM: See Integrated Pest managment. 

Inputs: Land, labor, and capital required to produce outputs. Inputs are 

generally represented by activity costs. 

Instream Flow: The volume of surface water m a stream system passing a 

given pmt at a given "e. 

Integrated Pest Itanage" t (IpM): A process whexein pests, their impacts, 

and management are considered an integral part of resource management 

planrung and decision-malung. 

Intensity Level: 

Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team): A group of individuals with afferent 

traming who solve a problem or perform a task through frequent interaction 

so that disciplmes can canbine to provide new solutions. 

InteJmdla ' te Harvest: ?my mal of trees fran a stand between the tlme of 

its formation and the qeneraticm cut. Wst mnly used intenuediate 

cuttings are release, thinning, impmment, and salvage. 

Intennittent Streams: 

Interpa? tin Services: Activities and displays that interpret the natural 

and social history of the National Forest en"ent for the visiting public 

and inform them about National Forest goals, prcgrams, and services. 

Irretrievable Cannitmmts: Applies to losses of production or use of 

renewable natural resoucces for a perioa of time. For example, timber 

production €ran an area is mizievably lost chrrirag the time an area is used 

for skiing. If the use is changed, timber proaUctian can be resun&. The 

proaUction lost is irretrievable, but the action is mt irreversible. 

Lrreversible Cannitmmts: Decisions causing changes which cannot be 

rwersed. Once used, the resoucce cannot be reinstated, mr can opportunities 

be recarered. Applies to mmenewable resources such as minerals and 

cultural resources. 

See Fire Intaity Level. 

Streams that do mt contain water year-round. 

270 
K 

K-V JW'dS: FUn& Collected fm timber Sales under the Knutson-Vandenberg 

Act of 1930 to be used for reforestation, timber stand improvement, and to 

ptect and iqxuve the future prcductivi~ of renewable resoutces on timber 

sale areas. 

- KGRA: On the Inyo, this term refers to the 

east of Mammth Lakes and south of Wnm Lake. 

Key Fa wnjng Area: ~n area important for mle deer du~ing the fawning season 

(early m). It typically includes gcd vegetative cover to hide fawns 

fm predators and protect them fran severe weather. 

Key winter Range : An area *&ant for mle deer dur- the winter rrrmths. 

It typically includes palatable and nu+xitious shrub species an lands mtly 

free of snow during the winter. 

&-am mthennal Resource Area: 

PBID-LOIXJ Valley KGRA located the part Of the Forest, mrvl and 

L 

- LEU: It estimates the expzted 

outputs and services that could be provided in the future if the 1982 budget 

Thls Forest Plan Alternative was eliminated. 

were cut by 25%. 

LTSYC: See Long-term Sustained Yield Capacity. 

Landline Iccatim: To locate, sunrey, mark, and post the boundaries of 

Natmnal Forest System lands. 

Vp Adjusmt: The transfer of the ownershl 'p of lands by land 

exchange, land purchase, donations or other methods. 

Lease Blocks I and 11: Land units that have been leased for geothermal 

exploration and developnent; located north of Mammth and south of June Lake, 

both east and west of Highway 395. (See map in tbpter I11 of the EIS under 

Minerals: Leasable. ) 

- Lek: Sage grouse slzuttirg grounds used during the mating season for 

courtship &splays. 

Lifestyle: The characteristic way people live, indicated by consmption 

patterns, work, leisure, expressed values, and other behavior. 

LocalRoads: seemas. 

'ty (LTSYC): The highest uniform wood yield 

undera 

L" sustained Yield capacl 

fran lands being managed for timbar prcduction that may be sustained 

specified intensity of managmt consistent with multiple-use objectives. 

Low Stadxd Service: A level of remeation management (including 

alternative. 

maintenance and Savices) preSQsbed when recreation costs are reduced in an 

271 
M 

M (m): million. Ccmran examples are: 

Rs a prefix t0 a unit Of “3, M indicates thousand; PBI indicates 

MAUM - thousand animal unit mnths 

MBF (WF) - thousand (million) board feet 

MCF (WCF) - thousand (million) cubic feet 

MRVD (m) - thousand (million) recreation visitor days 

M(PBI)$ - -and (million) dollars 

M acres - thousand acres. 

MA: - SeeManagementArea. 

MENFSA: Wmo Basin National Forest Scenic Area. 

MCWD: Mamnsth County Water District. 

MIS: - 

MIR: - SeeMini” Implmentaticm Requiranents. 

MKT: - A Forest Plan Alternativa which was eliminated. It emphasized high 

The b”rk which “izes Present Net Value (PNV) for market value 

See Management Idcator Species. 

level outputs of market resources. 

- MKV: 

resources. 

- MLV: The b”ark which emphasizes Mhi“ Level Management. 

- m: SeeMini” Management Requirement. 

ManmvWJum: The geographic area bout-&& by U.S. 395 on the east; State 

Route 203 on the south; the John Muir and Ansel Adams Wildernesses on the 

west; and the riagelhe of the June Lake ccinplex on the north. 

Marlaganen t Area (MA): A contiguous area of land used in planning, to which 

one or more prescriptions are applied. Manag-t areas do not vary between 

alternatives; however, the prescriptions applied to them do vary. 

Managanen t Cc”: 

Managanen t DMcm: A statement of multiple use and other goals and 

objectives, the manag-t prescriptions, and the associated standards and 

guidelines for attainirg them. 

Managenen tEhphas is: The pritnaq focus of a multiple-use manag-t 

prescription or of an alternative. 

A management problem recpiriq resolution. 

272 
-t Indicator speci es (MIS): A wildlife species wl-ose popllatlO81 and 

trendinac" ' habitat type indicatss the popilation and trend of other 

species #at are also dependent O81 that habitat type. 

ManagElEll t "ity: 

gcCdS and services. 

ManagElEll t prescription: Managenent practices selected and scheduled for 

application 081 a specific area to attain multiple-use benefits and other 

guals and objectives. 

transactians. Timber, range, develOpea recreatlca, and -ais are market 

The management practice or cabma . tim of management 

practices and their associated msts designd to obtain different levels of 

Marketoutprrs : cutputs lysrmally exchanged in markets as evidenced by 

outputs pro6ud on the Inyo. 

Modificaticn (Vpo): See Visual eUality objectives. 

Mean Annual Increnent: The average yearly growth of a -tree, calculated by 

dividing the volume of the tree by its age. 

Mineral DeveloJpsl t: 

Mineral htq: Filirg a claim to bld ctr plnchase public land in order to 

claim the rights to 

Ekploraticn: The search for minarals on lands open to mineral en-. 

pmduction: !&tractim of minsrals. 

The preparation of a pmven depsit for mining. 

s it mtains. 

Mjneral Withdrawal: The withbl~ of an area of fm land fmm nrixral 

entry or developent in order to reserve the area for a particular public 

purpose or -am. 

Minerals, Leasable: M' Is which are developd (explored, mined, 

extracted, etc.) by a pennit or lease, in mkast with mineral develogllmt 

through claims staking. 0xgre.s~ has specified the fo1lu.ci.g as leasable 

minerals: coal, oil, gas, patassim, sodium, phosphate, oil shale, native 

asphalt, solid and semisolid bitmen and bitmjrous rock, geothermal 

resources, and deposits of sulfur in Louisiana and New Mexico. Locatable 

minerals on acquired land are leasable. 

Minerals, Locatable: Minerals an public daMin lands which are mined and 

processed to rewver inb5nsically valuable substances such as gold and 

copper and chanical grade li" and asbstos. May include any solid, 

~bal ~~IKJ~ISLC substance "ring in the crust of the earth except for 

cm" mineral materials and leasable "xal s. Developedthroughaclaims 

location and patent pnxess. Locatable minerals on acquired land are 

leasable. 

-s, Salable: Mhwals that OCCUT in high-volume, lav-unit-vahe 

depits and have m distinct or special ecoIlcmic value over similar 

materials. Disposal is authorized tluough a sales system, by the Materials 

Act of 1947. -1s are sand, gravel, stme, and canmn clay. 

273 
-1-tatirm Resuiremen ts (MIR): The management rec@mEnts which 

are necessary to ensure a level of public acceptance. 

Ml"Managenen tRequk" ts (m): constraints or activities necessary 

to maintain viable wildlife populaticm and to prevent permanent hpaiment 

.. 

of the pnxiuctinty of the GxX 

Muung Clains: That portion of the public estate held for miniq purposes in 

which the right of exclusive possession of locatable mineral depsits is 

vested in the locator of a depsit. 

Mitigate: Actions to avoid, "ize, reduce, eliminate, or rectify the 

adverse inpacts of a managerent practice. 

Modificatirm (W): 

Wmitoring and Evaluaticm: The prio3ic evaluation on a sample basis of 

objectives have been mt, how closely management stw have been applied, 

and whether actual environmental -equences are sjmilar to those predided. 

Mtiple Use: The manag-t of all renewable surface resources of the 

National Forests so that they are utilized jn the ina at ion that will best 

meet the needs of the American people. 

~ - - 

.. 

See Visual Quality Objectives. 

management practices prescribed by the Forest plan, to del%?" . how well 

N 

NpB: See Net Public Benefit. 

NEPA: SeeNational tal Policy Act. 

NR4& - See National ForeSt Management Act. 

NFWS: 

m: 

- NON: The benchmark which maximizes Present Net Value (W) with a 

reccmnendation that m Further Planniq Areas tecane wilderness. 

- NNL: National Natural Lamimxks. (See National Registry of Natural 

Lananarks. ) 

See National Fxe Managanent Analysis system. 

See National Forest System Land. 

- NRT: 

Natid tal Policy Act (NEF'A): The 1969 Ad of "gmsss that 

See National Recreaticm Trail. 

represents a basic national charter for protech 'On of the -t. 

National Fire rQMgalm t Analysis System (NiW?S): A broad process to assist 

fire managers in fulfilling their planrihg and analysis roles. The system 

274 
National Forest Ma -z t Act (NEMi): A 1976 Act of Ctmgress that imEends 

the 1974 Forest and Rangeld Renewable ResourceS Plm Act (RPA). NFMA 

requires the preparation of Regkmal and Forest plans and guides their 

developnent . 

National Forest System (NZS) Land: Lands aidminist ered by the U.S. Liepartrne?t 

of Agriculture, Forest Smce. 

National Recceaticn Rail (NRI!): A trail designated by the S-tary of the 

In-ior or the Secretary of Agriculture the Natimal -1s System 

Act. Naticnal recreation trails are design& to +de a variety of outdoor 

recreation uses III or reasmably accessible to urban areas. 

Naticmal Regl ‘ster of Historic Places: A listing maintained by the U.S. 

Depart”t of Intenor, National Park Service of areas that have been 

designated as historically significant. The National Register includes 

places of local and state significance, as well as thase of value to the 

nation h general. 

Naticnal Regis- of Natural Lawhxks: A register of areas lpssessing such 

exceptional values or qualities for illustrating or interpretiq the M~UJX~ 

heritage of our nation that they are considered to be of ~ti~~

Sq-Lficance. Sane examples are significant natural landforms, land or 

aquatic ecosystems, and geologic fomaticms. 

tiaticnal Wild ad Scenic River : Rivelswithoutstandingscenic, 

recreational. aeolwic, fish and wildlife. historic. cultural, or other 

similar values-and Lignated by Caqress &der the Wild and SAC Qivers 

Act for preservation of their free-fl0wi.q condition. 

National Wilderness preservatian system : 

de-t or agency havifg jurisdiction. 

Net Public Benefit (“PB): The overall value to the nation of all outputs and 

positive effects (benefits), less all associated irqmts and negative effeds 

(costs), whethex they can be quantitatively valued or not. Net public 

benefits are measured by both qualitatiw and quantitative criteria rather 

than a single measure or index. 

Ncndeclining Yield: 

All lands covered by the Wilderness 

A& (1964) and subsequent wilderness designatims imespch ‘ve of the 

Timber scheduled for harvest so that any given -de’s 

production does not fall below the previ- decade‘s prcduction. 

“rketoutplts : In the 

Forest Service, the foll0wi.q resoutce cutguts are classified as nomarket 

outputs: dispersed recreation, wildlife and fish user days, water. AlthDugh 

not nonnally exchanged in markets, the Forest Service calculates and assigns 

Forest outguts not normally exchaqed in markets. 

nKm3taI-y values to these outputs for analysis purposes. 

275 
0 

- o%N: See Off-Highway Vehicle. 

- OSV: See Over-Snai Vehicle. 

Objective: 

pre-established goals. 

Objective Functim: A term used in linear -- referring to the item 

to be maxinuzed (or minimized) in the problem’s solution: such as maximize 

PNV, “Lze timber. 

Off -Highway Vehicle (OIN): 

mads. Examples include 4-ml drives, dum? buggies, and sane mtorcycles. 

Over-snOW Vehicle (OSV): Over-- tracked or ski vehicle. 

Older Seral Stages: Age classes of trees or shrubs that have passed the 

pericd of yomy, vigo- gmwth. Many wildlife species are dependent on the 

older seral stages of forested envircsynents: these stages include large trees 

generally exceedkg 50 feet in height with a tutal tree canopy of 40 percent 

or greater. Carmercial timber stands are typically harvested hefore reaching 

older seral stages. 

opening: An area of land fran which timber has been harvested (generally 

us- even-aged management). The maximum size of openings is 5 to 40 acres 

for forest types on the Inyo. An opening is m lcolger considered an opning 

when a specified number of trees per acre within a specific forest type and 

site class have reached 4.5 feet in height. 

Opprtunity Cost: The value of the benefits foregone when a maMgement 

alternative is chosen. 

Outputs: Goods, serv~ces, or on-site uses proauCea fran forest and rangeland 

A time-specific statement of “rable results that msprd to 

Vehicles that can be operated off of a”cted 

L^esources. 

Overstixy : 

uppermost layer. 

That portion of the trees in a forest which fom the upper or 

P 

- P: Wimitive. (See Recreation OpprturLty Spectrum.) 

PAOT: See Persons-At-One-Time. 

PILT: 

- PNV: 

- PRO: An Alternative which has been elinunated fran the Forest Plan. This 

Alternative‘s objective was to determine the Forest’s ability to meet timber 

taqets frcan the Region’s high-prcductimty Alternative. 

Payment in Lieu of Taxes. 

See Present Net Value. 

276 
PRF: sea preferred Alternative. 

- p9): 

- PSW: 

Partial Retention (VQO): 

perennial Stream: 

mth. 

Mttee: ~n individual or organizatim that conduds activities on 

Naticmal Forest land under the stipulaticms of a Forest service permit. 

~xanplffi of permitted activities are grazing, ski area opxatian, resort 

opration, and hydroelectric plant operation. 

See preventian of Significant Deterioration. 

Pacific Southwest (Region 5 of the Forest Service) 

See Visual Quality Objectives. 

A stream that flw throughout the year and fran source to 

--At-Th (PAOT): The lmit Of for -tion Capacity 

defined as the mnhr of peaple that can use a facilityor area at one time. 

'c province ' : A region having a particular pattem of relief 

features or land forms that differs significantly fran that of adjacent 

regions. The Inyo National i ore st lies in tvm physicgraphic p"ces--the 

Sierra Nevada and the Great Basin. 

piagi: 

it defoliates Jeffrey pine trees by eating the needles. 

native foods of the Paiute/Shof;hoI11 ' People. 

Planning period: The time in- within the planning horizon 

that is used to show incrmental changes in yields, costs, effeds, and 

benefits. 

Planning Records: A system that documents data mllections, analyses, 

interdisciplinary team decisions, and activities that result fran the prmess 

of developing a Forest Plan, revision, or significant a"t. 

The larval or caterpillar stage of the Pandora mth dwing which time 

Piagi is one of the 

One decade. 

Plantation: 

an area. 

A stand of -trees resulting fran planting or artificially seeding 

Preferred Alternative (PFW): The Forest Plan Alternative which enphasizes a 

mixture of ccrrmodl 'ty and amenity resource outputs to optimize Net Public 

Benefit (NPB). 

Prescribed Fire: Intentional use of fire under predetermined weather and 

fuel conditions to achieve specific objectives such as rejwenatiq or 

type-- ' vegetation. 

Prescripticn (-): The set of manag-t practices applied to a specific 

area to attain specific objectives. Region 5 distinguishes between FORPLAN 

prescriptions and managenient prescriptions. FORPLAN prescriptions are sets 

of "pure" management activities withut spatial allocation or standards and 

guidelines. Manag-t prescriptions are written as a result of al1ocati.q 

FORPLAN solutions to specific lands areas (Manag-t Areas) and impsirg 

standards and guidelines. (See also Management Areas.) 

277 
Present Net Value (PNV): The difference between the value of discounted 

benefits derived fm all outputs to which mmetary values or established 

market prices are assigned and the total discounted costs of managirg the 

planning area. 

Pre-tion (KO): 

Preventian of Significant Deterimation (PSD): A plannirg and managmt 

process of the Clean Air Act for allocation and use of air resources. 

E%oductive Re-: A category of land that is capable of proaUcing 

cmmercial timber prducts but has been remxed fm the managed timber base 

by congressional or administrative designation (such as Wilderness or 

Research Natural Areas). 

Public Issue: A subject or question of widespread public interest identified 

through public participatmn relating to memagemant of National Forest System 

lands. 

See Visual Quality Objectives. 

R 

- R: Rural. (See Recreation opp3rtunity Spectnnn. ) 

RARE 11: See Roadless Area Review and Evaluation 11. 

RFA: Rural Electric Association. 

- RGN: The benclrmKk which “izes dcmesh ‘c livestock grazing for five 

decades. 

- RIM: 

E: Roaded Modified. (See Recreation opp3rtunity Spectrum. ) 

E: Roaded Natural. (See Recreation opp3rtunity Spz”.) 

- RNA: 

- FKS: 

RPA: The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. 

Also refers to the ~t~onalssessment and rec~nmended program developea 

every five years to Nfill the -ts of the Act. 

RPA Progr a: 

renewable resou~ces on National Forest System lands. 

as the basis for the Regional targets assigned to each Forest. 

RVD: See Recreation Visitor Day. 

- Rx: See Prescription. 

See Recreation Information Managmt. 

See Research Natural Area. 

See Recreation Opprtunity Spectmnn. 

TheMtiOIldL- ‘on (under RPA) for long-range managemant of 

This direction serves 

278 
primary range - includes areas which are readily accessible, have 

available water and will be used before livestock significantly graze 

other areas. 

Semmiaq range - areas less preferred by livestock which will ordinarily 

not be graze3 significantly until the primary range has been used. 

Suitable - land that is or can be made accessible to livestock, that 

pmx3uc-e~ forage or has inheren t forage-prcducing capabilities, and that 

can be grazed an a s"4 ' yield basis mder given management gcals. 

TransitoIy - land tmprarily suitable for grazing, but transient over 

time and/or location. For example, grass may wver an area for a prid 

before being replaced by growth (such as trees) not suitable for 

livestock cx"ption. 

Unsuitable - area that should not be grazed by livestock because of 

unstable soils, steep topgram, or inherent low patential for forage 

prduction. 

~ange Allabnent: m area designated for grazing a prescribed n* and kind 

of livestock. 

Range permittee: An individual wlm has been grate3 written pennisslcm (a 

grazing pxmit) to graze livestock for a specific an a range 

all0trnent. 

Ranger District: 

District Ranger wlm reports to the Forest Supervisor. 

Rarespeci es: One that, although not presently threatened with extimtion, 

is in such snall N4nbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if 

its envi"ent worsens; the "rare" category is a State categoly, not a 

federal cole. 

m: A COII~~~IUOUS men stretch Of a stream with hcn~~~eneous 

An a6ministrative unit of a National Forest supenrised by a 

characteristics; an extzenu 'ty of a stream; a specified portion of a stream. 

Recovery: 

plant or animal species. 

Recreation Exper ience Level: A classification (using a scale of 1 for 

primitive to 5 for nudem) of the level of developnest in canp and picnic 

sites p=rb"g to the types of recreation 'ties and rmdificatiuns 

The achievement of viable papulations of threatened or endangered 

.. in the -t that can be -. 

Recxeaticm rnfonmticn MaMgeoen t (RIM): The Farest Service systgn for 

recording recreation facility condition and use. 

279 
-tion Opportunity Spezlnm (RCS): A means of classifying and managirq 

recreation opportumties based on physical setting, social settiq, and 

managerial settirg. The six different IEOS classes briefly described are: 

a. F'rinutive (P) - An area three miles or mpe fran conventional 

(two-wheel drive) mads, generally 5,000 acres or mre in size, with 

an essentially urrmodified ~*al -t. Users will probably 

experience a high degxs of isolation, closeness to natu~e, 

traqulity, and self-reliance. 

Semi-Frimitive Pbn-Wtorized (SPW) - An area more than 0.5 mile but 

less than 3 miles fmn amventional roads, 2,500 to 5,000 acres in 

size, with only subtle modifications of an otherwise natural 

setting. Users will have experiences similar in kind (but to a 

lower degree) to those found in the primitive ROS class. 

b. 

c. Semi-F'rmitive Pbtorized (SFM) - Same as Semi-primitive 

Pbn-Pbtorized but with motorized use of primitive roads and trails. 

Users would have experiences similar to those in the SPIW class, 

with the addihon of motor vehicles. 

d. Fmaded Natural (FN) - An area accessible by mnventional mads; 

resource modrfications and S~IU- are endent but han" 'ze with 

the natural environment. Users would experience isolation and 

interaction with other parties in roughly eqml proportions. 

e. Waded Wfied (€3'4) - Same as mded Natural, except that resource 

modifications and structwxs are more evident and the probability of 

interaction with other parties would be much lngher. 

f. Wal (R) - The setting is accessible by convmticmal road and 

substankally modified with stmctures or other cultural 

modifications. Users ad experience much interaction mth others; 

there would be little opportunity for isolation. 

g. Urban (U) - The setting is strongly dcminated by st~~ctures, 

highways and streets. Users would not consider this settiq 

attractive for conventional forest recreation. This category 

applies to privately-cwned land on the Forest. 

Rexeaticm Visitor Day (RVD): Twelve hours of recreation use in any 

cmbmhon of persons and hours such as one person for twelve hours or three 

perso~zs for four houcs. 

Recruiiment: Replenishment. In terms of wildlife biology, to achieve 

successful reprcduction or to replenish a supply of habitat elements, such as 

snags or down logs. 

Reforestation: 

artificial methods. 

Reestabli- a crop of trees on forest land by natural or 

Regeneration: Same as reforestation. 

280 
. tjmtar stands so that new orops can be REgeneaticmcilttmg. -. €w“g 

!Chis method is usually applied to stands which c”t eccarmically 

be managed for cannem5al mction because of poor .sto&iq, health, 

planted. 

thrift, quality, or species canposition. 

Rzgirn 5: The Pacific Southwest Region of the Farest Service, including 

primarily the National Forests in Califomia, with snall dtional acreage 

inO5Xp-ldNeVada. 

Regicmal Farestec: l” official responsible for ahhist- a single 

Region of the Forest Service. 

Regulaticm Classes: 

Regulation Class I silvicultural prescriptions are even-aged management 

prescriptions for exist5.q timber stands with N1 timbar yields expected. 

result in optinnnn timber production in volume and/or value. practices in 

this Class are: 

These represent harvest qimes on lands not athenvls ‘e- . that 

a. Clearcutting without i3hnb-g (ncmintensive harvest in FORPLAN) 

b. Sheltermod withut i3hnb-g (mnintensive harvest in FOWLAN) 

c. Clearcutting with thinning(s) p?=ior to harvest. 

Regulation Class I1 silvicultural p”iptions address “special ccolditians“ 

for existing timber stands. These 

represent harvest regimes on lands designated to meet nontimber objectives 

that result in a mean rutation lcmg- than aptir” for timber prduction. 

&rerally 0th- values are accnunted for by omstxaints on harvest rates, not 

by ndifications to yield tables; the exceptions are group selection (item e) 

and specialized prescriptions (item f). 

Reduced timbar yields would be expected. 

Practices in this class are: 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

e. Gmup selectia (hamest openings less than two acres in size) or 

Clearcutting wibt thimiq (mnintensive harvest in FOWLAN) 

Shelterwood withmut thiming (mnintj=nsive harvest in FOWLAN) 

Clearcutting with thinniq( s) prior to hanrest 

Shelterwood with thinning( s) prior to harvest 

single tree seledicm 

f. Specialized prescriptions that contain unique yield tables and/or 

cxmstxaints on harvest rates such as deer winter range prescriptions 

with wider spacirg and no release. 

281 
Regulation Class I11 prescriptions are for existing std which are 

equivalent to the former "maqinal timber yield" categorizakon. Timber 

outputs resulting fran prescriptions in this class will be regulated as a 

separate, rxm-interchangeable oanponent of the allowable sale quantity. 

Practices in this class are: 

a. 

b. 

C. 

d. 

Reimval of single trees or snall groups of trees for sanitation, 

salvage, or hazard reduction (as- yields based on past 10-year 

=€===n=) 

Stand maintenance aloq zones to maintain the vigor of the stands: 

yields are often linked to other harvest in adjacent areas: 

generally this practice is used for streamside and highway zones if 

not otherwise managed by independent sales 

mscriptions for marginal Foroauctivity (lands 

20 cubic feet per acre per year) and/or disputed regeneration 

Group selection (clearcuts less than two acres in size or sirgle 

.tree seldon. 

p-cirg less than 

Rejwenatim: The trea.bnent of vegetation (by burnirag or chenucal or 

mechanical means) so that mgomus, young growth is stimlated. 

Relicted Land: The land that has heen exposed by the declining level of bhm 

Lake and which lies between the elevaticm of 6,417 feet and Wno Lake as it 

varies fm day to day. 

Research Natural Area (RNA): An area established specifically to preserve a 

representative sample of an ecological cc"ity; prmar~ly for scientific 

and educatimal purposes. 

Resident Trout: Trout that live year-round and reproduce in a stream or lake 

(contrasted with trout raised in a fish hatchery, planted, and rerroved by 

anglers). 

Retention (W): 

FSght-of-Way: An accurately located land area within which a user may 

conduct oprations appnxred or granted by the landowner. May also refer to a 

mt, easement, lease, license, or WmxamXnn of Understandmg (Mou) used 

to autborize the land use. 

Riparian Area: Geographically delineable areas with distinctive resource 

values and characteriskcs that are canprised of the aquatic and riparian 

ecosystems. 

See Visual Quality Objectives. 

kparian areas on the Inyo National Forest consist of: (1) as a minimum, 

areas that are a 1oO-fcot horizontal distance from the edge of standing 

bodies of water, lakes, and perennial streams, and (2) all wetlands, 

including all ephemeral or intennittent streams which supprt riparian 

vegetation, wet meadows springs, seeps, and bogs. See Streamside Management 

Zones for ephemeral and intermittent streams mt included in wetlands. 

282 
Riparian Area-Dqmden t Resaurces: Water-dependent vegetation, wildlife, 

fish (and other aquatic animals), soil, and water. 

Roadless Area: As defined by the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE), 

an area of undevelapea Federal land withh which there are m iqxoved roads 

or roads maintained for use by mbrized vehicles; generally 5,000 acres or 

larger unless djacent to an existing wilderness. 

Roadless Area Revim and Evaluation (RARE) 11: !the assessnent of roadless 

areas within the National Forests as potential wilden-ess areas as required 

by the Natmnal Wilderness Act. This refers to the second such assesgnent 

which was documented in the Final Envirmnnen tal Impact Statement of the 

Roadless Area Review and Evaluation pmzess, Januaq 1979. 

Roads: A general term denoting a route for purposes of travel by vehicles 

greater than 40 inches in width. Roads are functionally classified as: 

a. Arterial Roads: Typically *lane, surfaced roads serving large 

land areas and usually ccolnecting with public highways. 

b. Collector Roads: Single-lane or double-lane roads which are 

typically surfaced and serve smaller land areas. They usually form 

a link between arterial and local roads. 

c. Local Roads: Typically native surface, single-lane roads accessing a 

single resource teminal faciliw such as a log landing, a 

caqgromd, a trailhead, or ski facility. 

IEOS Class: 

Rotaticsl Age: 

tree stand and its final cutting. 

See Recreation opporturu ‘ty spectrum. 

The length of time between the formation or regeneration of a 

S 

SAOT: See Skiers-at-one-time. 

SCE: Southem California Edisan. 

SHpO: State Historic Preservation Officer. 

- SIA: 

- SMZ: 

See Special Interest Area. 

See Stream Manag-t Zone. 

- SPM: Semi-Primitive-Motorized. (See Recreation opportunr ‘e? i%=tnm.) 

SFNM: Semi-Frimitive-Nz&. (See Recreation opportunity Spck”. ) 

SRI: See Soil Resource Inventory. 

SSR: See S.tream Chamel Stability Rating. 

283 
Salvage: 

worthless. 

Dead or deteriorating trees often cut before their timbar becanes 

Sanitaticm Harvest: The remmal of dead, diseased, insezt infested, damaged, 

or otherwise low vigor trees to minimize losses fran pests. 

sediment: Solid material, both mineral and organic, that is suspended in or 

being transprted by water. 

Selecticm Cutting: 

Sensitive Spec ies: Species that have appeared in the Federal Register as 

proposed additions to the endangered or threatened @es list, and those 

that are on an official state list or are recogzll ‘zed by the Regional Forester 

as needing wid managanent in order to prevent thein fm kcaning 

endangered or threatened. 

Sensitivity Level: 

scenic qualities of the landscape. 

seral Stage: The developnental or successional stage of a biological 

camunity (related to age class). 

Shelterwood Cutting: Cuttmg a timber stand in two or mre stages. The 

first cutting leaves sone mature trees which provide shade to help seedlings 

get established. The shelterwwd System is a form of even-aged timber 

management. 

Silviculture: merally, the science and art of cultivating forest tree 

See Group Selection and Single Tree Selection. 

A particular degree or measure of viewer intexest in the 

Silvicultural system : The en- process try which forest stands are tended, 

harvested, and replaced. A silvicultural system includes all cultural 

practices perfom during the life of the stand such as regeneration 

cutting, fertilization, thinniq, impravement cuttiq, and use of genetically 

inproved so- of tree seeds and seedlings to obtain multiple-resource 

benefits. 

Single hee Selecticm: The cutting mthcd in which individual trees are 

remxTed to provide a stand with trees of different sizes and age classes on 

the same site. 

Site Prepar aticm: The preparation of an area for regeneration, involving the 

remwal of slash and/or ccrnpeting vegetation and usually the exposure of bare 

mineral soil. 

Size Class: 

mtervals of tree stem diameter used for classification of timber. 

Silvlculturd systems are classified as even- or uneven-aged. 

This method results in an uneven-aged stand. 

For pwposes of Forest planning, size class refers to the three 

Seedling/Sapling: less than five-inch diameter. 

Pole Timber: five to eight-inch diameter. 

Sawtimber: greater than eight-inch diameter. 

284 
SrierS-At-Qle-Time (SOT): A Of skl. Capcity represented by the 

number of skiers that can cmupy the ski 

Slash: The residue left on the ground after timber cuttirg or after other 

disruptim such as storms or fires. Slash includes unutilized logs, 

at mce. 

uprmted stunps, broken stems, branches, twigs, leaves, bark, and chips. 

5mall Game: 

m: A standing dead tree from which the leaves and most of the branches 

have fallen. 

Soil Prodwtz ’viQ: The natural capacity of a soil to prwiuca a specified 

plant species or sequence of species ur&x a specified system of management. 

Birds and snall mamnals normally hunted or tram. 

Soil Resource Irrventary (Srr)/Soil Survey : The systematic examination, 

description, classification and mappm of soils. 

Soil Sueveys : The systematic examination of Soils in the field and 

laboram, including description, Classification, and mapping of soils, and 

the interpretation of soils acoxdmg ‘ to their prcductivity and behavior 

Vary intensive invesb ‘gaticms used for site-specific work, 

such as individual buildkg sites, experimental plots, and 

irrigation and drainage studies. 

Intensive investigatim used for project level work. 

under use and managenlsnt. 

order I: 

order 11: 

order 111: Intermediate level invesh ‘gations used for forest Plannhg 

timber management. 

PI-. 

specid Interest Area (SIA): Areas established and managed for their unique 

or outstanding M~wX~ values, such as botanical, geolcgical, scenic, or 

historical features. 

Special-Use Permit: 

Forest land in the manner specified. 

Species: A fundamental catwry of plant or animal classification. 

staging AKeaniol ding Area: Tm area in which mule deer gather during 

migration, typically while waitxg for weather to clear or s~3w to melt 

before nrwirg to higher elevations. 

e: A CamPJnity of trees or other vegetation types that is sufficiently 

uniform in capsition, constitution, age, spatial arrargemmt, or condition 

to be distinguishable from adjacent cm”.~ ‘ties and to thus form a managemmt 

entity. 

purpses on lands subject to heavy recreational use or 

order Iv: Broad “aissance ‘gations use for forest-wide 

A permit authorizing the ~ccupancy and use of National 

285 
Standard Service: Managmt of recreation facilities whch pmdes for 

vegetation mgmt, full maintenance of facilities, appropriate toilet 

cleaning and garbage pickup, and information and interpptive services for 

the recreation area. 

StOCkUlg ’ Level: The degree to whxh land is occupied by trees (measured by 

basal area and/or numher of trees by size and spacq), ocmpared with a 

stocking standard which establishes the st“q required to fully utilize 

the grawth potential of the land. 

Strattun: A three-part timber category based on tree species, age class, and 

stocking level. 

Steam Channel Stabili-ty Rat- (SSR): A method for evaluating stream 

channel stability was develop3 to evaluate the resistance of mnmtain stream 

channels to the detachment of bed and bank materials and to pravlde 

infonnation ahout the ability of streams to adjust to and recover from 

potential changes m flow and/or increases in sediment prcduction. The 

system was develop4 to be used in conjunction with other hydrologic analyses 

to augment silvicultural prescriptions and improve watershed managmt. A 

brief description of the items rated and the modifications employed in this 

study area mluded below. 

The stream channel stability evaluation prcudure involves subjective field 

evaluation of fifteen items. The channel cross-section is divided into three 

c”ts: upper banks, lower banks, and channel ?attan. upper banks are 

rated for slope, mass wasting, debris jam potential, and bank protection by 

vegetation. Lower banks are rated for channel capacity, bank rock content, 

obstructions, cuthrg, and depition. CAannel ?attans are rated for rock 

angularity, brightness, ccasolidatxn, swuring and deposition, and clinging 

aquatic vegetation. 

Each item is given a rating value which is weighed in terms of its importance 

as an indication of streambank stability. For instance, scouring and 

deposition of the channel ?attan, which is an inprtant factor, is heavily 

weighted, rangq €ran 6 to 24. In contrast, channel capacity, rock 

angularity, brightness, and clinging aquatic vegetation are all less 

important, and have values ranging only from one to four. 

After a stream reach has been rated, values for the items are tokled. A 

score of less than 38 is considered “excellent“, indicating a stable, 

erosion-resistant Stream. A score of 39 to 76 is considered “good“; a score 

of 77 to 114 is considered “fair”, and a score of 115 to 142 is considered 

“poor“. It 1s important to note that a low score indicates stable streambank 

conditions, while a high score indicates unstable, eroded streambanks. 

si” mnag” t ZCaE (SMZ): An administratively designated mne designed 

to call attention to the need for special mgmt practices aimed at the 

"rice and/or improvement of watershed resources. May include 

flccdpl- and wetlands, riparian areas, inner gorges, perennial streams, 

and intermittent streams shmxing signs of recurrent annudl scour or 

depitian. 

286 
Succession: The gradual changing of a biolqLcal cinmnmity over time 

(including the replacement of one camunity by another) until that change 

amis to a halt and the climax camunity is reached. 

Successicmal Stage : A phase in the g-radml charaging of a biolqical 

ca"ity (same as mal stage). 

Suitability: The appropriateness of applying certam . resourcemanagement 

practices to a particular area of land, as detennhed by an analysis of the 

eccomnic and envirmmental consfquenc%s and the alternative uses foregcole. A 

unit of land may be suitable for a variety of individual or &ined "age 

Suitable Timber Lad: 

Sqpressirn: 

sustained Yield: 

See Tentatively Suitable Timber Land. 

Actions taken to extinguish or crmfine a fire. 

See Long-term Sustained Yield Capacity. 

T 

- TBR: 

- T&E: Threatened and endargered species. (Sea Threatened Spies, mdangered 

Species. ) 

- TSI: 

Target: 

stated time Wid. 

Tentatively Suitable Timber Lard: 

comnercial timber managmt must meet the following criteria: 

The b€"wA which "izes timber prcalctl 'on for one decade. 

See Timber Stand Imprwement. 

A statement used to express planned results to be reached within a 

Lands tentatively amsidered suitable for 

a. 

b. 

C. 

d. 

e. 

Presently forested, currently prcducirg or capable of producing 

craps of indlustr ial wood. 

Not wi" fmn timber proauctim by CorgYeSs, the secretary of 

Agriculture, or the Chief of the Forest Service. 

For which technolqy and lamwleCage exist and are available to ensure 

timber proauctiOn without irreversible damage to soils, 

productivity, or watershed conditions. 

Where there is reasonable assurance that adequate restocking can be 

attained within five years after final harvest. 

Where adequate information is available to project nxpmes to 

timber managmt activities. 

Term Permit: A grazing permit or a special-use pmit issued for a specified 

pid of time, but which has a terrmna . timdate. 

287 
lbiming: cuttiq timber to imp- the quality and growth of the trees that 

remain. In camwcial thinniq, merchantable timber (timber of salable 

quality), is cut. ~n premmwxial thinnhg, rm-"ntable trees are cut. 

lhreateaed spec ies: Any species which is likely to beccme an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future and which has been designated in the 

Federal Register as a threatened species. 

Tiering: Refers to the practice of analyzm general altex'natives and 

dl33Inwntal consequences in broader m' tal Inpact Statemats and 

mre detailed alternatives and cnnsequences in site-specific awim"tal 

documents. The mre specific -tal document is then tiered to the 

analysis found in the mxe general one. 

Thber producti ax miq, tending, , and reg-atim of 

regulated crops of trees to be cut into lcgs and bolts for industrial or 

consmsr use. Does not include fuelmxl. 

Timber Stand ts (TSI): The use of no"enial thinning, 

cleaning, weeding and intmate cuttings to eliminate or suppress less 

desirable vegetation and improve oanposition, condition, Structure, or grawth 

of a stand. 

Trade-off: 

or mst. 

The impact on an output or cost caused by changing another output 

Trailhead: The parking, signing, and other facilities available at the 

beginning of a trail. 

Tranpling and chiseling: A measure of the dqree of livestock utilization 

and the extent of livestock damage alq a stream reach. hampling is 

defmed as hoof mar&, soil disturbance, soil Caupaciam with evidence of 

hoof marks: bare soil with evidence of hoof mks, and trampled vegetation. 

Cattle trails bordering the stream or nossing it are mluded XI this 

concept only when basal vegetatim has been "ved and bare ground has been 

exp3sed. Chiseling is identified by arc-shaped cuts in streambanks caused by 

cattle or sheep hcwxres. 

Tuff: A type of light-mlored volcanic rock canmnly found on the Inyo 

National Forest north of Bi&p. 

Type Cm-ion: 

wther, such as shrub to grass or sagebrush to bitterbrush. 

The conversion of one vegetation type or plant species to 

U 

- U: Urban. (See Recreation Opprtunity Spectrum.) 

US%: 

E: 

USGS: United States Geological Survey. 

United States Forest Service, Deparbnent of Agrxculture. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 

288 
u&ers&q: Law-grawing vegetaticn such as grasses, shrubs, or &l trees 

grawirag under a stand of trees. 

stand below the ovamtoq. 

uneven-agd Manam t: Managanent of forest stands which results in trees 

of several or many ages gnxing together. Cutting methods gmduchg 

uneven-aged stands are single-tree selection and YO UP selection. 

Unpld IgnitiQl: A fd Started at randan by aither MtlP3.l 01: human 

causes or a deliberate arson-set fire. 

unsuitable Thhr Lands: Refers to land which is not suited for t.lmber 

prw3ucztion according to the criteria listed at" under Tentatively Suitable 

Ti~nbr Land. 

Also, that prtion of trees in a farest 

v 

VAC: SeeVisualAborpb 'on Capability. 

VpI: See Visual Quality Index. 

vpo: See Visual Quality Objectives. 

Variew Class: A classification System with three visual landscape 

categories: 

a. Distinctive (Variety Class A): unusual and/or Outstanding landscape 

variety that stands out fran the cammn features in the landscape. 

b. amrOn (Variety Class B): FTevalent, usual, or widespread landscape 

variety; also refers to ordinary or undisthpished visual variety. 

i%"l (Variety Class C): Little or M visual variety in the 

landscape: mctcmous or below average mnpared to the camy3n 

features in the landscape. 

.. C. 

Viable popul aticas: Re-cing p3pulations of plants or animals of 

sufficient numbrs and distribution to assure indefinite perpetuation of the 

species. 

Visual Absorp ticn Capab ility (VAC): The ability of the landscape to 

withstand manag-t manipulation witlmut significantly affecting its visual 

character. Rated as high, nuderate, and low. 

Visual condition: The state of visual alteration measured in degrees of 

deviation fm the natural appearing landsape. 

Visual Quality Index (WI): A numerical rating of scenic quality that 

refleck both the ocoldition of the landscape and the acreage of land in each 

of the six visual condition levels raqing fran Type I (appears to be 

untouched by human activities) to Type VI (appears to be drastically 

disturbed). 

289 
Visual Quality Objectives (Vpo): A set of measurable maxi" levels of 

future alteration of a characteristic landscape. These levels are: 

a. Preservation: Ecological charge only. 

b. Retenticm: Human activihes are not endent to the casual Forest 

visitor. 

c. Partial Retention: Human activity may be eimdent but must remain 

subordinate to the characteristx landscape. 

d. Modification: Human activity may dominate the characteristic 

landscape but must, at the same time, follow naturally established 

form, line, color, and texture. It should appear as a natwal 

cccurrence when vlewed in foreground or middleground. 

Maxi" MYhfication: Human activity may ckmunate the characteristic 

landscape but should appear as a natural cx%urrence when viewed as 

background. 

Visual Resouroe: The ccmposite of basic terrain, geologic features, water 

features, vegetative patterns, and land use effects that typify a land urut 

and influence the visual appeal the unit may have for visitors. 

e. 

W ~ 

WFHR: 

- WFUD: 

- M: Wildlife Habitat Relaticmshps. (See Wildlife and Fish Habitat 

Relationslups. 

- WIN: 

- WLI: A Forest Plan Alternative which has been eliminated. It recomrmends a 

substantial amount of quality acreage for wilderness while maintaining or 

increasing commodl 'ty outputs through intensified managenent of lands outside 

wilderness. 

- WIN: 

Planning Areas as wilderness. 

Watch List I: Those plant species which the California Native Plant Society 

lists as needing mre inf-tion before their legal status can be 

determined. 

Watch List 11: 

has listed in the past, but are currently delisted. 

Water Rights: 

See Wildlife and Fish Habitat Relationship. 

See Wildlife and Fish User Day. 

See Watershed Impravement Needs. 

The benchmark which "izes Present Net Value (PNV) mth all Further 

Tbse plant species mch the California Native Plant Society 

The legal right to use water. 

290 
Warn Yield: 

a watershed, over a given perid of time. 

The total a"t of water rxnrkig fran an area Of land, comrolly 

watershed: 

stream. 

The entire area that ocoltritutes water to a drainage system or 

watershed Inprovenen t Needs (WIN): An irrventory of meadow ccniplexes on the 

forest which have a histnry of being used for grazing. This inventory 

determmes their conditicm of being either healthy, damaged or threatened. 

Erosion (gull- or headcutting) has been documented for over 25,030 acres. 

Wild and Scenic River: A river set aside under the 1968 Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act to preserve its natural envi,r"nt and water quality. The 

follawing are the subcategories of wild and scenic designation: 

a. "Wild River Areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free 

of impoundlments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with 

watersheds or shorelines essentially primitwe and waters 

unpolluted. These -tvestiges of prjmitive America." 

b. "Scenic mvm Areas: Those rivers or sectians of rivers that are 

free of iqgmdmn ts, with shorelines or watersheds still largely 

primitive and mines lqely undeveloped, but accessl 'ble in 

places by roads. " 

c. "Recreational River Areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that 

are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have scme 

developnent along their shorelines, and that may have mdeqone scme 

impouncmnent or diversion in the past." (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1273 (b)) 

Wild "ut stream: A stream designated by the State of California to managed 

exclusivgly for the pmpagation of wild trout (those hatched in the wild); 

such sti-eams are not stocked with hatchery-stocked trout. 

Wilderness: 

a. 

As defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964, wilderness: 

is undeveloped Fedeml land witbut p"nt hp"snnts or human 

habitation: is protected and managed so as to preserve its ~t~al 

amditions: 

has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation; 

has at least 5,000 acres or is of sufficient size to make practical 

its condition; and miry contain features of scientxfic, educational, 

scenic, or historical value, as well as ecolqic and geologic 

interest. 

b. 

c. 

Wildfire: An unplanned ignition. 

Wildlife and Fish Habitat Relaticnships (WFHR): A system for Organizing 

infomation about wildlife and fish species. their habitats. and the 

relationships between them that is used- in iand and resource~managemnt 

Planning. 

291 
Wildlife and Fish User Day (WEUD): Twalva hours of nticm use involving 

wildlife or fish (prjmarily huntjrq and fi-). 

Withdrawal: Withblding an area of Federal land fm settlement, sale, 

location, or en- allawecl under the general land laws to reserve the area 

for a particular or program. 

Y 

Yield Table: A tabular statement of 

under a specified set of conditions. 

outputs expected to be meed 

” 

Zone of Influey;u?: The gecr3raphic area “omdug . and intermingled with 

Natimal Forest lands wherwn ’ people live whose lives are mxt directly 

impacted by Forest managanent decisions and activities. 

292 
. 
CHAPTER VII. Index 

Air Quality: 5, 27-28, 66, 75, 107, 113, 246 

Alpine Ski Area, Existirg and under Stldy: 138-139, 166-169, 186-189, 192-195 

Alplne Skiing: 47-48, 138-142 

Ancient Bristleccole Pine Forest: 123-125 

Bald Eagle: 20, 59-60, 72, 99, 255 

Benb-Casa Diablo Management Area: 204-207 

Bighom Sheep: see -tab Sheep 

Bishop (Ireek-Buttermilk Manag -t Area: 

Blue Grouse: 20, 59, 61-62, 101 

Burros: 13, 45-46, 231, 250 

217-220 

-: see Developed Recreation Site 

Ckmcenkated Recreation Area: 136-137, 215, 219, 227 

conV1ct-Md;ee Manag -tArea: 200-203 

Coyote Managemat Area: 221-224 

Cultural Resources: 6, 28-30, 66, 75-76, 107, 119, 136, 143, 158, 173, 187, 

193, 247 

Cutthroat Trout: 9, 34-35, 73, 79, 182, 187, 228 

Dams: see Facilities 

Deer: seeMuleDeer 

Designated Wilderness: 107-112 

Developd Recreation Site: 47, 86-87, 143-144 

Dispersed Recreation: 48-49, 87, 145-146 

Diversity: 6, 30-31, 66, 76, 136, 248 

Eoonanic Factors: 5, 22-24, 66 

- 

hergy: 6-7, 31-32, 66, 77, 107, 113, 116-117, 119, 123, 126, 143, 145 

Facilities, Roads and Trails: 7-8, 32-34, 66, 70-71, 77-78, 107-108, 113, 

116-117, 119-120, 123, 126, 140-141, 147, 149, 187, 193, 219, 227, 231-232 

293 
Fire Suppress ion: seeProtecticol 

Fish: 

Fisher: 59, 61, 98, 256 

Fisheries: 9, 77-79, 85, 108, 113, 120, 126, 136, 219 

Fuelwood: seeTlmber 

Further Plw Areas: 9-10, 36 

Geology: 

9, 34-35, 67, 72-73, 78- 79, 182, 187, 193, 219, 228, 236, 248-249 

10, 37-38, 67, 80, 108, 120, 123, 126, 136, 145, 158, 167, 173, 

182, 187, 193, 198, 202, 211 

Geol3"al: SeeMiWals 

Glass Mnmtain Manag mt Area: 170-174 

GoldenEagle: 60, 100 

Golden Trout: 35, 79, 126, 236 

Golden Trout Managment Area: 233-237 

Goshawks: 20, 59-61, 72, 100-101, 254 

Grazq: seeme 

Great Gray Cwl: 59, 62, 101, 256 

Gnnmdwater: seeGeolcgy 

htdpcker: 60, 102 

Hardwmds: 80, 131, 146 

High Level Timber Manag" t: 132-133 

ydroelectric: see bezgy 

Int- tiveservices: 87 

InyO~ainsManag ement Area: 229-232 

June Lake Lmp Management Area: 

Lands: 

177, 187, 193-194, 211, 228 

Lee vining Managemen t Area: 

164-169 

11, 38-40, 67, 71, 80-82, 108. 113, 120, 123, 126, 130, 132, 141, 167, 

155-159 

Lwestcck: seeme 

294 
Manag-t Indicator Species (MIS): 35, 59-64, 98-105, 112, 256-257 

Mann~~th Escarpnen t Management Area: 

Mamroth Managaent Area: 190-195 

184-189 

): 11-12, 40-42, 67, 71, 82-83, 108, 113, 116-117, 120, 123, .. Minerals (Muwng 

126-127, 136, 138, 141, 143, 145, 147, 149, 167, 187 

" Basin Manag ement Area: 

PZnm Ba~m National Forest Scenic Area: 42, 122, 154, 174 

M0mta1.1-1 Bike: see Dispersed Recreation 

152-154 

Wmt- Sheep: 20-21, 60, 62-63, 72-73, 88, 101-102, 112, 114-116, 157-159, 

211-212, 231, 255 

me Deer: 20-21, 59-61, 72-73, 98-99, 117-118, 131, 137, 139, 142, 148, 163, 

169, 174, 183, 189, 195, 203, 207, 241, 255 

lvhlltiple Resource Area: 149-150 

Nordic Skiing: see Dispersed Recreatim 

Off-highway Vehicle (OHV): 49, 70-71, 78, 87-88, 109, 114, 116-118, 120, 124, 

128, 130, 132, 134, 137-138, 141, 143-145, 147, 149, 211, 220, 223, 241, 251 

0ver-m~~ Vehicle (OSV): 49, 78, 87-88, 109, 114, 116, 118, 120, 124, 128, 

130, 132, 134-135, 137-138, 141, 144-145, 147, 149, 168, 173-174, 182-183, 188 

Owens Valley Escarpnen t Manag-t Area: 

~PW-UYS Falcon: 20, 59-61, 72, 100, 255 

225-228 

Pest Management: 

Pine Marten: 59, 62, 98, 256 

Pimna Managaent Area: 175-178 

Potential Alpine Ski Area: 140-142 

Prairie Faloon: 60, 100 

prop3sed Wilderness: 113-115 

12, 42-43, 67, 83-84, 108, 114, 120, 123, 136, 143, 249 

protectian (Fire Manag -t): 

120, 123-124, 127, 130, 132, 134, 136, 138, 141, 143, 145, 147, 149, 250 

12-13, 43-45, 67, 71, 84, 108-109, 114, 116-117, 

Range: 13-15, 45-46, 67, 71, 84-86, 109, 114, 116-117, 120, 124, 127, 130, 

132, 134-136, 141, 143, 149, 158, 163, 173, 178, 182, 206, 211, 215, 219, 223, 

228, 232, 236, 241, 250 

295 
Recreation: 13-15, 46-49, 68, 72, 86-89, 109-110, 114, 116, 117-118, 120, 124, 

127-128, 130, 132, 134-138, 141, 143-149, 158, 163, 167-168, 173-174, 178, 

182-183, 187-188, 194, 198-199, 202, 211, 215-216, 220, 223, 228, 236, 241, 251 

Recreaticsl rhmity sp€Yztml : 46, 109, 114, 116-117, 120, 124, 128, 130, 

134, 136-138y41, 143, 147, 149, 163, 211, 223, 251 

Reds Mea--Fish Creek Manag mt Area: 

Research Natural Areas (RNA): 15, 49-50, 68, 89, 119-121, 141 

196-199 

Riparian Areas: 15-16, 50-51, 63, 68, 89-91, 102, 118, 121, 124, 128, 137, 

144, 183, 251 

Roads: See Facilities 

Rock Creek-Pine OE& Management Area: 

Sage Grouse: 20, 59-60, 62, 101, 182-183, 207 

Semi-Primitive Recreation: 147-148 

Sensitive Plants: 16, 51, 91-92, 252 

Sierra Nevada Red Fox: 59, 61, 98, 256 

Srmmbile: See Over-" Vehicle (W) 

Social Factors: 5, 22, 24-27, 66 

Soil: See Watershed 

213-216 

- 

south sierra Managmemen t Area: 238-241 

Special In- Areas and National Natural Lan&ne&s: 16-17, 52, 68, 92, 114 

Spottea Wl: 59, 62, 101, 256 

Timber: 17, 53-54, 68, 72, 92-93, 102-105, 110, 114, 118, 121, 124, 128-129, 

130-133, 135, 137-138, 141-142, 144, 146, 149, 174, 183, 212, 252-253 

Threatened, Ehdang ered and Sensitive Species: 9, 16, 20, 34-35, 51, 59-64, 68, 

72-73, 78-80, 98-105, 110, 183, 248, 256 

Trails: See Facilities 

hout: See Fish 

Tule Elk: 60, 100 

Vneven-aged Timber Management: 130-131 

uppercw3-LsRi~Manag mt Area: 179-183 

296 
Utility Cbmidor: See Lands 

Visual Resources: 18, 54-55, 68, 93-94, 110, 114, 116, 118, 121, 124, 129, 

202-203, 206, 212, 216, 220, 236, 253 

Walker-Parker Managmmt Area: 160-163 

131, 133, 135, 137-139, 142, 144, 146-149, 158, 163, 168, 174, 183, 188-194, 

Watershed (Soils and Water): 18-19, 55-57, 68, 72, 94-97, 110, 114, 121, 125, 

129, 137-139, 158-159, 163, 168-169, 189, 194-195, 207, 216, 220, 224, 228, 

237, 253-254 

Wlute Mountains Managemnt Area: 208-212 

Wild and Scenic Rivers: 19, 57-58, 69, 97, 110, 126-129, 199, 237, 241 

Wilderness: 19, 58-59, 69, 72, 97, 107-115, 121, 129, 159, 212, 220, 232, 257 

Wild Horse: 13, 45-46, 177-178, 210, 250 

Wildlife: 20-21, 59-64, 69, 72-73, 98-105, 112, 114-116, 118, 121, 125, 131, 

135, 137, 139, 142, 144, 146, 148, 150, 159, 163, 169, 174, 183, 189, 195, 203, 

207, 212, 232, 241, 254-257 

Williamson Sapsucker: 60, 102 

windpower: Seehergy 

wolverine: 59, 98, 256 

Yellow Warbler: 60, 102 

297 
I 
Appendix A 

Resource Plans 

The follmhg is a list of existing plans that will be: (1) lIlcoIporated mto 

the Plan without revision, (2) inmrporated into the Plan with mion to 

be revised or updated, or (3) replaced by the Plan. 

EXISTING PLANS INcomRAm m ‘ME PLAN mm REVISION 

- Imvidual Research Natmal Area (RNA) Managewnt Plans for established 

Research Natural Areas: 

Indiana smt Established 1932 

Harvey Mcolroe Hall Established 1933 

White Pbuntain Established 1953 

Last chance Meadow Established 1982 

Sentinel Meadow Established 1983 

- Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest Managmt Plan (1958) 

- Buttermilk Deer Herd Manag-t Plan (California Department of Fish and 

Game) (1984) 

- Environmental Assessnent and operatug Plan for Geothermal Exploration in 

the Long Valley Caldera (Lease Block I) (1980) 

- Erwimmwntal Assessment and operatirag Plan for Union C%~thennal Inyo Danes 

aOject (1985) 

- Ehvirunmental Assessment for Geothermdl Leasing in the mnad Meam Area 

(1985) 

- Erosion Prevention Plan for Mannwth Pbuntain Ski Area (1983 update) 

- Erosion Prevention Plan for June Mountain Ski Area (1982) 

- Fishery Management Plan for Lahontan Cutthroat Trout sm clarkii henshawi 

m Califomia and Westem Nevada Waters (1986) 

-Geothemnal Leasing aOgram for the PIR-IO-W Valley KimwIl Geothermal 

Resource Area (prcgramnatic Final &wi”a tal Impact Statement) (1973) 

- Golden Trout Habitat and Watershed Restoration Plan for the Kem Plateau 

(1983) 

- Goodale Deer ~exd Management Plan (california DepaAmmt of Fish and Game) 

(1983) 

298 
- Hot Creek Wild R-out Management Plan (California Deparhnent of Fish and 

Game and Inyu National Forest) (1986) 

Fish and Game) (1985) 

- Inyo-white lvbuntains Deer Herd Manag-t Plan (California Department of 

- June Lake Loop - A Review of Current Water Uses and Future Needs (1982) 

- Labntan Cutthroat Trout Draft Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

- ~abntan Cutthroat ’prout Habitat Management Plan (1983) 

- Law Enforcement Plan (1985) 

- Lcolg Valley Caldera - M3no Crater Gn-~tingmcy Plan (1983) 

- Long Valley Caldera - Wnm Crater Fire and Air operaticol Plan, (Inyo and 

Semi=) (1985) 

Toiyabe National Forests) (1983) 

-Ma”* County Water District Water Management Plan Enviramental 

Assessment (1977) 

- Managemnt Plan for the Casa Dial0 Deer Herd (California Deparhmt of 

Fish and Game) (1985) 

- Managemnt Plan for the East Walker Deer Herd (Califomia Deparhwnt of 

Fish and Game) 

- Management Plan for the Sherwin Deer Herd (California Deparhnent of Fish 

and Game) (1985) 

- tb~che Deer Herd Plan (California TWprhwrr: of Fish and Gam) (1981) 

- Mnm Lake Deer ~erd Managanent plan (California Deparhnent of Fish and 

Gam) 

- Pacific (sest National Scenic hail Management Plan (1981) 

- Pacific Coast Recovery Plan for the American Peregrine Falcon (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service) (1982) 

- Pacific States Bald Eagle Recwery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 

(1986) 

- Paute Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 

(1985) 

- Prunghorn Antelope Habitat Management Plan (Bureau of Land Management, 

California Deparbent of Fish and Game, Forest Service) (1982) 

- Rock r=reek Recreaticol Area Chpxite Manag-t Plan (1964) 

- Saline Valley and Lee Flat Burro Herd Management Plan (1985) 

299 
- Sierra Nevada Bigl” Sheep Recovery and CX”ation Plan (California 

Department of Fish and Game, Forest Service, Sequoia/Kings Caym Natirmal 

Park, YoSemite Natirmal Park) (1984) 

- supp1-tal tal Assessnent far Geothermal Leasing in the 

--Lo% Valley KGRA (Lease Block 11) (1984) 

- Watershed Inpmwwnt Needs Plan (1982) 

- Wild Horse Managecent Plan for White Wamtain and Inyo tmuntain Herds 

(1976) 

EXISTING PLANS -TED WIlli DIFZCI’ICN To REVISE OR UPIlATE 

- Golden Trout Wilderness Managerent Plan (1982) 

- Hoover Wilderness Management Plan (1977) 

- Individual grazirag allotment manag-t plans (various dates) 

- Interagency Motor Vehicle Use Plan (OHV Plan) (1977) 

- John Wr Wilderness Managerent Plan (1979) 

- Minarets Wilderness Managerent Plan (1979) (revise to include 1984 

wilderness additions) 

wsrm PLANS THAT WILL BE REmgcED BY ‘RIE PLAN 

- Mamroth-Mono Unit Plan (1979) 

- Ranger District Multiple Use Plans (circa 1970) 

- Timber Managecent Plan for Cmens River working Circle (1967). 

300 
The following plans will be needed for Plan inplementatian. They are listed 

by resource: 

Air Quality 

-Air Quality Resource Values Plan that establishes Air Quality Resource 

Values and Air Quality Resource Values Indicators to nnnitor Forest and 

m-Forest activity effects on Class I Areas. 

mtut-al Resances 

- CUlM ResourceS In-tatiCm Plan. 

- cultural Resource Managmt Plan for the Ekntm Range in cooperatian with 

- F?rcgramnatic Mamranda of Agreements with the Califonsia and Nevada State 

Historic preservation Officers and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Presemation typ-of-site evaluations and categories of undertakings. 

the Bureau of Land Management. 

- protection ~lans‘for ass I and vandalized cultural resource properties. 

Facilities 

- Teleccmrmnicatians Plan for the Inyo National Forest. 

Fish 

- Paiute Cutthroat Trout Rw Plan. 

- Cwens Tui Chub Rea~ve~y and Managemnt Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

~ 

Service). 

Lands 

- Apiary Site Ccordination Plan . ted between land management 

agencies: ore st Service, Bureau of Land Managenst, Lcs Angeles Deparhnent 

of Water and Pmer). 

- Landownership Mjustment Plan. 

MlIlWXlS 

- 0” Variety Mineral Materials Management Plan. 

- hvironmental Assessnents and Operating Plans for geothermal leasing in the 

mche area. 

301 
Protection 

- Fire Management Action Plans including suppression policies. 

Range 

- Wmtgmry Pass Wild Horse Managemat Plan. 

Recreation 

- ccmposite Managemnt Plans for selected concentrated recreation areas: (1) 

Reds Meadau, (2) Bishop CYeek, (3) Mann~~th Lakes Basin, (4) Lee Vlrung 

Canyon, (5) JuneLakeLOOp. 

- Forest-wide Recreation Residence Future-USe Det-tion Plan. 

ResearchNaturalAreas 

- Wee Meadow Research Natural Area Manag-t Plan. 

- Whipprwill Flat Research Natural Area Management Plan. 

Riparian 

- &parim Resource Managmt Plan. 

scenic Area 

- Wnm Basin National Forest Scenic Area i"gem?nt Plan (under Section 304 

of the Califorma Wilderness Act of 1984 - PL 98-425). 

Sensitive Plants 

- Sensitive Plant prosram Management Plan. 

Visual Resources 

- Visual corridor Plans for Scenic Highways as follows: 

1. U.S. 395 3. State Route 203 (all) 

2. State Route 58 (all) 4. State Route 168 (Bisbp Creek). 

Wate 

- Road Abandcavnent and Restoration Plan to benefit watershed. 

302 
- Nan-- 've Water Plan. Quantify uses and needs for the follming 

priority st": 

1. Rush creek 5. Owens mq? 

2. LeeVimirg(seek 6. Walker3. Big Pine (seek 7. Parker4. Division (seek a. COttcmKdCreek. 

Wilderness 

- Management Plans for reccmnended wild- area^. 

- South Sierra Wilderness Managemat Plan. 

Wildlife 

- Bald Eagle Wintering &-ea Plan. 

- Califomia and Nelsan Mnmtain Sheep Management Plan. 

- Cliff-Nestbq Raptor Managemnt Plan for Golden Eagle and Prairie Falcnn. 

- Ccshawk Habitat Managmt Plan includirg "a . tion of tinlber management 

with goshawk habitat needs. 

- Krmwn Fawning Area Map of Forest. 

- Sage (;rouse Habitat Managemnt Plan for Laq Valley. 

NEEDED FOR PLAN -TION 

cul.tu2-a.l Resources 

- Forest-wide cultural resource inventozy. 

- Inventory of cultural sites on the Forest. 

- Periodic update of the Forest Prehistoric Overview and Data Base to reflect 

changes jn manag€ilEnt l3ind.x 'on and state-of-the-art information. 

Facilities 

- InventoIy of Unhven~edroads on the Forest. 

303 
- Site-specific inf-tim that can be used to evaluate the risk to existing 

and planned Forest Servica and private facilities posed by land 

instability, volcanic, and seisnic prmeses. 

Minerals 

- Program for inventoryjrg, up3atjng current irrventories, and cataloging 

existing mineral materials sites, showirag the type of material, the 

reserves, and a site plan for each site. 

- Site-specific mineral inf-tim to project accurately where cnnflicts may 

arise between mining projects and the public or between federal projects 

and mining-related activities. 

Protecticn 

-Analysis of fire management areas so the mxt cost-effective fire 

suppression strategy (cnnf~t, ccoltainntmt, or control), may be 

applied. 

Riparian 

- Stream inventory to identify: (1) type, anrnmt and condition of riparian 

areas: (2) extent, type and significance of riparian area-de-t 

resources; (3) existing or potential cnnflicts between riparian 

area-dement resources and other resources. 

Sensitive Plants 

-Permanent transect quadrant markers and photo reference points for 

sensitive plant species that might be subject to inadvertent damage by 

management activities. 

- Inventory of lamwn or SLLSpected sensitive plant populations and potential 

sensitive plant habitats to pmvide the data necessary for a biological 

assessnent including rarity, distribution, potential habitat, status, 

threats, and ecological requirements of each species. 

Special Interest Areas 

- Update of the current potential Geologic Special Interest Area i.”bry 

and evaluation of specific sites for fonnal designation as Geologic Special 

Int-t Areas. 

T* 

- Inventory of timber manag-t bacWiogs: reforestation, maintenance, 

release, and preccrmrercial thiruling. 

304 
Watershed: Soils 

- Soil surveys in wilderness (m CXder Soil Survey) and in the Mammth 

and "0 Lake areas (Third order Soil SuIvey). 

- Watershed Imprwerwt Needs Inventcuy for the soil in those areas 

not covered by the water WIN Inventcuy. 

Waiershe& Gyater 

-Inventory of Forest roads needing main- (a source of water 

degradatian), and a Road Restmaticm Acticm Plan. 

- Survey of stream on the Inyo Natimal Forest to identify exi- or 

potential "flicts between riparian-depndent and non-de-t 

resources. Use of the &rw&ank stability evaluation method and the 

tranpljng and chiseling method whxe they apply. Highest priority to 

skeans ccmtaining threatened trout species, wild .trout waters, and 

watersheds that supply water for anlestl 'c uses. 

Wild and scenic Rim 

-Rssessnent of the Middle Fork of the San Joaquin Ftiver for possible 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System in oooperaticol with 

the Sierra National Forest. 

Wilderness 

-IrnrentoIy of structures wim wilderness, fOllOwiq schedules in 

individual Wilderness Management Plans. 

Wildlife 

High Priority 

- Inventory of suitable cliff nesting habitat for iperegrine falcons in the 

"0 Basin. 

Moderate FTiority 

-Verification of location and types of vegetation found on the Inyo. 

Inventory of vegetatian ccmditicm and trends at least every ten years. 

Vegetation data coll&on &ne accmding to the Region 5 Ecology Group 

Standards. Developcent of methDdologies for collecting habitat information 

including the mappjng of vegetation down to at least forty acres for 

terrestrial habitats and five acres for riparian habitats: methoaologies 

for delineating existing and potential aphasis species. 

- Inventory of existing old-grawth stands by District, and registration of 

stands on District. 

305 
- Spotted owl inventory to doclrment the presence or absence of tlus species. 

Inventories to determine the suitability of East Slope Sierra habitats. 

- Inventory to detexmjne the extent of the habitat occupied by the Inyo 

slender salamander, and document major ppulation centers of this species. 

- Developant of Plan impl-tatim direction at the project level. This 

would include drrection for data collection, data analysis and wildlife 

integration into resource projects. 

- Assessment and irnrentory of oak woodlands to deter" habitat suitability 

for wildlife species. 

Low Priority 

-A great gray owl inventmy in old growth conifer stands adjacent to 

mtain meadavs (areas thDught to be great gray owl habitat). 

- Identification of bald eagle winter rcostxg sites. 

- Evaluation of occupied and UMCcLIpied cliff sites of the prairie falcon and 

the golden eagle to determine limiting habitat factors and imprtnr"t 

opportunities. 

- Investigation of the potential for establishing pine martens in suitable, 

UMxCupied habitats. An inventoq to deter" populatim levels and to 

obtain site-specific infommtim regarding this species. 

- Inventory of suitable habitat to de- population levels of wolverine. 

306 
Appendix B 

Research and Technical Data Needs 

The followirg ita have been &awn fm three primary s0u~ce.s: (1) resource 

managers on the Inyo National. Forest, (2) suggestions fm the Regional 

Office of items to include that are appropriate to the Forest, and (3) public 

connents that were received durirg the planning process. 

cultwxll Resources 

- Collect and synthesize pal-vironmental data in order to reconstruct the 

sequence of culturally significant Late Pleistocene and Holocene 

environments in the region. 

1. Identify and date major g-rphic and geological events. 

2. Determine the frequencies, age, and location of past volcanic eruptions, 

Tasks involved are as follows: 

inc1udi.q tephra fall and pyroclastic flow patterns. 

3. Reconstruct past riparian and neoglacial events. 

4. Reconstzuct the succession of past biotic Comrmnities. 

5. Investigate the effects of various botulign bacilli on fish and avifauna 

papulatians, and the potential effects of such outbreaks on past human 

exploitation of these resources. 

6. Detemune ' the initial appearance date of the pandora moth (Coloradia 

pandora) in the region. 

7. Determine the effect of historic activities such as mining, grazmg, and 

water diversion on the pre-contact physical envircorment. 

Eccwcmic Analysis 

- Deterrmne benefit values for "-market resoucces such as dispersed 

recreation, water, wilderness, and wildlife and fish. 

- Conduct marketing (demand) research for Wildlife and Fish User Days (WFODs) 

and Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) . 

Minerals 

- Identify the long-term effects on groundwater and on surface resoucces of 

remsving geothermal liquids. 

Ranse 

- Develop cast-effective methods to regenerate and manage bitterbrush. 

307 
- mantitatiively assess the optinnnn vegetation that range soils can produce. 

Sensitive Plants 

- Ccmplete sensitive plant inventories and surveys of each species and its 

potential habitat to determine trends, status and distribution. 

-Collect the necessary biolcgical data for canplethq eleven species 

management guides. 

- %tennine the type, intensity and axtent of impacts that each sensitive 

species can tolerate witbut jeopardiziq its viability and survival, or 

listed status. 

- Analyze data to detm which species need recovwy plans. 

T- 

-Participate with researchers in designing at least one t.lmber sale to 

investigate the consequences of even-aged and uneven-aged timber management. 

- Research the proauctivity of and n!anag-t opportunities on phym-juniper 

sites. 

- Determine the effects on the nutrient cycle of remvirg large quantities of 

fuelwood. 

Watershed: Soils 

- Measure the effectiveness of various site prqaration techniques for 

pram- tree gmwth and 1ilnitiI-g erosion. 

watershed: water 

-Develop a methodology to assess the canuulative effects of management 

activities on water quality and quantity, and develop criteria and means to 

identify threshold levels of watershed dtion due to cumulative effects. 

Wildlife 

- Study mule deer habitat use and mule deer eoology, areas rot adequately 

- Debmule * the effects of timber harvest practices on goshawk nesting habitat 

understccd at present. 

and hane range sizes. 

-Determine which are the nrxt useful Air Quality Resource Value (AQRV) 

indicators for "itorkg in order to assess air pollution and acid 

deposition on Air Quality Resource Values in Class I Areas. 

308 
- -lop research designs as outlined in the hehistoric Ovexview for the 

investigation and evaluation of specific categories of prehistoric sites. 

-Test the effectiveness of special over-the-m lcgging stipulations 

designed to protect certam ' types of cultural sites in order to implement 

programnatic protection measures. 

- Evaluate the effectiveness of using survey transect intervals greater than 

the current 30-mtex ores st standard in t- of cost- and time-efficiency. 

Take into account such factors as terrain and vegetative cover. 

- Pmiuce an Historic Ovarcriew for the Forest wluch will bring tqether the 

current historic lolowledge about the region and pravide a theoretical 

framework for future research and for evaluations of significance. Tasks 

involved are as follows: 

1. Rewnstn~d and evaluate the relationship between early historical 

settlement patterns and transportation systems. 

slop develapnentS. 

2. Compare regional mining settlement patterns with ccoltemporaneous western 

3. Evaluate railroad lcgging system rm the Forest in ccoltext of the 

Regional Railroad Lqging System research design. 

4.Document and interpret structural ccastrudirm techniques and 

architectural styles used on the region. 

5. Investigate the relationdup of the region to metropolitan developnent in 

California and Nevada. 

- Frcduce an Ethncqraphic Overview that will bring together current lolowledge 

about the ethmgraphically lamwn inhabitants of the region and will consider 

and pruv~de a framework for dealing with contemporary ccolcerm of the 

American Indian cammity. 

- Perform the folladg tasks pending canpletion of the Forest-wide inventory: 

1. Develop predict~ve site location models for prehistoric sites located in 

upland areas of the White, Inyo, and Sierra Nevada muntains. 

2. Develop predictive site location models for historic sites located on the 

Forest. 

3. Develop appropriate sampling stxategies, procedutes of field reoordatlon, 

and methods of data analysis for both prehistoric and historic site 

preclictive models. 

- Complete determinat" of Class I1 propxties (no determination of 

eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places) as either Class I 

(eligible) or Class I11 (not eligible). 

309 
Fish 

- eve lop a habitat capability rmdel for golden trout. 

- Develop a habitat capability -1 for Paiute cutthroat .trout. 

Recxeatiul 

- candud an analysis to deter" the potential for additional smnmbiling 

opp3ltunites. 

Watershed: Soils 

- Develop guidelines to ensure the sustained yield of timber, livestock, and 

other -ties while keeping soil degradahcm at acceptable levels. 

Wateryhed: Water 

-Quantify the instream flows needed for channel canpet- and instream 

values. 

- Continue sediment transpart studies of Mammth Creek to identify sources of 

sediment and to understand the sediment tramp* regime for that stream. 

- Quantify the effects of grazq cm stream bank stability, water quality, 

fish habitat, and sediment yields. 

Wildlife 

High Friority 

- Develop criteria to prevent destmction or adverse mdification of critical 

habitat for threatened and endangered species (Peregrine falcon, bald eagle, 

Owens tui chub, Lahontan cutthroat trout, and Paiute cutthroat trout). 

for dependent mldlife species in the Eastern Sierra. - Collect data relative to optimum and acceptable slag and down lcg "hers 

- Develop a habitat capability -1 for Sierra Nevada n?nmtain sheep. 

- Field test and verify habitat capability -1s for aphasis species. 

- Gather data and @om tasks as follows to help increase the population of 

California mtain sheep: 

1. Assess suitable, UMcCupied habitat. 

2. "itor release sites for trmsplant success, and the sou~ce Fapulation 

to detennine suitability for c"ed transplants. 

3. Ihtify limitirg habitat factors. 

- mua- suitable, uty3ocLp3ied Nelscol -tab sheep habitat for release site 

potential. 

310 
Moderate Friority 

- Determine the way jn which habitat criteria can be used to establish 

population levels of wildlife. 

- Assess the suitability of goshawk nestrng habitat in -ial or 

unsuitable timber. 

Low Friority 

-Assess factors such as road densities and livestock grazing that are 

lunitlng to tule elk habitat. 

- Collect and evaluate informatmn regarding Sierra Nevada red fox, fishex, 

and wolverine to dete" management opportunities. 

- Establish baseline information for fish and wildlife and their interaction 

with vegetation managaent. Include nun!bers of animals vs. habitat change, 

viable populaticms, and the relation of animals to WFUDs. 

311 
Appendix C 

Tentative Ten-Year Timber Sale Action Plan 

Table 1 

Land Classificatirn 

Classif icaticm 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

m-forested land (includes water) 

Forested land 

Forested land withdrawn fran timber 

prcduction 

~orested. land mt capable of pr0dUci.x~ 

crops of industrial wood 

Forested land physically unsuitable; 

irreversible damage likely to OCCUT, 

or rot restockable within 5 years 

Forested land - madqate infonnaticm 

Tentatively suitable forested land 

(item 2 mus items 3, 4, 5, and 6) 

Forested land Mst appropriate for timber 

prcducticol (as assigned to other 

resource uses to meet Plan objectives) 

Total unsuitable forested land 

(items 3, 4, 5, 6, 8) 

10. Total suitable forested land 

(item 2 minus item 9) 

11. Total National Forest land 

(items 1 and 2) 

MAcres 

978.7 

951.1 

326.4 

484.1 

29.9 

----- 

110.7 

36.8 

877.2 

75.2 

1,931.1 

312 
hren-agd Manag-t 

Liquidation of old gmwth 

cI”ia1 Thinning 

1,300 5,100 

490 980 

Vnaren-aged Manag-t 

Liquidation of timber over rotation age 350 1,ooO 

cI”ial Thinning 10 20 

mtal 2,150 7,100 

Timher Stand nt 374 

Reforestation 200 

Allowable Sale Quantity 7,100 

Timber Sale FTqram Quantity 7,100 

Table 3 

Tjmber ProaEtl ‘vie Classification 

potential ~rowth suitable Lands unsuitable Lands - I/ 

(cubic feet/acre/year) (-s) (-1 

Less than 20 

20-49 

50-84 

85-119 

120-164 

165-224 

225+ 

484.1 

290.8 

101.0 

- 1/ The prcductivity of lands, such as wilderness, where data are mt 

available is estimated. 

313 
Table 4 

Present and Ebture* Farest conditicns 

wt - of 

Suitable Land 

Present Forest 

mirq stock 

Live Cull - 1/ 

Salvable Dead - 1/ 

Annual Net Growth 

Annual Mortality - 1/ 

Future Forest 

Growirg stock 

Annual Net Grayth 

Rotaticm Age 

Jeffrey Pine 

Lodgepole Pine 

True Fir 

YYears 

Y1,239 

8,052 

47 

306 

23 

145 

16 

106 

1 

8 

1,119 

25 

140 

100 

180 

* Future = dec- 16 - 1/ Values derived frcm 1979 Timber Managemcmt Inventoq 

Figure 1 

Allowable Sale Quantity and 

Lcng-’l” Sustained Yield Capacity 

2500 

2000 

Allowable Sale 

Qdantity (MCF) 1500 

500 

2300MCFLonq -Term Sustained-Yield Capacity 

2100 

I 

2000 

I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 

314 
Table 5 

Tentative Ten-Year Thkr Sale Actim Plan 

Inyo Naticnal Farest 1989 - 1998 

Area Locaticll VOlUw Road Miles Probable harvest methods 

m Reccmstnxztim by forest type. 

FISCAL YEAR 1989 

MA #5 4.0 

Tunnel c"st 

MA #4, 5, 7 and 8 3.1 

R/W, Ccmnercial Thinnhg 

and Fuelwood Sales 

FISCAL YEAR 1990 

MA #5 4.0 

Crestview cCmparbne.nt 

MA #5 1.0 

sand ccmparhnent 

MA #4, 5, 7 and 8 2.1 

R/W, Cnmercial Thhning 

and helm Sales 

FISCAL YEAR 1991 

MA #5 3.0 

Tunnel &"t 

MA #5 2.0 

"duct c"st 

MA #4, 5, 7 and 8 2.1 

R/A, Cnnnercial Thinniq 

and Fuelwood Sales 

FISCAL YEAR 1992 

I"!?. #5 5.0 

Rust &"t 

2.5 JP even-aged management 

with openings not 

exceeding 20 acres. 

0.0 Small JP and LP wen- and 

uneven-aged qt. sales. 

0.0 JP ever-aged "ent 

with openings not 

exceeding 20 acres. 

0.0 JP even-aged management 

with openings not 

exceeding 20 acres. 

0.0 small Jp and LP even and 

uneven-age3 qt. sales. 

0.0 JP even-aged management 

with openings not 

exceeding 20 acres. 

with openings not 

exceeding 20 acres. 

0.0 JF even-aged manag-t 

0.0 Small JP and LP even- and 

uneven-aged qt. sales. 

1.0 JP even-aged management 

with openings not 

exceeding 20 acres. 

315 
MAW, 5, 7-8 

R/W, Carmenial ‘Ihinning 

and Fuelwood Sales 

FISCAL YEAR 1993 

MA #5 

Rust canpartment 

MA #5 

Pilot ccmpartment 

MA #5 

sand ccmpartment 

MA#, 5, 7 and8 

R/W, Carmercial “Iiq 

and Fuelwood Sales 

FISCAL YEAR 1994 

MA #4, 5, 7 and 8 

R/W, Cnnnercial “Iiq 

and Fuel& sales 

FISCAL YEAR 1995 

MA #7 

Glass canparbnent 

MA #4, 5, 7 and 8 

R/W, Carmercial Thirnhg 

and Fuelwood Sales 

FISCAL YEAR 1996 

MA #5 

Bowl canpartrnent 

2.1 

2.0 

2.0 

1.0 

2.1 

5.0 

2.1 

3.0 

2.0 

2.1 

2.0 

0.0 small JP and LP even- and 

uneven-aged mgt. sales. 

1.5 JP even-aged manag-t 

with openirgs not 

exceeding 20 acres. 

with openings not 

exceeding 20 acres. 

with openings rnt 

exceeding 20 acres. 

uneven-aged m. sales. 

0.0 JP even-aged management 

0.0 Jp even-aged management 

0.0 small JP and LP even- and 

0.0 Helicopter and tractor, 

JP uneven-aged management 

with openings not 

exceeding 2 acres. 

0.0 small JP and LP even- and 

uneven-agedrrgt. sales. 

0.0 JP mevm-aged managmat 

with openings not 

exceedcrg 2 acres. 

0.0 JP uneven-aged management 

with openings not 

ex- 2 acres. 

0.0 small Jp and LP even and 

uneven-aged ngt. sales. 

0.0 JP even-aged managemmt 

with opniqs not 

20 acres. 

316 
MA #5 3.0 

sand canparhnent 

MA #4, 5, 7 and 8 2.1 

R/W, Cunnercia1 Ttdnniq 

and Fuelwood Sales 

FISCAL YEAR 1997 

MA #7 5.0 

Smoke ccmparhnent 

MA #4, 5, 7 anl a 2.1 

R/W, Cunnercia1 Thinning 

and Fuelwood Sales 

FISCAL YFAR 1998 

MA #7 5.0 

Lookout cc”ent 

MA4, 5, 7AND8 2.1 

R/W, Carmercial TMnnhg 

and F.uelwOod sales 

0.0 JP even-agd managenent 

with cpxlings not 

exceeding 20 acres. 

uneven-agd ngt. sales. 

0.0 small JP and LP even- and 

0.0 JP even-aged management 

with openings not 

exceedirg 20 acres. 

0.0 small JP and LP even and 

uneven-aged@. sales. 

0.0 JP even-aged mg-t 

with openirgs not 

ex- 20 a-. 

0.0 small JP and LP even and 

unevm-aged ngt. sales. 
I 

I I 

8. 

8 

P 

6 

8 

0 

9 

I 
~ lnyo National Forest 

Pacific Southwest Region USDA Forest Service 

Record of Decision 

for the 

lnyo National Forest 

Land and Kesource Management Ylan 

19 88 

DENNIS W. MARTIN 

Forest superv,sor 

PAUL F. BARKER 

Regional Forester 

Thts Forest Plan establishes the management direction and 

associated long-range goals and ObJectiVeS for the 

lnyo Natronal Forest for the next ten to fifteen years 
Chapter Page 

I . The Decision .................................... 1 

I1 . Alternatives Considered ............................ 4 

Ill . Rationale for the Decision ........................... 5 

IV . Implementation. Mitigation and Monitoring ............. 10 

V . Planning Records. Amendments and Revisions. and 

Administrative Review ............................. 11 
RECORD OF DECISION 

USDA FOREST SERVICE 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Inyo National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan 

Inyo, Mono, Fresno, Madera and Tulare Counties. California 

Esmeralda and Mineral Counties, Nevada 

Based on a thorough study of the resources of the Inyo National Forest, 

detailed analysis of six management alternatives, and review of public 

comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Plan, I have 

selected the Preferred Alternative described in the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement and Final Plan to provide direction for management 

activities on the Inyo National Forest for the next ten to fifteen years. 

This record of decision summarizes the principal management objectives of the 

Forest Plan and the rationale for my decision. 

Plan Direction 

The Plan protects and enhances the environmental and recreation benefits 

provided by the Inyo National Forest while providing moderate levels of 

grazing use, minerals development, and timber harvest to support the local 

economy. The following summarizes key management direction and goals to be 

achieved over the ten-year period of Plan implementation. 

Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area 

The Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area will be managed under Interim 

Management Direction approved in 1985 until an Environmental Impact Statement 

is completed. Guidelines developed in the Environmental Impact Statement 

will become a part of the Forest Plan. 

Range 

Livestock grazing will continue at the current level of 41,400 Animal Unit 

Months to meet local demand. Additional water developments will be 

constructed and range conditions will be improved on 69,100 acres to increase 

the quality and quantity of forage on the Forest as part of overall measures 

to improve ecological conditions in riparian areas. 

Recreation 

Approximately fifty new camping units per year will be developed to increase 

Forest visitor capacity by 2,000 Persons At One Time. Existing sites will be 

reconstructed or rehabilitated to bring them up to standard. Two hundred and 

forty miles of trail will be constructed, including nordic and snowmobile 

trails and corridors which will be designated to minimize user conflicts. At 

least five or more new snowplay areas will be designated and additional 

1 
parking areas will be constructed to provide better access for winter 

recreationists. 

Mammoth Mountain and June Mountain Ski Areas will be expanded to a total of 

31,000 Skiers At One Time, the number approved in their development plans. 

Sherwin Bowl is designated as a potential winter sports area and a separate 

Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared. Any development will 

depend on results of that Environmental Impact Statement. Proposals for any 

additional development in the Mammoth/June area will be studied for 

cumulative environmental effects. 

Prescription #16, Nordic Ski Area in the Draft, has been changed in the Final 

to Dispersed Recreation. This prescription permits developed nordic 

facilities only in conjunction with alpine base facilities or on the 

periphery of the prescription area. This will provide developed nordic 

opportunities while protecting the unique natural character of the area. 

Off-highway vehicle (OHV) routes will be designated for both winter and 

summer use by updating the existing 1977 Interagency Motor Vehicle Use Plan. 

Poleta Canyon will be the only open OHV area on the Forest. All other OW 

use will be restricted to designated routes. 

The Sierra National Forest, as the lead forest, will recommend the Middle 

Fork of the San Joaquin River for Wild and Scenic River status. Until 

Congress acts on this recommendation, the river will be managed under 

Designated Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers Prescriptions to protect its 

wild and scenic qualities. 

Timber 

The Allowable Sale Quantity will be reduced to 7.1 million board feet from 

the current 10.5 million board feet. This is enough to sustain markets while 

protecting other resource values of the Forest. Only 75,233 acres will be 

included in the suitable timber base. 

Predominantly pure red fir stands in the San Joaquin Ridge area between 

Mammoth Lakes and June Lake are excluded from harvest for this planning 

period to protect scenic, recreation, and wildlife values in this popular 

recreation area. However, an additional 14,000 acres of mixed conifer timber 

type on 30 to 60 percent slopes could be harvested if stumpage values 

increase or technology such as helicopter logging becomes an economically 

viable harvest method. This has the potential to increase the Allowable Sale 

Quantity by approximately 1.3 million board feet per year. 

Only uneven-aged management will be used in timber stands west of U.S. 395 to 

preserve visual. recreation. and wildlife values in the Mammoth/June area. 

Even-aged silvicultural practices will be applied east of U.S. 395. The 

method selected will be determined on a site-specific basis, and clearcutting 

will be used only where it is the optimum silvicultural method. 

Fuelwood available to local users will increase slightly from the current 

supply of 10.000 cords to 10,600 cords annually. 

2 
Water 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines emphasize the protection and restoration 

of riparian areas and include direction for locating facilities, managing 

livestock, applying strict standards for earth-disturbing activities, and 

limiting specific activities. 

Desert springs will be protected and all range, fish and wildlife habitat 

improvement projects and silvicultural prescriptions will maintain or enhance 

the condition of riparian areas. 

Watershed improvement is scheduled for 350 acres annually during the planning 

period. 

Wilderness and Research Natural Areas 

The Plan recommends 172,600 acres for wilderness designation, including the 

Table Mountain and Tioga Lake Further Planning Areas and portions of the 

White Mountains and Paiute-Mazourka Further Planning Areas. Table Mountain 

adjoins the John Muir Wilderness along Bishop Creek; Tioga Lake adjoins 

Yosemite National Park along Tioga Pass; White Mountains lies at high 

elevations in the Whites adjoining the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest and 

encompasses the Boundary Peak area in Nevada; and Paiute-Mazourka includes a 

large part of the Inyo Mountains. 

All areas recommended for wilderness will be managed to maintain their 

wilderness attributes until Congress acts on these proposals. Further 

Planning Areas not recommended for wilderness will be managed under a variety 

of management prescriptions appropriate to their resources and existing 

uses. 

The Plan recommends Whippoorwill Flat in the northern Inyo Mountains, 

representing the pinyon pine ecosystem, and McAfee Meadow in the Whites, 

representing the alpine fellfields ecosystem, for Research Natural Area 

status. 

Wildlife and Fish 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines will ensure habitat diversity adequate 

to provide for diverse and productive fish and wildlife populations. Habitat 

for all threatened and endangered species will be protected or enhanced to 

meet recovery goals. Special prescriptions have been developed for mule deer 

and mountain sheep habitat. 

Budget 

The Plan calls for an annual budget of $12.5 million, an increase of 

$5,100,000 over the current annual budget. Implementation of the Plan will 

depend on annual allocations from Congress. If annual budgets are 

significantly less than the Plan requires, some objectives and outputs may 

not be met. In that case, an amendment or revision of the Plan may be 

needed. 

3 
11. fLTERh'ATIVES CONSIDERED 

Description of the Inyo National Forest 

The Inyo National Forest covers 1.9 million acres in the Eastern High Sierra 

region of California and Nevada. It contains unique scenic and ecological 

sites such as Mt. Whitney, the highest mountain in the contiguous U.S. at 

14,495 feet; Mono Lake; the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest; the Sierra 

Nevada, White, Inyo and Glass Mountains; the Palisades Glacier; and the Mono 

Craters. It serves as the principal watershed for Mono Lake and supplies 

water to the Los Angeles Basin. The Inyo has major winter and summer 

recreation areas, ranking third in recreation visits among National Forests 

nationwide. The Inyo contains the Mammoth Mountain and June Mountain Ski 

Areas; portions of the Hoover, Ansel Adams, John Muir. Golden Trout and South 

Sierra Wildernesses; the newly-designated North Fork and South Fork of the 

Kern Wild and Scenic Rivers; sections of the Pacific Crest Trail; the Mono 

Basin National Forest Scenic Area; and the Devil's Postpile National 

Monument, which is administered by the National Park Service. 

Congress designated the North and South Forks of the Kern River as Wild and 

Scenic Rivers in 1987. A management plan for the rivers will be developed by 

the Inyo and Sequoia National Forests. The plan will determine wild, scenic, 

and recreation classifications for segments of the river; establish 

management objectives for each segment; determine river area boundaries; and 

establish management direction and appropriate levels of recreation use and 

development to protect wild and scenic values. 

Six alternatives for managing the Inyo National Forest were analyzed in 

detail. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

PRF: Preferred Alternative: This alternative balances commodity and 

amenity resources, with special emphasis being given to recreational 

values including uses based on fish and wildlife. 

CUR: Current (1982) Program-No Action: This alternative continues the 

current management program. 

RPA: Meet Targets and Goals of the 1980 Resource Planning Act Program: 

This alternative provides moderate to high outputs of commodities and 

selected amenities. 

CEE: Maximize Cost-Efficiencx: This alternative selects the most 

cost-efficient mix of management practices on the Forest. 

AMN: Maximize Amenity Values: This alternative maximizes amenity 

outputs. 

AMB: Emphasize Wildlife and Recreation: This alternative primarily 

emphasizes wildlife habitat with moderate expansion of the developed 

recreation program. Commodity outputs would be secondary to wildlife and 

recreation objectives. 

4 
111. RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION 

In selecting the Preferred Alternative, I considered both monetary and 

non-monetary costs and benefits, the capability of the land, the need for 

protection of resources, concerns expressed by people interested in the 

Forest, advice received from other agencies and resource professionals, and 

the legislative mandate of the Forest Service. Therefore, national, 

regional, state, and local objectives were considered in making the decision. 

The Preferred Alternative provides management direction that will result in 

the greatest long-term benefits to people, including the benefits of a 

healthy, diverse, and productive Forest environment. It provides a mix of 

amenity and commodity resources at reasonable levels and addresses the range 

of public concerns more effectively than the other alternatives. 

The Amenity Alternative does not place enough emphasis on commodity outputs 

needed by local and regional industries and businesses: the Wildlife and 

Recreation Alternative emphasizes only those resources: the Current and 

Cost-Efficient Alternatives do not meet expressed demands for provision of 

non-market resources: and the RPA Alternative produces levels of outputs that 

exceed projected demands for resources from the Forest. 

Response to Public Comments and Management Concerns 

I chose the Preferred Alternative because it best responds to the following 

issues identified from public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

1. Management of the Mammoth/June Area 

Issue: The Mammoth/June Area is defined by State Highway 203 on the 

south: U.S. 395 on the east: the Ansel Adams Wilderness on the west: and 

the June Mountain ridgeline on the north. Representatives of the alpine 

ski industry and the operators of the Mammoth and June Mountain Ski Areas 

did not want the Plan to limit development in this area. On the other 

hand there was public concern that any development, whether skiing or 

geothermal, would degrade the environment and be unsupportable because of 

water shortages and an inadequate transportation system and public 

utilities. There was also public support for maintaining the 

semi-primitive character of the area, protecting old-growth red fir 

stands, and providing additional recreation opportunities. 

Plan response: Ski area development is limited to the approved plans of 

the Mammoth and June Mountain Ski Areas and development of Sherwin Bowl, 

if approved following environmental analysis and public comment. 

Additional significant development of any kind on National Forest System 

lands in the Mammoth/June area will require a study of cumulative 

effects. 

5 
Old-growth red fir stands in the San Joaquin area will not be harvested 

during this ten- to fifteen-year planning period. The public believed 

that harvesting red fir in this heavily used recreation area would 

destroy the area's character. Timber stands west of U.S. 395 will be 

harvested using uneven-aged management techniques to protect the 

recreation and visual values of the area. 

2. Timber Management 

Issue: Many people were concerned about the Allowable Sale Quantity. 

People dependent on the wood products industry advocated current or 

higher levels of timber production ranging up to the Resources Planning 

Act target of 16.8 million board feet. Other people expressed concern 

for possible adverse effects on scenic quality and wildlife and favored 

reduced harvests or no harvesting at all. There was support for use of 

uneven-aged management techniques either partially or exclusively on all 

timber lands. Some people opposed harvesting red fir in the Ma"oth/June 

area and harvesting of Jeffrey pine because it would reduce the old 

growth component on the Forest. 

Plan response: The Allowable Sale Quantity is reduced to 7.1 million 

board feet annually from the current 10.5 million. Predominantly red fir 

stands in the San Joaquin Ridge area will not be harvested during the 

planning period. However, about 14,000 acres of mixed stands of mostly 

Jeffrey pine and lodgepole pine on 30 to 60 percent slopes outside the 

red fir component could be harvested. 

Jeffrey pine will be harvested to provide a continuing supply of wood to 

local markets. Most of the Jeffrey pine stands are east of U.S. 395 and 

receive little recreation use. Appropriate even-aged harvest methods 

will be used. Clearcutting will be used only where it is the optimum 

method to meet silvicultural objectives for the site. Forest-wide 

Standards and Guidelines will ensure adequate dispersion of old-growth 

stands of all forest types throughout the Forest. 

Uneven-aged management will be used in the Ma"oth/June area west of U.S. 

395. Because uneven-aged harvest methods require only small openings, 

there will be less impact on visual and recreation resources in this 

heavily used area. High recreation values in this area justify the 

increased harvest costs associated with uneven-aged management. 

3. OW Management 

Issue: Off-highway vehicle users wish to continue or increase 

opportunities currently available. Other people favor additional 

restrictions on both off-highway vehicle (OHV) and over-snow vehicle 

(OSV) use. 

Plan response: The Poleta Canyon area will be the only open OW area on 

the Forest. The existing 1977 Interagency Motor Vehicle Use Plan will be 

revised to conform with the Prescriptions and Standards and Guidelines of 

the Forest Plan. This will be done with public participation as part of 

Forest Plan implementation. Both OHV and OSV routes will be designated. 

6 
Some people interpreted Prescription #18 in the Draft Plan as permitting 

OHV use everywhere and Prescription #l7 as permitting increased OHV use. 

They were concerned that increased OHV use on the Forest would have 

significant adverse effects on the environment. Both prescriptions have 

been rewritten. 

Prescription #l7 which was Limited Access in the Draft is now defined as 

Semi-Primitive Recreation with that emphasis in management direction. 

OHV opportunities will not be reduced. The Prescription states: "Allow 

OHV use only on designated roads and trails and in the Poleta Canyon 

designated open area. Allow OSV use off roads and trails unless 

restricted by the Winter Motor Vehicle Use Map." 

Prescription #18 which was Open Roaded in the Draft is now defined as 

Multiple Resource Area and provides for a wide variety of recreation 

experiences. OHV opportunities may be increased if additional routes are 

designated in the revised Interagency Motor Vehicle Use Plan. The 

Prescription states: "Allow OW use on both existing and new planned 

routes. OSVs may be used off roads and trails unless restricted by the 

Winter Motor Vehicle Use Map." 

Restrictions will be established to prevent resource damage from OHVs 

under all prescriptions. 

b. Range Management 

Issue: Many people expressed concern that increased livestock grazing use 

would adversely affect riparian areas, water quality, and fish and 

wildlife habitat. 

Plan response: Grazing opportunities will remain at the current level of 

41,400 Animal Unit Months annually. More restrictive Riparian Area 

Standards and Guidelines have been developed for the Plan to protect 

riparian areas and fish and wildlife habitat. Riparian areas will be 

restored. Projects to increase the quality and amount of forage outside 

riparian areas will be used to help offset reductions in grazing caused 

by restrictions on access to riparian and other sensitive areas. 

5. Wilderness 

Issue: Comments on wilderness ranged from "no additional wilderness" to 

"designate all Further Planning Areas and areas released under the 

California Wilderness Act of 1984 as wilderness." Some people expressed 

concern for protection of the wilderness attributes of Further Planning 

Areas not recommended for Wilderness. 

7 
Plan response: The Draft Plan had proposed 112,600 acres for wilderness 

designation. The Final Plan recommends an additional 60,000 acres 

bringing the forest total to 737,742 acres or 38 percent of the land 

base. The proposed areas are Table Mountain and Tioga Lake Further 

Planning Areas and portions of the White Mountains and Paiute-Mazourka 

Further Planning Areas. Wilderness recommendations are based on the 

wilderness attributes of the areas and the presence of existing uses that 

would confict with wilderness management. Wilderness values will be 

protected prior to designation. Further Planning Areas not recommended 

for Wilderness designation will be managed under various prescriptions 

appropriate to their resources and current uses. 

Additional specific concerns of the public are addressed in the Public 

Response Appendix. 

Economic Efficiency of Alternatives 

The Cost-Efficient Alternative has the highest Present Net Value, followed 

by the RPA Alternative. However, these alternatives do not reflect the high 

values Forest users place on non-market resources. If these alternatives 

were implemented, amenity values would be reduced. The overall desire of 

people for a natural-appearing landscape and other amenities is not 

adequately reflected 1% economic analyses. In many cases the scenic, 

recreation, and environmental values of the Inyo National Forest outweigh any 

potential economic returns from commodity products. 

The Preferred Alternative was selected because it provides for more wildlife, 

fish, recreation, and visual resource benefits on the Forest than the 

Cost-Efficient Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is not the most 

economically efficient alternative, but it does provide the highest net 

public benefits. These benefits include such market outputs as energy, 

minerals, range, developed recreation, timber, and water supply; and such 

non-market outputs as scenic quality, dispersed recreation opportunities, 

fish and wildlife, and wilderness. 

Contribution to Regional Production of Goods and Services 

The Preferred Alternative will substantially increase skiing and other winter 

sports opportunities as well as a wide range of summer recreation activities 

including fishing, hiking and wilderness travel. These opportunities will 

primarily serve residents of Southern California who make up the major share 

of forest visitors. 

Energy provided through geothermal development, power line rights-of-way, and 

small hydroelectric development on the Forest is also used mostly by Southern 

Californians. Forest water resources supply residents of the Los Angeles 

Basin. Mineral and range outputs from the Forest benefit the entire State 

and will continue to be provided under the Preferred Alternative, subject to 

appropriate Standards and Guidelines for protecting other resources. 

8 
Social and Economic Stability 

Effects on Jobs, revenues, lifestyles, and costs to the local economy were 

considered in choosing the Preferred Alternative. Public lands make up an 

overwhelmingly large share of the land base within those counties where the 

Forest is located. The resource and amenity values and recreation 

opportunities provided on the Inyo significantly affect the livelihood of the 

residents of those counties on public as well as private lands. 

The Plan emphasizes protecting and improving scenic quality while continuing 

a level of timber harvest, grazing, energy, and mineral production that will 

not significantly curtail historic uses of the Forest. It best meets social 

and economic concerns by providing for additional development that is 

compatible with environmental quality goals and allows for more public use of 

the Forest to ensure that local lifestyles are not adversely affected. The 

Inyo will follow a policy of non-discrimination in providing work and 

recreational and educational experiences for the community and will promote 

active participation by all segments of the public. 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

The Amenity Alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative because 

it entails the least amount of resource development and public use. All 

other alternatives provide for higher levels of use and the environmental 

impacts associated with various resource developments. All alternatives, 

however, limit the effects of resource development and use to levels that are 

within legal standards. 

Compatibility with Other Public Agency Goals and Plans 

The goals and plans of other agencies and governmental bodies affected by 

implementation of the Plan were considered throughout the planning process. 

The Preferred Alternative incorporates information and recommendations 

received from many specialists in various agencies. 

A number of agencies responded to the Draft Plan and their concerns were 

addressed in the Final Plan where appropriate. Agencies and governmental 

entities are contacted in the preparation of project-level environmental 

analyses and have the opportunity to comment on specific proposals. 

Continued coordination and cooperation with other resource agencies and local 

governments during implementation of the Plan will ensure that public needs 

are being met in the most economical and effective way. 

Reasons for Selecting the Preferred Alternative 

The Preferred Alternative was chosen because it best meets the needs of 

people, including concerns for environmental quality. While other 

alternatives may be more desirable with respect to any particular 

consideration, none provides as good a mix of resource benefits and uses 

while maintaining a healthy and diverse natural environment. 

The Preferred Alternative expands recreation opportunities; continues to 

supply wood products, minerals, and energy in an environmentally sensitive 

manner; sustains the current range program while protecting riparian areas; 
protects and improves wildlife and fish habitat; recognizes the importance of 

scenic quality; protects soil and water resources; and recommends significant 

additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

The Preferred Alternative best meets people's needs as identified by the 

entire public involvement process including responses to the Draft Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement; resource needs as identified by resource 

professionals; and National Forest management mandates as identified in the 

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the National Forest Management Act 

of 1976, and their accompanying regulations. It provides the best mix of 

resource management activities considered appropriate for existing conditions 

or those that are predicted to be needed during this ten- to fifteen-year 

planning period. 

The Preferred Alternative provides a balance between the environmentally 

preferred alternative and the most economically efficient alternatives. 

Although resource development and use provided by the Preferred Alternative 

will cause more impact on the natural environment than the Amenity 

Alternative, Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines and Management 

Prescriptions will ensure that the natural environment is protected. 

The Preferred Alternative was selected over the Amenity Alternative for the 

following reasons: higher receipts, greater employment opportunities and 

economic benefits for all social groups, more potential for mineral 

development, more Animal Unit Months, a wider range of recreation 

opportunities, more timber produced. 

The Preferred Alternative was selected over the FPA and Cost-Efficient 

Alternatives for the following reasons: better balance of resources and uses 

to meet the overall needs of people; better protection of cultural and 

biological resources, including old-growth forest, wilderness, deer habitat, 

snags, riparian habitat, and visual resources; lower management costs. 

I judge that the Preferred Alternative will provide the greatest long-term 

public benefit when compared with the other alternatives that were considered 

in detail and have selected it to be the Plan for management of the Inyo 

National Forest for this planning period. 

IV. IMPLEMENTATION. MITIGATION AND MONITORING 

The Plan will be implemented no sooner than thirty days after the Notice of 

Availability of the Plan, Environmental Impact Statement and Record of 

Decision appears in the Federal Register. The time needed to brlng all 

Forest activities into compliance with the Plan will vary. 

Actual annual budgets will affect the rate of implementation of the Plan and 

the amount of goods and services produced in any given year but should not 

affect overall goals and direction. If the Forest Service determines that 

overall goals and direction of the proposed plan cannot be achieved, and that 

environmental objectives could be adversely affected because annual budgets 

differ from required budgets, the Plan may be revised or amended. This can 

only be determined as the Plan is implemented and monltored. For reference, 

the average annual budget for the Forest from 1985-1987 was $7,400,000. 

Implementation of the Plan will require a budget of $lZ,5OO,OOO. 

10 
As soon as practicable after approval of the Plan, the Forest Supervisor will 

ensure that all outstanding and future permits, contracts, cooperative 

agreements and other instruments for occupancy and use of National Forest 

land are consistent with the management direction of the Plan, subject to 

valid existing rights. This is required by 16 USC 1604(i) and 36 CFR 

219.10(e). 

Implementation will be guided by the management requirements contained in the 

Goals, Objectives, Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Prescriptions and 

Management Area Direction identified in Chapter IV of the Plan. These 

management requirements were developed through an interdisciplinary effort 

and contain measures necessary to mitigate or eliminate any long-term adverse 

effects resulting from activities on the Forest. 

Outputs associated with Plan implementation may be adjusted as a result of 

new information and technology. Management direction in the Plan will be 

incorporated in the analysis of all proposed activities. 

The purpose of the monitoring program is to evaluate whether Forest Goals and 

Objectives are being met, to determine how closely management requirements 

are followed, to assist in the assessment of the environmental condition of 

the Forest, and to determine whether an amendment to the Plan or a revision 

is needed. 

The results of monitoring and evaluation will be used to measure the progress 

of Plan implementation and to determine when an amendment to the Plan or a 

revision is needed. 

V. PLANNING RECORDS, AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS. AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 

Planning Records 

Planning records contain detailed information and document decisions used in 

developing the Plan and Environmental Impact Statement as required in 36 CFR 

219.12. Documentation detailing the Forest planning process is available for 

inspection during regular business hours at: 

Inyo National Forest 

Forest Supervisor's Office 

873 North Main Street 

Bishop, California 93514 

These records are incorporated by reference into the Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

Amendments and Revisions 

The National Forest Management Act requires revision of the Plan at least 

every fifteen years. The Plan may be revised at any time when the Forest 

Supervisor determines that conditions or demands in the area covered by the 

Plan have changed significantly. or when changes in national policies, goals 

or objectives would have a significant effect on the Forest's program. 

11 
The Plan may also be amended. The Regional Forester will approve any 

significant amendments to this Plan. Determinations of significance or 

non-significance are appealable under 36 CFR 211.18 and will be documented in 

a Decision Notice. 

Project decisions will require additional site-specific environmental 

analyses in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. As 

provided in 36 CFR 219.10, this decision will remain in effect until the Plan 

is revised. 

Right to Administrative Review 

This decision is subject to appeal in accordance with the provisions of 36 

CFR 211.18. Notice of appeal must be in writing and submitted to: 

Paul F. Barker 

Regional Forester 

Pacific Southwest Region 

USDA, Forest Service 

630 Sansome Street 

San Francisco. California 94111 

The notice of appeal, a statement of reasons to support the appeal, and any 

request for oral presentation must be filed within 45 days after the date of 

this decision. 

Recommendations for wilderness designations are not appealable, as this 

decision is the purview of Congress. However, decisions regarding interim 

management of these areas pending action by Congress are appealable. Also, 

recommendations for Research Natural Areas are not appealable. 

An appeal of my decision, in and of itself, does not stop implementation of 

the Plan, as a stay of this decision must be specifically requested. A stay 

may be requested at any time during the appeal period until a decision on the 

appeal is made by the Chief of the Forest Service. 

No decisions on site-specific projects are made in this document, although a 

number of projects are identified. Those identified projects are included to 

show that the Plan's goals and objectives are achievable. Final decisions on 

site-specific projects will be made during subsequent implementation of the 

Plan after appropriate analysis and documentation consistent with National 

Environmental Policy Act requirements. These decisions are appealable. 

2cl$ka$4/ 

PAUL F. BARKER Date 

Regional Forester 

12 
I 

I 

I