United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Pacific 

Southwest 

Region 

Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for 

Sugar Pine Adaptive 

Management Project 

Sierra National Forest, Bass Lake Ranger District 

Madera/Mariposa Counties, CA 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic 

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because of all or part of an individual’s income is 

derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a compliant of discrimination, write to USDA, 

Director of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, 

or call (800) 79503272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer. Printed on recycled paper – June 2009 
Sierra National Forest i 

SUGAR PINE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Madera/Mariposa Counties, California; Sierra National Forest; Bass Lake Ranger District 

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

Cooperating Agencies: N/A 

Responsible Official: Edward Cole, Forest Supervisor 

 1600 Tollhouse Road, Clovis, CA 93611 

For Information Contact: Mark Lemon, District Fuels Officer 

 57003 Road 225, North Fork, CA 93643 

 (559) 877-2218 ext. 3110 

Abstract: This document examines the environmental effects of a proposal to move towards 

meeting management goals and objectives set forth in the Sierra National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan (as amended in January 2004). The purpose of the proposal is multifaceted and has two primary purposes (1) to strategically place area treatments on the landscape 

to reduce the intensity and spread of wildfires across the landscape and near communities and (2) 

to reduce inter-tree competition to improve tree vigor whereby providing increased stand 

resistance to drought conditions, insect and disease attack. Alternatives considered in detail are: 

Alternative 1 (No Action), would leave the area in its present condition; Alternative 2 (Proposed 

Action), would thin conifer stands to reduce stand densities and ladder fuels; masticate ladder 

fuels and brush/shrub patches; utilize prescribed burning, understory and pile; manually treat 

and/or prescribed burn noxious weed infestations; and site prepare and plant failed conifer 

plantations; Alternative 3, would contain similar types of treatments as Alternative 2, but would 

limit the degree of treatment within known Pacific Fisher den site buffer to that needed to achieve 

fire and fuels objectives; and Alternative 4, would contain similar types of treatments as 

Alternative 2, but would limit the degree of treatment to that needed to achieve fire and fuels 

objectives in all treatment areas. 

Public Comments: Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the 

review period of the draft environmental impact statement. This will enable the Forest Service to 

analyze and respond to the comments at one time and to use information acquired in the 

preparation of the final environmental impact statement, thus avoiding undue delay in the 

decision-making process. Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the 

National Environmental Policy Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the 

reviewers’ position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 

519, 553 (1978). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage may be 

waived if not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement. City of 

Angoon v. Hodel (9th Circuit, l986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 

1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be 

specific and should address the adequacy of the statement and the merits of the alternatives 

discussed (40 CFR 1503.3). The opportunity to comment ends 45 days following publication of 

the notice of availability (NOA) in the Federal Register. 

Send Comments to: Edward Cole, Forest Supervisor; Sierra National Forest, 1600 Tollhouse 

Road, Clovis, CA 93611; FAX: (559)294-4809; Electronic mail: comments-pacificsouthwestsierra@fs.fed.us. Office hours are Monday-Friday 8:00am to 4:30pm. 

The acceptable format(s) for electronic comments is: Rich Text Format (.rtf), MS Word (.doc) or 

pdf.
ii Sierra National Forest 

Table of Contents

Summary.........................................................................................................................v

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action .......................................................................1

Document Structure .....................................................................................................1

Background.................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Need for Action.........................................................................................2

Proposed Action ..........................................................................................................3

Decision Framework ....................................................................................................3

Forest Plan Direction....................................................................................................3

Public Involvement ......................................................................................................5

Issues .........................................................................................................................5

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action.....................................................7

Introduction ................................................................................................................7

Alternatives Considered in Detail...................................................................................7

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ..........................................18

Comparison of Alternatives.........................................................................................19

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences...............................23

Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions.........................................................23

Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................28

Botany: Rare plants and Noxious Weeds.......................................................................33

Geology/Soils............................................................................................................39

Lands/Special Uses....................................................................................................51

Terrestrial Wildlife.....................................................................................................53

Aquatic Wildlife and Management Indicator Species......................................................63

Terrestrial Management Indicator Species.....................................................................89

Hydrology/Water Quality..........................................................................................105

Forest Vegetation/Silviculture ...................................................................................116

Fire/Fuels................................................................................................................128

Air Quality..............................................................................................................144

Transportation .........................................................................................................149

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity...............................................................152

Unavoidable Adverse Effects ....................................................................................152

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .............................................152

Legal and Regulatory Compliance .............................................................................153

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination....................................................................161

Preparers and Contributors........................................................................................161

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement ....................................................162

Glossary ......................................................................................................................163

Literature Cited...........................................................................................................173

Index ...........................................................................................................................193

Appendices ..................................................................................................................195

Appendix A – Map Package for Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project.....................195

Appendix B – Best Management Practices Associated with Sugar Pine Adaptive Management 

Project....................................................................................................................197

Appendix C – Sierra National Forest Interim Pacific Fisher Habitat Maintenance and 

Improvement Approach ............................................................................................209

Appendix D – Data Tables for Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project.......................221
Sierra National Forest iii 

List of Tables 

Table S-1. Major Conclusions....................................................................................................... vii

Table 1. Summary of Relationship between Feature Types, RCA Widths, Stream Classes, SMZ 

Widths, RMA Widths, and Stream Orders (and other GIS data) .............................................. 16

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives............................................................................................. 19

Table 3. Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Contributing to Cumulative Effects by 

Resources Action is likely to Effect .......................................................................................... 25

Table 4. Threatened and Sensitive Plant Species Considered....................................................... 33

Table 5. Summary of Soil Map Units............................................................................................ 41

Table 6. Treatment Areas with Greater than 35 Percent Slopes.................................................... 43

Table 7. Summary of Transect Data.............................................................................................. 44

Table 8. Description of Disturbance Classes................................................................................. 45

Table 9. Watershed Summaries by Stream Classification............................................................. 63

Table 10. Summary of Subwatershed Conditions ......................................................................... 65

Table 11. Perennial Streams; Resident Trout Occupancy, Maximum 15-Minute Water 

Temperatures, Percent Stream Shading, and Indices for Benthic Macroinvertebrates ............. 66

Table 12. Woody Debris Data....................................................................................................... 66

Table 13. Summary of Potential Habitat within Project Area Subwatersheds (Potential Acres 

Includes Marginal Acres) .......................................................................................................... 67

Table 14. Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Activities Proposed under Alternative 1 by 

Subwatershed............................................................................................................................. 71

Table 15. Summary from analyses for aquatic Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Sensitive (S) and 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) for effects from Alternative 1....................................... 74

Table 16. Activities Proposed within Project Area Subwatersheds under Alternative 2 .............. 75

Table 17. Overlap of Proposed Treatment Areas and Potential Habitat for species ..................... 75

Table 18. Activities Proposed within Project Area Subwatersheds under Alternative 3 .............. 83

Table 19. Activities Proposed within Project Area Subwatersheds under Alternative 4 .............. 86

Table 20. Summary from Analyses for Aquatic Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive (BA/BE), and 

Management Indicator Species for Effects from Project Alternatives ...................................... 88

Table 21. Subwatershed Summaries............................................................................................ 105

Table 22. Activities Proposed under Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative.............................. 107

Table 23. Activities Proposed within Project Area Subwatersheds under Alternative 2 (Acres 

Generated by GIS)................................................................................................................... 109

Table 24. Activities Proposed within Project Area Subwatersheds under Alternative 3 ............ 112

Table 25. Activities Proposed within Project Area Subwatersheds under Alternative 4 (Acres 

Generated By GIS) .................................................................................................................. 114

Table 26. Fire History within the Project Boundary ................................................................... 129

Table 27. Fire History Outside of the Project Boundary (Generally South of Sugar Pine)......... 129

Table 28. Fire History within a 4-mile radius of Sugar Pine....................................................... 130

Table 29. Indicators for IFSL Fuel Models of Brush Covered Areas ......................................... 133

Table 30. Indicators for IFSL Fuel Models in Timber Covered Areas ....................................... 134

Table 31. Principles of Fire Resistant Forests............................................................................. 137

Table 32. Indicators for IFSL Fuel Models of Brush and Timber Covered Areas...................... 139

Table 33. Statewide Emission Inventory 2002 for Natural Sources-Wildfire............................. 146

Table 34. Total Estimated Tons of Emissions from Initial Treatment and Post Treatment 

Activities ................................................................................................................................. 148

Table 35. Landscape Level Habitat Maintenance and Improvement Principles and 

Implementation Approaches.................................................................................................... 215

Table 36. Plant Aggregation Level Habitat Maintenance and Improvement Principles and 

Implementation Approaches.................................................................................................... 218
iv 

Table 37. Sugar Pine Plot Data Summary, Existing and Proposed Action (Alternative 2) 

Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 223

Table 38. Sugar Pine Plot Data Summary, Existing and Alternative 3 ....................................... 225

Table 39. Sugar Pine Plot Data Summary, Existing and Alternative 4 ....................................... 227

Table 40. Sugar Pine CWHR Data, Main Project Area; Present Compared to Proposed Action 

(Alternative 2) ......................................................................................................................... 229

Table 41. Sugar Pine CWHR Data, Hydrology Study Area; Present Compared to Proposed Action 

(Alternative 2) ......................................................................................................................... 231

Table 42. Sugar Pine EIS Appraisal Cost Summary ................................................................... 233

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Associated Bounds and Treatments within Old Forest Linkages and Perennial Streams

................................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 2. 2007 average summer water temperatures for project area streams .............................. 67

Figure 3. Predicted probability of fisher occupancy by twenty percent classes.......................... 213
Sierra National Forest v 

Summary

The Sierra National Forest, Bass Lake Ranger District proposes to create a network of 

strategically placed landscape area treatments (SPLATs) and defensible fuels profiles near key 

transportation corridors to reduce the intensity and spread of wildfires across the landscape and 

near communities. As part of the proposal, further treatments to improve forest health within and 

outside of the SPLATs are proposed to reduce inter-tree competition and improve tree vigor to 

provide an increased stand resistance to drought conditions, insect and disease attack. 

The area affected by the proposal includes 5,416 total project boundary acres within two 

watersheds, Fresno River and Big Creek, in the Southern Sierra Nevada. The project is centered 

on the community of Sugar Pine (designated as Wildland Urban Intermix [WUI]), immediately 

east of State Highway 41. Vegetation types include ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, hardwood 

species, as well as areas dominated by brush, rock and steep slopes. 

This action is needed, because under the amended Sierra National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment [SNFPA], Record of Decision [ROD], 

USDA-FS 2004), an ecosystem approach to project development and planning was 

recommended. In July 2005, the Bass Lake Ranger District completed the Fresno River 

Landscape Analysis. This document measured the desired condition for key ecosystem elements 

against the landscape’s current condition. Where there was a significant departure from the 

desired condition or potential for a loss in key ecosystem functions, opportunities for 

management actions to address this departure were developed. An emphasis on the interrelationship of the major functional program goals was placed on these opportunities. Within this 

landscape analysis, of particular concern was the State Highway 41 Corridor with its high 

concentration of human habitation and activities, the Nelder Grove Historical Area of Giant 

Sequoias and the declining health of forest stands within and surrounding these areas. 

The community of Sugar Pine is one of the communities of interest within the State Highway 41 

Corridor and is considered highly vulnerable to and at risk from wildland fire. Current forest 

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

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

of frequent, low intensity to infrequent, moderate/high intensity. Forest structure and composition 

has developed, through the lack of fire in a fire dependent ecosystem, into an overabundance of 

shade-tolerate conifer species in the lower and mid-level canopies of the forested stands. Other 

areas converted from forested stands to brush species. This overstocking of conifers has led to a 

decline in forest health and high susceptibility of loss from insects, disease, drought conditions 

and wildland fire. 

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

ecosystems (Pacific fisher, California spotted owl and Northern goshawk, to name a few) and are 

susceptible to possible loss of viability if the degree of change in their habitat and the ecosystem 

in which they are dependent on is improperly balanced. There is uncertainty (due to gaps in 

information) surrounding what is the proper balance of change that can occur in these species 

habitat, where forest functionality and vulnerability can be improved and where human 

habitation’s susceptibility to wildland fire can be reduced. 

These issues led the agency to develop alternatives to the proposed action including: 

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

would continue to guide activities in the project area. This includes all ongoing activities 

with existing decisions or permits that would not be changed if this alternative were 

selected including: underburning, plantation maintenance, cattle grazing, recreation, and 

recreation residences. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Summary 

vi Sierra National Forest 

 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action. Under Alternative 2, the development of Strategically 

Placed Area Treatments (SPLATs) would occur. Additional areas would be treated to 

provide a defensible fuels profile near key transportation corridors and within the defense 

zone of the wildland urban intermix. In addition to those treatments needed to meet fire 

and fuels objectives, treatments would be created to reduce stand densities (basal area) to 

such a level as to improve the growth and vigor of remaining trees. Treatments included 

in this alternative are: thinning from below in conifer stands, either by pre-commercially, 

commercially, biomassing and/or mastication of vegetation (conifers) to reduce lower 

and mid- level canopy stand densities; mastication of brush and shrub patches; prescribed 

burning, both understory and piles; manual reduction and/or prescribed burning of 

noxious weed infestations; and prepare and plant failed conifer plantations.

 Alternative 3 – Lower and Limited Mid-level Canopy Treatments within Known 

Den Site Buffer. Under Alternative 3, all treatment areas would be carried forward from 

Alternative 2, but in areas where there are known Pacific Fisher den sites, treatments 

within associated den site buffer would include only those treatments needed to achieve 

fire and fuels objectives (treatment of surface and ladder fuels). All other treatment areas 

would continue to treat for both fire/fuels and forest health (stand density) objectives. 

 Alternative 4 – Lower and Limited Mid-level Canopy Treatments, All Treatment 

Areas. Under Alternative 4, all treatment areas would be carried forward from 

Alternative 2, but treatments would include only those needed to achieve fire and fuels 

objectives (treatment of surface and ladder fuels). 

Major conclusions are demonstrated in the following table: 
Sierra National Forest vii 

Table S-1. Major Conclusions 

Resource Area Indicator Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Cultural Resources (page 28)

Degree to which historic property values are diminished 

18 sites that have the potential to be affected Direct/Indirect Adverse Effects could occur if a conflaguration was to occur especially to wooden components of sites. Cumuluative effects are unlikely. 

18 sites that have the potential to be affected Through Sierran PA, All of these cultural resource sites and historic features will be protected through avoidance. By implementing the Standard Protection Measures outlined in the Sierran PA, no historic values would be diminished as a result of implementing this alternative. 

18 sites that have the potential to be affected Through Sierran PA, All of these cultural resource sites and historic features will be protected through avoidance. By implementing the Standard Protection Measures outlined in the Sierran PA, no historic values would be diminished as a result of implementing this alternative. 

18 potThrAll resohistproavoBy StaMethe histbe resuthis 

Determinations for TES species No effect 1 Threaten species 

Calyptridium pulchellum 

1 Threaten species Calyptridium pulchellum 

1 Threaten species Calyptridium pulchellum 

1 TCalpul

Botanical TES (page 33) *Other plant species do not have habitat within the project area, therefore will not be impacted by any of the alternatives. 

May affect but is not likely to adversely affect 

N/A N/A N/A N/A 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Summary viii Sierra National Forest 

Resource Area Indicator Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

 May affect individuals, 

but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability 

4 Sensitive species Epilobium howellii Peltigera hydrothyria Hulsea brevifolia Cypripedium montanum

4 Sensitive species Epilobium howellii Peltigera hydrothyria Hulsea brevifolia Cypripedium montanum

4 Sensitive species Epilobium howellii Peltigera hydrothyria Hulsea brevifolia Cypripedium montanum

4 SEpiPelHuCypmo

Noxious Weeds (page 33) 

Potential for Noxious Weed Spread 

Increased risk of spread if wildfire was to occur in the area and fireline equipment does not follow Noxious Weed Prevention Practices. 

Low risk of spread through use of design criteria for prevention of spread. 

Low risk of spread through use of design criteria for prevention of spread. 

Low throcritof s

Potential for reduction in Soil porosity due to compaction 

Compacted soils (in 6.71% of the project area) will continue to recover over time with no additional disturbance. 

Design Measures will minimize detrimental compaction of soils. 

Design Measures will minimize detrimental compaction of soils. 

Desmincom

Soils/Geology (page 39) 

Soil Cover Remaining (Large Woody Debris) 

Meets and/or exceeds current Regional Standards 

Reduction, but will continue to meet and/or exceed Regional Standards 

Reduction, but will continue to meet and/or exceed Regional Standards 

RedconexcSta

Lands/Special Uses (page 51) 

Effects to Special Uses Permitted in Project Area. 

No Effect With implementation of 

Design Criteria minimal to No effect 

With implementation of Design Criteria minimal to No effect 

WiDesmin
Sierra National Forest ix 

Resource Area Indicator Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Determination for TES Species 

(T)=Endangered (E)=Proposed (C)=Candidate (FSS)=FS Sensitive 

No effect Townsend’s bigeared bat 

Western red bat 

Townsend’s big-eared bat Western red bat 

Townsend’s big-eared bat Western red bat 

Towbat We

Terrestrial Wildlife TES (page 53) *Listed are species that do not have habitat withinor adacent to the project area, nor are directly, indirectly or cumulatively effected by this project therefore the project will have no effect on them: Democerus californicus Hailealetus leucocephalus Gulo gulo Falco peregrinus Vulpes vulpes necator Empidonax trailli

May affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability (S) 

California spotted owl (CASPO), Northern Goshawk (NOGO), Great gray owl (GGO), American Marten (AMMA), Pacific Fisher (PAFI), Pallid bat (PABA) 

CASPO, NOGO, GGO, AMMA, PAFI, PABA 

CASPO, NOGO, GGO, AMMA, PAFI, PABA 

CAAM
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Summary x Sierra National Forest 

Resource Area Indicator Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

No effect California Red 

Legged Frog (T) Foothill YellowLegged Frog (FSS) Western Pond Turtle(FSS) Moutain Yellow Legged Frog (C/FSS) Yosemite Toad (C/FSS) 

California Red Legged Frog (T) Yosemite Toad (C/FSS) 

California Red Legged Frog (T) Yosemite Toad (C/FSS) 

CalFroYo(C/

Aquatic Wildlife TES (page 63) *Listed are species that do not have habitat withinor adacent to the project area, nor are directly, indirectly or cumulatively effected by this project therefore the project will have no effect on them: Central Valley Steelhead (T) Delta smelt (T) Hardhead (FSS) Limestone Salamander (FSS) Relictual slender salamander (FSS)

May affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability 

N/A Foothill Yellow-Legged 

Frog (FSS) Western Pond Turtle(FSS) Moutain Yellow Legged Frog (C/FSS) 

Foothill YellowLegged Frog (FSS) Western Pond Turtle(FSS) Moutain Yellow Legged Frog (C/FSS) 

FooLegWeTurMoLeg

Aquatic Management Indicator Species (page 63) 

Habitat conditions or alteration and their effects on species 

Macroinverttebrates and Pacific Tree Frog= No expected direct, indirect or cumulative effects 

Macro-inverttebrates and Pacific Tree Frog= Project Design Criteria expected to eliminate or minimize effects 

Macro-inverttebrates and Pacific Tree Frog= Project Design Criteria expected to eliminate or minimize effects 

Maand Proexpmin
Sierra National Forest xi 

Resource Area Indicator Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Terrestrial Management Indicator Species (page 89) 

Habitat conditions or alteration and their effects on species 

Largest effect on some species habitat would be loss or alteration created by uncontrolled wildland fire. 

Although there would be alterations to habitat, not any one particular habitat would be adversely affected or cause effects on species dependent on that habitat. 

Although there would be alterations to habitat, not any one particular habitat would be adversely affected or cause effects on species dependent on that habitat. 

Altbe not habadvcaudephab

Hydrology (page 105) Cumulative Watershed 

Effects (CWE’s) Threshold Levels Reached 

One watershed (Lewis-Red Rock 503.0055) is considered at or near CWE threshold prior to field investigation, showed little potential for CWE post investigation. 

From field investigations and protections from Best Mgmt Practices, Stream Mgmt Zones and wildlife Design Criteria, CWE’s not expected. See No Action for only at or near CWE consideration and result. 

From field investigations and protections from Best Mgmt Practices, Stream Mgmt Zones and wildlife Design Criteria, CWE’s not expected. See No Action for only at or near CWE consideration and result. 

FroinvproMgMgwilCriexpSee at oconresu

Air Quality (page 144) 

Degree of degradation of Air Quality from Smoke 

High degree of long lasting unhealthy to severe graded air quality from potential uncontrolled wildfire(s). 

With prescribed burning occuring on Air District designated affirmative Burn Days, only shortterm impacts to air quality would occur in isolated areas. Potential air quality impacts from wildfires would be reduced with less ground fuels available. 

With prescribed burning occuring on Air District designated affirmative Burn Days, only short-term impacts to air quality would occur in isolated areas. Potential air quality impacts from wildfires would be reduced with less ground fuels available. 

WiburAir affionlto aoccPotimpwoless ava
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Summary xii Sierra National Forest 

Resource Area Indicator Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Transportation System (page 149) 

Effects of Transportation System 

With minimal maintenance there is a continued potential for loss of infrastructure investment from erosion, wet weather use and brush encroachment. 

Roads not meeting acceptable Standards will be required to be have maintenance, or recontruction done for project implementation. This can have the potential to reduce potential erosion problems caused by transportation corridors. 0.2 miles of new road will need to be built. 0.5 miles of temporary road will need to be built. Implementation of BMP and erosion control measures will reduce the impacts of such construction. 

See Alternative 2. See 

For a summary of Forest Vegetation/Silviculture and Fire/Fuels major conclusions please refer to Table 2, Comparison of A

19. 
Sierra National Forest – Chapter 1 1 

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Document Structure _________________________ 

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Impact Statement in compliance with the 

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

regulations. This Environmental Impact Statement discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document 

is organized into four chapters: 

 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: This chapter briefly describes the proposed 

action, the need for that action, and other purposes to be achieved by the proposal. This 

section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposed action and 

how the public responded. 

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

description of the agency proposed action as well as alternative actions that were 

developed in response to comments raised by the public during scoping. The end of the 

chapter includes a summary table comparing the proposed action and alternatives with 

respect to their environmental impacts. 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter 

describes the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. 

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

agencies consulted during the development of the environmental impact statement. 

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

presented in the environmental impact statement. 

 Index: The index provides page numbers by document topic. 

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

found in the project planning record located at Bass Lake Ranger District office in North Fork, 

California. 

Background ________________________________ 

The Sierra National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP or Forest Plan) was 

amended in 2001 by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Record of Decision 

(USDA-FS 2001a, 2004). Standards and guidelines for forest project planning were to focus on 

the modification of fire behavior through fuels treatments. These treatments were to have the 

highest priority in areas described as Wildland Urban Interface/Intermix (WUI). In 2004, a 

Supplement was written to the SNFPA and a Record of Decision (ROD) was signed (USDA-FS 

2004). This ROD replaced the 2001 decision in its entirety. This decision recommended an 

ecosystem approach whereby the development and planning of projects would be not only based 

on fuels reduction treatments, but would create an overall approach by looking at all key elements 

within an ecosystem. WUI continued to be the highest priority area for treatments. In July 2005, 

the Bass Lake Ranger District completed the Fresno River Landscape Analysis. In this Landscape 

Analysis, the State Highway 41 Corridor with its high concentration of human habitation and 

activities, the Nelder Grove Historical Area of Giant Sequoias and declining health of forest 

stands was placed as an area with greatest departure from desired conditions and where 

opportunity existed to move it closer to that desired condition. The Sugar Pine Adaptive 

Management Project is one of the State Highway 41 Corridor areas. 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 

2 Sierra National Forest 

As part of the SNFPA ROD (USDA-FS 2004), an adaptive management and monitoring program 

designed to address high priority, key questions that relate to the uncertainties associated with 

management activities and their effects on wildlife habitat and modified wildfire behavior was to 

be initiated. In 2006, Region 5 (Pacific Southwest Region) of the Forest Service, as well as other 

Federal and State Agencies, entered into an agreement with the University of California whereby 

the university would act as a neutral third party to study the effects of management activities 

associated with the implementation of the SNFPA ROD (2004) in four key areas; wildlife 

(specifically Pacific fisher/California spotted owl), fire and forest health, water quality and 

quantity, and public participation. This adaptive management study is known as the Sierra 

Nevada Adaptive Management Project (SNAMP). The Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

is one of two projects in the region where these key areas are to be studied. 

This Environmental Impact Statement includes the need to amend the Sierra National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan, SNFPA ROD (2004) for Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) of this 

project. In the SNFPA ROD (USDA-FS 2004) Standards and Guidelines for Pacific Fisher Den 

Sites, #86 states...“If areas within den site buffers must be treated to achieve fuels objectives for 

the urban wildland intermix zone, limit treatments to mechanical clearing of fuels. Treat ladder 

and surface fuels to achieve fuels objectives.” In 2008, three den sites were located within the 

project area where treatments are proposed to meet both fuels and forest health objectives. The 

ability to locate these den sites has been enhanced by the intensive tracking of Pacific fisher 

movement throughout the project area as part of the SNAMP Study. The rationale for the need to 

amend the SNFPA ROD (2004), specifically Standard and Guideline #86 is three-fold: 1) Den 

sites have been surveyed for and attempts made to locate these sites for past projects, with no 

success; 2) It is highly unlikely that surveys conducted for future projects will be able to locate 

den sites; 3) To measure the effects of management activities, as is being done through the 

SNAMP study, treatments would need to be implemented based on the type of information that 

would be available during normal project development and planning, which includes the low 

probability of locating fisher den sites. As such, in Alternative 2 treatments would be 

implemented, as proposed, meeting both fire/fuels and forest health objectives with the 

knowledge that treatments are within Pacific fisher habitat having the potential for use as denning 

sites. Information about den site locations will be utilized, for this alternative, only to develop a 

den site buffer whereby a Limited Operating Period from March 1 to June 30 will be 

implemented (S&G #85). The effects of such amendment are addressed in Chapter 3-Affected 

Environment and Environmental Consequences beginning on page 23. 

Purpose and Need for Action__________________ 

The underlying need(s) for this proposal include: 

1. There is a need for fuel reduction (in the surface and ladder fuels) that protects human 

communities from moderate/high intensity wild fires as well as minimizes the spread of 

wildfires that might originate in urban areas into the forested lands. The reasons for this need 

are to increase the efficiency of firefighting efforts and reduce risks to firefighters, the public, 

facilities and structures, and natural resources from moderate/high intensity wild fires 

2. There is a need for conifer stands to have improved resiliency to attack from insects, diseases, 

lower levels of yearly precipitation (drought conditions) and/or wildfire. The reasons for this 

need are conifer stands are well above what is considered normal stocking levels (stand 

densities) whereby creating a decline in growth, health and resiliency due to inter-tree 

competition for sunlight, nutrients and water, thus increasing a stands potential for higher 

rates of mortality. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 1 3 

In meeting the aforementioned needs the action must also achieve the following purposes: 

1. A purpose of this proposal is to reduce the intensity and spread of wildfires across the 

landscape and near communities. The reason for this purpose is to provide a buffer between 

developed areas and wildlands where fire suppression capabilities are enhanced by modified 

fire behavior inside the WUI zones as well as provide a safe and effective area for fire 

suppression activities to occur (USDA-FS 2001, page 9). 

2. A purpose of this proposal is to reduce stand density, within the lower and mid-canopy layers 

of conifer stands, to such a level as to provide for increased stand resiliency, growth and 

vigor. The reason for this purpose is to increase the capability for forested stands to withstand 

fluctuations in temperature and precipitation, attacks from insects and diseases, and from 

wildfires by creating sustainable stand densities. 

Proposed Action ____________________________ 

The action proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need is: 

 Treat surface and ladder fuels (live and dead) to interrupt wildfire spread and fire 

intensity levels. This is proposed to be completed utilizing thinning and biomass thinning 

of pre-commercial and commercial conifers, mastication and/or dozer piling and burning 

in order to improve the ability of firefighters to suppress and control wildfires and 

provide a better measure of safety for the public and personnel. 

 Commercially thin from below and biomass thinning mixed conifer, white fir and pine 

stands as well as pre-commercially thin young conifer plantations and conifer 

reproduction to reduce stand densities. This is being accomplished to improve the vigor 

of the stands. 

 Masticate brush/shrub patches to tie treatment areas together in strategic locations. 

 Utilize prescribed fire as a tool to reduce natural and activity-generated fuels through pile 

burning, under story and/or broadcast burning. 

 Use prescribed fire and/or manual methods to treat infestations of noxious weeds, with 

the goal of eradication and preventing their spread into areas treated. 

 Replant conifers within specific sites of failed conifer plantations. 

The proposed action is described in more detail in Chapter 2 under Alternative 2, page 7. 

Decision Framework _________________________ 

Given the purpose and need, the deciding official will review the proposed action, other 

alternatives, and their environmental consequences, in order to determine whether to implement 

the proposed action as described, select a different alternative or take no action at this time. 

Forest Plan Direction ________________________ 

The Proposed Action and alternatives are guided by the Sierra National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (LRMP), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of 

Decision, 2004 (USDA-FS 2004). The Sierra National Forest is subdivided into land allocations 

(management areas) with established desired conditions and associated management direction 

(standards and guidelines). Land allocations that apply to this proposal are shown on either 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 

4 Sierra National Forest 

individual maps for specific land allocations or on the Land Allocations-Map 4, in the Map 

Package in Appendix A and include: 

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

allocation encompasses 4,674 acres within the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

boundary. Of this acreage; 888 acres are designated as Defense Zone and 3,628 acres are 

designated as Threat Zone. There were no local site-specific adjustments made to these 

boundaries. There are Forest-wide standards and guidelines for this land allocation set 

forth in the SNFPA ROD (USDA-FS 2004). These forest-wide standards and guidelines 

were used to develop the purpose and need (USDA-FS 2004, pgs. 49-50). 

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

encompasses the entire Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project area. The SNFPA ROD 

(2004) has set forth standards and guidelines for this land allocation that address 

protection measures for fisher den sites as well as direction for projects proposed in 

SSFCA (USDA-FS 2004, pgs. 61-62). In these standards and guidelines it is left to 

wildlife biologist to develop design criteria that protect important habitat structures 

within fisher habitat. These design criteria have been developed and are listed in Chapter 

2, Design Criteria Common to All Alternatives starting on page 10. 

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

Areas (HRCA). This land allocation encompasses 4,700 acres of the project area as

suitable nesting habitat and nearly the entire Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

area is suitable foraging habitat. There are six PACs and associated HRCAs either 

entirely or partially within the project boundaries. The SNFPA ROD (2004) has set forth 

standards and guidelines for this land allocation that address mechanical treatments 

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

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

would significantly compromise the overall effectiveness of the landscape fire and fuels 

strategy (USDA-FS 2004, pgs. 59-61). These, as well as the remaining standards and 

guidelines for this land allocation are incorporated into design criteria and are listed in 

Chapter 2, Design Criteria Common to All Alternatives starting on page 10. 

 Northern Goshawk Protected Activity Centers (PAC). This land allocation 

encompasses 4,700 acres of suitable nesting habitat and nearly the entire Sugar Pine 

Adaptive Management Project area suitable foraging habitat. There are two PACs that 

either are entirely or partially within the project boundaries. The SNFPA ROD (2004) has 

set forth standards and guidelines for this land allocation which are similar to those for 

California spotted owl PACs (USDA-FS 2004, pgs. 59-61). The standards and guidelines 

for this allocation are incorporated into design criteria and are listed in Chapter 2, Design 

Criteria Common to All Alternatives starting on page 10. 

 Old Forest Emphasis Areas. This land allocation is designated in approximately 2,870 

acres within the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project boundary. Mature forest 

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

5M, 5D, and 6) where outside of the WUI defense zones standards and guidelines are

designed to maintain and enhance the structures associated with these forest types and the 

protection of the species habitat associated with these forest ecosystems. As such, 

standards and guidelines associated with wildlife species that prefer mature forest habitat 

are used as the standards and guidelines for this land allocation. These are incorporated 

into design criteria and are listed in Chapter 2, Design Criteria Common to All 

Alternatives starting on page 10. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 1 5 

 General Forest. This land allocation is designated in approximately 742 acres within the 

Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project boundary. The standards and guidelines 

associated with this land allocation are the same as those for Old Forest Emphasis Areas. 

As such, standards and guidelines associated with wildlife species that prefer mature 

forest habitat are used as the standards and guidelines for this land allocation. These are 

incorporated into design criteria and are listed in Chapter 2, Design Criteria Common to 

All Alternatives starting on page 10. 

 Riparian Conservation Areas. This land allocation encompasses the entire Sugar Pine 

Adaptive Management Project area because of the extensive stream network acres within 

the project boundary. The standards and guidelines, specifically the Resources 

Conservation Objectives from the SNFPA ROD (USDA-FS 2004), associated with this 

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

Criteria Common to All Alternatives starting on page 10. 

Public Involvement __________________________ 

A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Sugar Pine 

Adaptive Management Project was published in the Federal Register on October 12, 2007. The 

notice asked that comments on the proposed action be received by October 31, 2007. In addition, 

as part of the public involvement process, the Forest Service sent scoping letters to residents 

within 1.5 mile radius of the project area, to members and groups in the Native American 

community and to publics expressing interest in the project through scoping opened during the 

project posting in the Sierra National Forest Schedule of Proposed Action. These scoping letters 

were sent on August 31, 2007. On September 5, 2007, the Forest Service held a public meeting in 

Oakhurst, California, as well as a public field trip to the project area on September 29, 2007. 

Letters inviting interested publics were mailed to each individual that had been sent an initial 

scoping letter as well as electronically mailed to individuals participating in the Sierra Nevada 

Adaptive Management Project (SNAMP). A news release announcing the public meeting was 

sent to the Sierra Star (local newspaper) on September 3, 2007. The public meeting and public 

field trip were attended by approximately 30 individuals from the local community, local fire safe 

council, and environmental community. In addition to comments received during the public

meeting and field trip, five comment letters on the proposed action were received. 

As part of the public participation portion of the SNAMP study of this project, a group of 

stakeholders designated as the Integration Team, was formed. Throughout the planning process 

the Integration Team has held several open forums with the SNAMP team and the Forest Service, 

Bass Lake Ranger District Interdisciplinary Team to discuss project planning, modifications to 

the proposed action, updates on base information collection and potential effects based on most 

recent information collected by SNAMP. In conjunction with the written comments received 

during the scoping period and the issues associated within written comment (see below), 

recommendations and items of concern at these meetings have been brought forward into this 

analysis and led to the development of Alternatives 3 and 4 and are discussed in detail in Chapter 

2 starting on page 8. 

Issues _____________________________________ 

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

proposed action. There were no comments received from members or groups from the Native 

American community. The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significant and 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 

6 Sierra National Forest 

non-significant. Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by 

implementing the proposed action. Non-significant issues were identified as those: 1) outside the 

scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher 

level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by 

scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations 

explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues 

which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 

1506.3)...”. A list of non-significant issues and reasons why they were found non-significant may 

be found in the project record located at Bass Lake Ranger District Office in North Fork, CA. 

The Forest Service identified the following significant issue during scoping: 

Issue: The issue is the proper balance between where forest functionality and susceptibility can 

be improved and human habitations (WUI) susceptibility to wildland fire can be reduced while 

retaining important species habitat elements. Specifically, retention of important habitat elements 

for Pacific fisher, California spotted owl, Northern goshawk and Management Indicator Species 

as measured by: 

 High canopy cover (average in a stand should not drop below 50% and significant 

portions of the treated stands should be at 60% or greater canopy cover), 

 Especially in larger [>20 inch diameter] sized trees, 

 Relatively high basal areas, 

 Understory structure (provide for understory diversity), 

 Adequate large snags and downed wood, and 

 Available movement corridors linking to suitable habitat outside of project area (habitat 

connectivity). 

These indicators are first addressed in design criteria common to all alternatives. The design 

criteria include standards and guidelines directly from the LRMP, SNFPA ROD (USDA-FS 

2001a, 2004) and additional criteria developed to address the indicators above as well as those 

developed to minimize the potential environmental impacts of management activities on any 

given resource. The design criteria that are specific to retention of important habitat elements, as 

those listed in this issue, and are incorporated into Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the Proposed 

Action, starting on page 7 with the environmental consequences of this issue addressed in 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences starting on page 23. 

Two alternatives to the Proposed Action (Alternatives 3 and 4) were developed to address this 

issue and the indicators listed. The description of the alternatives can be found in Chapter 2, 

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action, starting on page 7 which includes how each 

addresses these indicators. These indicators are used as a means by which to compare the 

alternatives. The environmental consequences of changes in the level of treatments are addressed 

in Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences starting on page 23. 
Sierra National Forest – Chapter 2 7 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the 

Proposed Action

Introduction ________________________________ 

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Sugar Pine Adaptive 

Management Project. It describes both alternatives considered in detail and those eliminated from 

detailed study. The end of this chapter presents the alternatives in tabular format so that the 

alternatives and their environmental impacts can be readily compared. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail ______________ 

Based on the issue identified through public comment on the proposed action and comments 

received through the SNAMP Integration Team collaboration, two additional action alternatives 

were considered in detail. In addition, the Forest Service is required to analyze a No Action 

alternative. These alternatives including the proposed action and no action alternative are 

described in detail below. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management 

of the project area. No thinning, either commercial, pre-commercial and/or biomass operations, of 

mixed conifer and pine stands, mastication of brush/shrub patches, prescribed burning to reduce 

natural fuel accumulations and/or treatment of infestations of noxious weeds and replanting of 

conifers in failed conifer plantations would be implemented to accomplish the purpose and need. 

Alternative 2 – The Proposed Action 

Treatment areas within the project area boundary were delineated to include those areas where 

some form of treatment was necessary to meet the purpose and need. First treatment areas were 

designed to create SPLATs to reduce the intensity and spread of wildfires in and around WUI. 

Treatment areas near key transportation corridors (for egress and ingress into the community) and 

within the defense zone of the WUI were designed next. These treatment areas are designed to 

not only focus on those treatments needed to meet fire and fuel objectives (lower and limited midlevel canopy treatments), but the forested stands within the project area that are also considered 

overstocked with conifers (basal area and stand densities that are greater than can be sustained 

with changing environmental conditions). Treatment areas were further designed to address these 

areas. A treatment area map, Map 1, displays these treatment areas and can be found in the Map 

Package in the Appendix. Of the 5,416 total acres within the project boundary, approximately 

2,920 acres were analyzed as areas where some form(s) of treatment are proposed (so named as 

treatment areas). The remaining 2,496 acres have no treatments proposed due to slopes greater 

than 35 percent, standards and guidelines limitation on treatment and/or no treatment is needed to 

meet the purpose and need. 

In Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) the treatments would include: 

 Commercial and biomass thinning an estimated 850 acres of approximately 90-110 year 

old natural conifer stands (within T areas); 

 Commercial and biomass thinning an estimated 65 acres of approximately 45 year old 

ponderosa pine plantations (within T areas); 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

8 Sierra National Forest 

 Biomass thin an estimated 150 acres of approximately 70-90 year old natural 4 to 10 inch 

dbh (diameter at breast height) conifer stands (within T areas); 

 Pre-commercial hand thin and remove fuel ladders, hand pile and burn on approximately 

17 acres (within T 5 and M2); 

 Pre-commercial thin, tractor pile and burn approximately 30 acres of natural conifer 

stands (within T areas); 

 Masticate brush fields and masticate pre-commercial thin reproduction areas on 

approximately 245 acres (within T areas); 

 Masticate brush fields, masticate fuel ladders, and masticate pre-commercially thin 

reproduction areas on approximately 395 acres (M areas); 

 Perform fuelbreak maintenance on approximately 40 acres (M4); 

 Pre-commercial thin/release plantations on approximately 115 acres (M10 (part), M11, 

16, 24, and 25, portions of T6, 7, and 35); 

 Plant and hand release site prepared openings on approximately 40 acres; 

 Prescribed understory burn, as a primary fuels treatment, approximately 215 acres; 

 Maintenance on approximately 28.2 miles of NFTS road; 

 Reconstruction on approximately 9.8 miles of NFTS road; 

 Construct approximately 0.5 miles of temporary road; 

 Construct approximately 0.2 miles of new system road; 

 Prescribed burn and/or manually treat infestations of noxious weeds, where located 

within the project treatment areas, with the goal of eradication and prevention of their 

spread. 

Though a total of 2,920 acres are analyzed for treatments listed above, design criteria and 

standards and guidelines from SNFPA ROD (USDA-FS 2004) dictate areas where treatment can 

not occur to reduce and/or eliminate adverse effects on particular resources. These can include, 

but are not limited to heritage resources, botanical species, wildlife habitat, aquatic species and/or 

slopes greater than 35 percent. It is estimated that excluding these control areas from the 

treatment areas, a total of 1,908 acres will remain for treatment as proposed. 

Alternative 3 – Lower and Limited Mid-Level Canopy 

Treatments within Known Den Site Buffer 

In Alternative 3, treatment areas and the types of treatments would remain the same for all areas, 

as in Alternative 2, except for those portions of treatment areas T-4 and T-3 that are designated 

within the 700-acre Pacific Fisher den site buffer (as established by SNFPA ROD 2004, S&G #85 

and #86) for known den sites. Treatments would be altered within the den site buffer to treat the 

lower and limited mid-level canopy (surface and ladder fuels) to address fire and fuels objectives 

within WUI (see Map 2, Map Package in Appendix A). There would be no additional treatment 

of the mid-level canopy (stand density) within the den site buffer. All other treatment areas would 

continue to have treatments similar to those listed in Alternative 2, which includes treatment of 

lower and middle level canopies. This alternative is being analyzed in detail to measure the 

effects as they relate to the implementation of the SNFPA ROD (2004) Standards and Guidelines 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 2 9 

and is in response to the issue listed on page 6. There would continue to be approximately 2,920 

acres treated under Alternative 3. In Alternative 3 the treatments would include: 

 Commercial and biomass thin an estimated 760 acres of approximately 90-110 year old 

natural conifer stands (within T areas, except T4); 

 Commercial and biomass thin an estimated 65 acres of approximately 45 year old 

ponderosa pine plantations (within T areas); 

 Biomass thin an estimated 240 acres of approximately 70-90 year old natural 4 to 10 inch 

dbh conifer stands (within T areas); 

 Pre-commercial hand thin and remove fuel ladders, hand pile and burn on approximately 

17 acres (within T 5 and M2); 

 Pre-commercial thin, tractor pile and burn approximately 30 acres of natural conifer 

stands (within T areas); 

 Masticate brush fields and masticate pre-commercial thin reproduction areas on 

approximately 245 acres (within T areas); 

 Masticate brush fields, masticate fuel ladders, and masticate pre-commercially thin 

reproduction areas on approximately 395 acres (M areas); 

 Perform fuelbreak maintenance on approximately 40 acres (M4); 

 Pre-commercial thin/release plantations on approximately 115 acres (M10 (part), M11, 

16, 24, and 25, portions of T6, 7, and 35); 

 Plant and hand release site prepared openings on approximately 40 acres; 

 Prescribed understory burn, as a primary fuels treatment, approximately 215 acres; 

 Maintenance on approximately 28.2 miles of NFTS road; 

 Reconstruction on approximately 9.8 miles of NFTS road; 

 Construct approximately 0.5 miles of temporary road; 

 Construct approximately 0.2 miles of new system road; and 

 Prescribe burn and/or manually treat infestations of noxious weeds, where located within 

the project treatment areas, with the goal of eradication and prevention of their spread. 

Alternative 4 – Lower and Limited Mid-Level Canopy 

Treatments, All Treatment Areas 

In Alternative 4, treatment areas would remain the same as in Alternative 2, but the treatments 

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

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

Alternative 4 there would be no additional treatments (i.e. additional thinning in the mid-level 

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

This alternative would, in effect, assume the entire project area as a Pacific Fisher den site, 

whereby, it would be treated to achieve fire and fuels objectives for the urban wildland intermix 

zone and limit treatments to mechanical clearing of ladder and surface fuels. As such, all design 

criteria and SNFPA ROD (2004) standards and guidelines associated with Pacific Fisher den sites 

would be implemented with this alternative. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

10 Sierra National Forest 

This alternative is brought forward for detailed study based on current information provided from 

SNAMP study of the detection and movement of Pacific fisher within the project area, 

Conservation Biology Institute (CBI) modeling and the document entitled “Baseline Evaluation 

of Fisher Habitat and Population Status and Effects of Fires and Fuels Management on Fishers In 

the Southern Sierra Nevada” (Spencer 2008). 

This alternative was developed to address the issue listed on page 6. As well, this alternative is 

being analyzed in detail to measure the effects as they relate to focusing treatments on fire and 

fuels objectives without additional treatment for forest health (stand density). There would be 

approximately 2,920 acres treated under Alternative 4. In Alternative 4 the treatments would 

include: 

 Biomass thin (fuel ladder reduction) an estimated 1,065 acres of approximately 70-90 

year old natural conifer stands (within T areas); 

 Pre-commercially hand thin and remove fuel ladders, hand pile and burn on 

approximately 17 acres (within T 5 and M2, see map); 

 Pre-commercially thin, tractor pile and burn approximately 30 acres of natural conifer 

stands (within T areas, see map); 

 Masticate brush fields and masticate pre-commercial thin reproduction areas on 

approximately 245 acres (within T areas, see map); 

 Masticate brush fields, masticate fuel ladders, and masticate pre-commercially thin 

reproduction areas on approximately 395 acres (M areas, see map); 

 Perform fuelbreak maintenance on approximately 40 acres (M4, see map);

 Pre-commercially thin/release plantations on approximately 115 acres (M10 (part), M11, 

16, 24, and 25, portions of T6, 7, and 35, see map); 

 Plant and hand release site prepared openings on approximately 40 acres; 

 Prescribed understory burn, as a primary fuels treatment, approximately 215 acres; 

 Maintenance on approximately 28.2 miles of NFTS road; 

 Reconstruction on approximately 9.8 miles of NFTS road; 

 Construct approximately 0.5 miles of temporary road; 

 Construct approximately 0.2 miles of new system road; 

 Prescribe burn and/or manually treat infestations of noxious weeds, where located within 

the project treatment areas, with the goal of eradication and prevention of their spread. 

Design Criteria Common to All Action Alternatives 

The Forest Service has developed the following design criteria to be used for all action 

alternatives. These are listed by resource area and are intended to minimize potential 

environmental impacts of the activities listed for each alternative. 

Cultural Resources 

Procedures and standard protection measures from the Programmatic Agreement Among the 

U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, California State Historic Preservation 

Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Identification, Evaluation 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 2 11 

and Treatment of Historic Properties Managed by the National Forests of the Sierra Nevada, 

California (the Sierran PA) will be utilized for the protection of Heritage Resources within the 

project area. The primary protection measure will be avoidance, but additional measures, such as 

directional felling and monitoring can be used to minimize potential effects.

Botany 

Project design criteria for protection of Forest Service sensitive plants: 

a. All known lady’s slipper orchid populations will be flagged for avoidance unless they 

occur in streamside management zones where no management activities will occur. 

b. Populations of short-leafed hulsea that occur along Forest Roads 5S22Y and 5S06 will be 

flagged for avoidance prior to project implementation. 

Project design criteria for prevention of spread of noxious weeds: 

a. All heavy equipment used for implementing the project will be washed before arriving on 

site to remove soil and seeds of noxious weeds so that they are not transported into the 

project area. 

b. Infestations of foxglove, klamathweed, oxeye daisy, broom, and bull thistle will be 

removed prior to project implementation, and a buffer zone will be flagged for avoidance 

to prevent heavy equipment from transporting seeds in the soil to other areas within the 

project boundary and beyond. 

c. Any plantings or straw used for erosion control will be approved by the Forest Botanist to 

minimize the likelihood of accidental introduction of noxious weeds and to ensure 

compliance with the FS Pacific Southwest Region Native Plant Policy. 

Geology/Soils 

1. Leave a 100-foot wide buffer of 100 percent soil cover below large rock outcrops. These 

areas have a high potential to generate runoff that can cause accelerated erosion on soils 

down slope. 

2. Conduct mechanical equipment operations (mechanical thinning and biomass removal 

equipment, log skidders and tractor-piling operations) when the soil is sufficiently dry in the 

top 12 inches to prevent unacceptable loss of soil porosity (soil compaction). Field checking 

by a soil scientist would be done to determine if operations could continue under moist soil 

conditions. “Maintain 90% of the soil porosity over 85% of an activity area (stand) found 

under natural conditions.” 

3. Subsoil and water bar skid roads and trails in areas where soil compaction exceeds 15% of a 

treatment area. 

4. Limit mechanical operations, where sustained slopes exceed 35%, except where supported by 

on-the-ground interdisciplinary team evaluation. 

5. Maintain 50% soil cover over all treatment areas. Where shrub species predominate, attempt 

crushing before piling to create small woody fragments left scattered over the site for soil 

cover and erosion protection. 

6. Maintain at least five well-distributed logs per acre as large woody debris (LWD) 

representing the range of decomposition classes defined in the Regional Soil Quality 

Standards and Guidelines (S&G). 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

12 Sierra National Forest 

7. Provide for road surface stabilization (gravel) on roads over 5% that are located on sensitive 

soils, including Holland and Musick soils (LRMP S&G #129) and are affecting soil

productivity and/or water quality. 

Lands/Special Uses 

There are numerous land type special uses authorized under permit in the project area including 

water systems (spring developments, water lines and storage tanks), buried fiber optic and 

telephone lines, a telephone carrier site near Sugar Pine, the Madera Irrigation District gauging 

station, overhead and buried electrical lines, roads, and apiary sites. 

a. To provide a measure of protection, permit holders will be responsible for identifying the 

location(s) of their authorized improvements and/or right-of-ways so they are clearly 

visible during project implementation. Holders shall identify their improvements by using 

a combination of flagging and surveyors stakes; holders shall print their name and contact 

phone numbers on the flagging/stakes with indelible ink that is capable of lasting several 

years. 

b. Roads authorized under permit that are damaged by project activities will be repaired by 

the operator(s) to pre-project condition. 

c. The Madera Irrigation District Ditch is located in Treatment Areas T15 and M5 where 

mastication would occur. The Ditch has been in use for over 150 years, and a riparian 

vegetation type has developed along the banks of the ditch. There should be a minimum 

setback of 25 feet on either side of the ditch where the use of mechanical equipment 

should be restricted, or project activities are limited to the hand removal of brush. All 

slash that enters the ditch resulting from project activities will be removed by the end of 

the days operating period by the operator to prevent blockage of the ditch. 

Recreation special uses authorized under permit in the project area include the Yosemite 

Mountain Sugar Pine Railroad (YMSRR) and Yosemite Trails Pack Station (YTPS). The 

YMSRR improvements located within their permit area including the railroad right-of-way, 

office, parking areas, amphitheater, bathroom, seating areas, etc. They are easily identifiable and 

should be avoided during project activities. The YMSRR operates the railroad 6 months a year 

between March and October; however, their peak visitor season is between June and mid-August. 

Project activities would occur adjacent to and within the permit area. 

a. During project implementation various contractors and/or operators may need to cross the 

railroad tracks to gain access to treatment units. The Bass Lake Ranger District will 

identify the locations where rail crossings need to occur; and will work with the owner of 

YMSRR to design and construct the crossings to ensure heavy equipment does not

damage the rail system during project implementation. 

b. The district will work with the owner of YMSRR to minimize interruptions to YMSRR 

operations during Project implementation. 

c. Contractors and/or operators will provide advance notification to the YMSRR when 

Project activities occur adjacent to the right-of-way and/or permit area, and advise the 

YMSRR when Project activities may result in a delay of YMSRR operations. 

d. Contractors and/or operators will remove all activity slash generated from project 

activities that land on the railroad tracks and/or within the railroad right-of-way. The 

contractor and/or operator will provide a spotter, whose responsibility is to remove slash 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 2 13 

from the tracks and right-of-way concurrent with the operation, or as soon as project 

activities cease, and the right-of-way is safe to enter. 

The YTPS offers horseback rides three seasons of the year from their pack station headquarters 

adjacent to Big Sandy road, and offers horse driven sleigh rides from a secondary location south 

of Tenaya Lodge during winter months when snow conditions are favorable. The YTPS is 

authorized to use and maintain many of the horseback riding trails they take their clients on. 

Trails used by YTPS and the Lewis Creek Recreation Trail may need to be crossed with 

equipment by operators to gain access to units. These trails are identified in the project folder and 

on the map entitled “Special Uses” within the Sugar Pine Project. 

a. All project-related equipment will cross at locations perpendicular to identified recreation 

trails. 

b. All slash will be pulled out of and away from trails. Activity fuels and slash will not be 

piled or treated within 5 feet of those trails. 

Wildlife – Terrestrial 

1. Limited Operating Periods (LOPs): Should surveys locate activity centers or active nests 

for California spotted owls or Northern goshawks, LOPs will be applied within a 1⁄4 mile 

radius of the activity center or nest. Should a great gray owl nest be located, nesting location 

will be protected by an LOP. LOPs will also apply to nests discovered during project 

implementation in un-surveyed areas. The district biologist will be notified when a nest or 

den of any TES or sensitive species is discovered within or adjacent to a treatment area. 

2. Snags and Down Woody Material (USDA-FS 2004, Pg. 51-52): 

Down Woody Material: “Determine down woody material retention levels on an individual 

project basis, based on desired conditions. Emphasize retention of wood in the largest size 

classes and in decay classes 1, 2, and 3. Consider the effects of follow-up prescribed fire in 

achieving desired down woody material retention levels.” Typically 10 to 20 tons of down 

woody material per acre is acceptable from a fuel loading standpoint, and will retain 

sufficient material to provide for post-treatment habitat for down woody utilizing species, 

based on extrapolation of pre-European stand conditions. 

Snag Retention: “Design projects to implement and sustain a generally continuous supply of 

snags and live decadent trees suitable for cavity nesting wildlife across a landscape. Retain 

some mid- and large-diameter live trees that are currently in decline, have substantial wood 

defect, or that have desirable characteristics (teakettle branches, large diameter broken top, 

large cavities in the bole) to serve as future replacement snags and to provide nesting 

structure. When determining snag retention levels and locations, consider land allocation, 

desired condition, landscape position, potential prescribed burning and fire suppression line 

locations, and site conditions (such as riparian areas and ridge tops) avoiding uniformity 

across large areas. 

The general guidelines for large-snag retention are as follows: 

Westside mixed conifer and ponderosa pine types – four of the largest snags per acre. 

Use snags larger than 15 inches dbh to meet this guideline. Snags should be clumped 

and distributed irregularly across the treatment units. Consider leaving fewer snags 

strategically located in treatment areas within the WUI. When some snags are 

expected to be lost due to hazard removal or the effects of prescribed fire, consider 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

14 Sierra National Forest 

these potential losses during project planning to achieve desired snag retention 

levels.” 

Since the Sugar Pine project area is all within the WUI, where possible, snags and 

wildlife leave trees will be retained in untreated areas (such as riparian management 

zones), and clumped in areas not in proximity to structures, access routes, fuel 

breaks, or private property. 

3. Protected Activity Centers (PACs) and Home Range Core Area (HRCA) treatments: 

Where treatments will occur within PACs aim to maintain >70% canopy closure where 

available. Where treatments will occur within HRCAs aim to maintain >60% canopy closure 

where available. 

4. Pacific Fisher Habitat: 

A 700-acre den site buffer of the best available habitat will be designated for known den site 

locations with a Limited Operating Period established within the den site buffer. If a new den 

site (s) should be located during implementation, a 700-acre den site buffer of the best 

available habitat will be designated and a Limited Operating Period established for that buffer 

area. 

From the “Sierra NF Interim Pacific Fisher Habitat Maintenance and Improvement 

Approach” (see Appendix C) the following design criteria will be applied to all action 

alternatives to address portions of the issue listed on page 6. 

 Maintain highest canopy cover possible to meet the prescription within stands, aim for 

50-60% immediately post-harvest. 

 Thinning will not remove any trees larger than 30-inch dbh. 

 Retain groups of larger trees (greater than 20-inch dbh) at the rate of approximately one 

group per 2.5 to 3.5 acres. Ideally these groups would contain “defect” trees, those that 

have cavity and platform creating defects (mistletoe, rot, fork topped, broken limbs and 

tops) for den and rest sites. 

 Retain largest snags and logs. Do not remove snags unless it is safety concern (project 

does not propose to remove snags). Retain largest logs to maximum allowed by fuel 

loading standards. 

 Maintain habitat connectivity with Old Forest Linkages which consist of buffers of 300 

feet on either side of perennial streams where canopy closure is retained at >60%, 150-

foot buffers on either side of perennial streams where no trees >12-inch dbh are removed, 

and 50-foot buffers on either side of perennial streams where no fuels treatments will 

occur. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 2 15 

Figure 1. Associated Bounds and Treatments within Old Forest Linkages and 

Perennial Streams 

It has been shown in the project area that black oaks tend to show cavities once they become 20 

inches in diameter or greater. To maintain hiding cover for fisher and their prey, around black 

oaks >20-inch dbh create a buffer (35 feet from the bole or to dripline whichever is greater) 

where no fuels treatment will occur. This measure does not apply within fuelbreaks. This 

guideline is to be applied to two to three oaks per acre. 

Prior to prescribed burning treatments, protect of important habitat structures such as large 

diameter snags and oaks, patches of dense large trees typically 1⁄4 to 2 acres, large trees with 

cavities for denning/resting, well distributed clumps of small understory trees, and coarse woody 

material should be incorporated. For example, use firing patterns, place fire lines around snags 

and large logs, and implement other prescribed burning techniques to minimize effects to these 

attributes. 

 Use mechanical treatments when appropriate to minimize effects on preferred fisher 

habitat elements. 

 Remove unneeded roads in high quality fisher habitat. 

Wildlife – Aquatics 

Follow all applicable aquatic wildlife species and riparian habitat standards and guidelines from 

the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental Impact Statement and 

Record of Decision (USDA-FS 2004), the existing Sierra National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan direction (USDA-FS 1992), Forest Service handbook (FSH) 2509.22 Sierra 

Supplement #1 for treatments within Streamside Management Zones (SMZ, USDA 1989)), Best 

Management Practices and other applicable laws and regulations (USDA-FS 2000a). Generalized 

SMZ designation is outline in Table 1. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

16 Sierra National Forest 

Table 1. Summary of Relationship between Feature Types, RCA Widths, Stream 

Classes, SMZ Widths, RMA Widths, and Stream Orders (and other GIS data) 

Feature Type RCA 

Width 

Stream 

Class 

SMZ Width RMA 

Width 

Corresponding 

GIS Layer 

Stream Order 

Perennial Streams 300 feet I At least 100 ft 100 feet 4+ 

II At least 75 ft 3 

III At least 50 ft 2 

IV At least 25 ft 1 

Seasonally Flowing 

Streams 

150 feet 

V None required 

N/A 

- 

Streams in Inner Gorge Top of 

inner 

gorge 

Varies 

Special Aquatic Features 

(fens, bogs, springs, 

seeps, lakes, ponds, 

wetlands, etc.) 

300 feet N/A N/A 100 feet Either identified on 

GIS layers 

(meadows, springs, 

lakes), or identified 

in the field 

1. Class I SMZs are within or adjacent to treatment areas: T4, T5, T7, T8, T9, T10, T11, T13, 

T14, T15, T23, T24, T26, T32, T33, M2, M5, M6, M7, M8, M10, M9, M11, M12, M13, 

M16, M24, M25, Rx 1, Rx 3, and Rx 5. Old Forest Linkage Prescriptions apply to these 

SMZs. No treatments within inner 50 feet from stream bank. 

2. Protect any Special Aquatic Features (seeps, springs, bogs, fens, and/or wet areas) that may 

be found during project implementation that are not already identified on project analysis 

maps. Treat these areas as perennial (Class I) areas with 300 foot Riparian Conservation 

Areas (RCAs). This includes treatment areas: T3, T4, T7, T26, T30, T32, T33, T34, M11, and 

M16. 

3. In the outer 50 feet of Class I SMZs, reduce fuel loading by: 

a. Removing ladder fuels (suppressed and intermediate trees); 

b. Removing diseased trees that will fall away from riparian areas; and 

c. Hand-piling slash as necessary to reduce the effects of under-burning; 

d. Maintaining trees with broken tops for source of Larger Woody Debris (LWD) 

recruitment if they are leaning toward stream channel. 

4. Apply SMZs as mapped in Project Hydrology report. 

5. General aquatic species and riparian habitat protection measures within all Riparian 

Conservation Areas (RCAs) are to: 

a. Do not allow mechanical equipment within 100 feet of meadows or other special aquatic 

features. Includes treatment areas: T3, T4, T7, T26, T30, T32, T33, T34, M11, and M16. 

b. Do not allow mechanical equipment within SMZ. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 2 17 

c. To protect bank stability, do not cut streambank trees (trees with drip line extending to or 

over edge of streambank). 

d. Do not cut any tree located within a channel. 

e. For water drafting, use a screened intake device and pumps with low entry velocity to 

minimize removal of aquatic species, including juvenile fish, amphibian egg masses and 

tadpoles, from aquatic habitats. A Hydrologist and Aquatic Biologist would approve 

water-drafting sites. See Best Management Practices (BMP) 2-21 in Table 2 for specific 

requirements. 

f. Monitor potential project effects to streams and aquatic habitat using the Region 5 (R5) 

Stream-Condition Inventory protocols (Frazier et al. 2005). 

g. When lighting piles, start burn from one end only to allow escape route for any species 

inhabiting piles. 

h. No lighting into SMZs, but fire can creep into zone. 

6. Report any discovery of amphibians or reptiles (e.g. frogs, toads, salamanders, and turtles) 

during project sale preparation and implementation to the district biologist immediately. 

7. If newly listed or unknown occurrences of Federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, 

candidate or Forest Service sensitive aquatic species are found within the affected project 

area during sale preparation and implementation, additional species protection measures may 

need to be imposed by the district fisheries and aquatic biologist. 

Hydrology 

Project specific Best Management Practices, listed in Appendix B of this document, will be 

implemented. 

Silviculture 

A limited operating period would be imposed in well stocked stands heavy to fir (over 50% fir) 

where operations could begin August 1st or later when the sap is not running (fir bark is much 

more easily dislodged when the sap is running than later in the year). The District Silviculturist 

will determine which stands require a LOP during the thinning layout phase. 

Fuels 

Utilization of prescribed fire and designation of areas where prescribed fire will be used need to 

take into consideration the following: 

1. In treatment areas designated as mastication (M), prescribed fire should first be considered 

where it is too steep and /or rocky for the masticator to work effectively, oak dominates the 

stand and/or as a maintenance treatment in areas where brush re-growth has not been slowed 

and have not been planted with conifers. 

2. In treatment areas designated as tractor (T), prescribed fire should first be considered where 

there are larger residual trees (of size less susceptible to fire damage) with light fuel loadings, 

areas not being thinned due to steepness, follow-up treatments have been completed or are 

not required, and/or areas where conifer reproduction is not being used for re-generation of 

openings. 

3. Prescribed fire should be used during the late fall or early spring, to minimize effects to trees 

during active growing period and within Pacific fisher denning habitat areas. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

18 Sierra National Forest 

Engineering 

1. Maintain all NFS roads to standards established in the Forest Service Handbook 7709.58. 

Perform road maintenance, reconstruction and new road construction activities to support 

project access needs. Insure drainage structures are functional and stable to prevent potential 

resource damage and degradation of water quality (S&G #78, #79, #124, #206 and BMPs). 

2. Perform a final field review of project roads to determine reconstruction needs prior to 

project activities. Where economically feasible, place aggregate on existing native surface 

roads located in areas with High and very High Soil Erosion Hazard ratings (S&G #129). 

3. Close temporary roads required for unit access upon completion of use; remove all culverts, 

rip and ditch landings, construct waterbars, block the entrance with a log and dirt berm, and 

disguise the entrance with brush to discourage additional traffic. 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from 

Detailed Study ______________________________ 

Federal agencies are required to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable 

alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not 

developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the Proposed 

Action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of 

these alternatives may have been outside the scope of the need for the proposal, duplicative of the 

alternatives considered in detail, or determined to be components that would cause unnecessary 

environmental harm. Therefore, a number of alternatives were considered, but dismissed from 

detailed consideration for reasons summarized below. 

Alternatives based on varying the upper diameter limit 

(currently 30-inch dbh) for mechanical thinning to 

ensure a 50 to 60% plus canopy cover is maintained and 

by which wildfire intensity and spread are reduced 

The purpose and need for this project is not solely focused on the reduction of wildland fire 

intensity and spread into and out of WUI, but includes the need to maintain sustainable forested 

stands by reducing stand density. In considering this alternative, it was determined that it 

incorporated many of the same concerns for the proposed action as were made in the issue listed 

on page 6, in particular, the need to maintain high canopy cover. In bringing forward Alternatives 

3 and 4 for detailed study, as well as design criteria incorporated to address the issue listed on 

page 6, the effects of varying stand density treatments as they relate to meeting the purpose and 

need for fire/fuels objectives and forest health objectives is addressed. It was determined that any 

alternative based on varying upper diameter limits for mechanical thinning would measure the 

same effects as these two alternatives and would be duplicative to other alternatives. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptiv

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 2 Comparison of Alternatives ___________________ This table provides a brief summary of the alternatives and their environmental impacts in comparative format. Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives 

Measure or Effect 

Alternative 1 – No 

Action 

Alternative 2 – Proposed 

Action Alternative 3 A

Total Project Area =5,416 acres; Total Acres Analyzed in Treatment Areas = 2,920 Estimated Acres by Alternative to be Treated by Treatment Area Type: Tractor 0 Acres 1,356 Acres (Commercial 

Thin= 914 acres; biomass/mast/precommercial thin= 432 acres; hand thin=10 acres) 

1,356 Acres (Commercial Thin = 824 acres; biomass/ mast/ precommercial thin = 522 acres; hand thin = 10 acres) 

1,356 A(Commacres ibiomasercial thand th

Mastication 0 Acres 532 acres 532 acres Prescribed Fire 0 Acres 215 acres 215 acres Miles of Road Maintenance 0 28.2 28.2 Reconstruction 0 9.8 9.8 Temporary 0 0.5 0.5 New Road 0 0.2 0.2 Fire/Fuels Objective Measures: Fuel Model (Resultant) 4 10 12 12 TU1 9 12 TU1 9 12 Predicted Rate of Spread (chains/hour) 

92 10 16 11 8 6 11 8 6 11 

Predicted Flame Length (feet) 

23 10 16 8 3 3 8 3 3 8 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

20 Sie

Measure or Effect 

Alternative 1 – No 

Action 

Alternative 2 – Proposed 

Action Alternative 3 A

Predicted Fireline Intensity (BTU/ft2) 

5131 282 781 531 63 47 531 63 47 531 

Predicted Crown Fire Potential (Yes/No; Type) 

Y/ 

Crowning

Y/ 

Crowning

Y/ 

Crowning

Y/ 

Torching 

N/ 

Surface 

N/ 

Surface 

Y/ 

Torching

N/ 

Surface 

N/ 

Surface 

Y/ 

Torchin

Resistance to Control (High, Moderate, Low) 

High High High High Low Low High Low Low High 

Forest Health Objective Measures (Desired Condition by Species: Pine= 135; White Fir= 240; Mixed Conifer= 210) Estimated Range of Basal Area Remaining (ft2/acre) for >5-inch dbh conifers 

130 to 480 ft2/acre (all species) 

130 to 330 ft2/acre (all species) 

130 to 330 ft2/acre (all species) (Treatment area T4 would be changed from estimated range BA remaining of 130 to 190 to 130 to 310 with this Alternative) 

130-48species

Estimated Range of Stems per Acre Remaining for >5-inch dbh conifers (# trees/acre) 

= 65 to 251 trees/acre (all species) 

44 to 101 trees/acre 50-142 trees/acre (all 

species) (Treatment area T4 would be changed from estimated range Stems/Acre remaining of 57 to 84 to 66 to 142 trees/acre) 

66 to 1species

Habitat Indicators (From Issue): Estimated Range of Average Canopy Cover Remaining (%) 

39 to 100% Average= 69% 39 to 88%; Average= 57% 39 to 97%; Average= 58% 39 to 1

69% 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptiv

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 2 

Measure or Effect 

Alternative 1 – No 

Action 

Alternative 2 – Proposed 

Action Alternative 3 A

Estimated Average Tree Diameter Removed (inches at dbh) 

N/A 11 to 20-inch dbh 11 to 20-inch dbh 

(Treatment Area 4 would be changed from 11 to 20-inch dbh to 5 to 10-inch dbh with this alternative) 

5 to 10

Large Snag and Down Wood Standard for Treated Areas 

N/A Listed in Design Criteria 

Common to All Alternatives (pages 10-18) 

Listed in Design Criteria Common to All Alternatives (pages 10-18) 

Listed CriteriAltern18) 

Movement Corridors Addressed (Yes or No) 

Yes, with assumption corridors are present currently 

Yes, addressed as Old Forest Linkage Areas on page 14. 

Yes, addressed as Old Forest Linkage Areas on page 14. 

Yes, adForest on pag

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 23 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences

This chapter describes aspects of the environment likely to be affected by the proposed action and 

alternatives. Also described are the environmental effects (direct, indirect, and cumulative) that 

would result from undertaking the proposed action or other alternatives. Together, these 

descriptions form the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of effects in chapter 2. 

Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable 

Actions ____________________________________ 

According the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, “cumulative impact” 

is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency 

(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7). 

In order to understand the contributions of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed 

action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the 

impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all 

prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to 

cumulative effects. 

This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by 

adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking 

this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and 

unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the 

last century (and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have 

residual impacts would nearly be impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on an 

individual basis would not predict the cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In 

fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, 

because there is limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and 

one can not reasonably identify each and every action over the last century that has contributed to 

current conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past human actions risks ignoring the 

important residual effects of past natural events, which may contribute to cumulative effects just 

as much as human actions have. Third, public scoping for this project did not identify any public 

interest or need for detailed information on individual past actions. Finally, the Council on 

Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis 

of past action, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by 

focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details 

of individual past actions.” 

The cumulative effects analysis in this EIS is also consistent with Forest Service National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)) (July 24, 2008), which states, 

in part: 

“CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions 

to determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified those present 

effects of past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the 

effects of the proposal for agency action or its alternatives will add to, modify, or mitigate 

those effects. The final analysis documents an agency assessment of the cumulative effects of 

the actions considered (including past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions) on 

the affected environment. With respect to past actions, during the scoping process and 

subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency must determine what information 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

24 Sierra National Forest 

regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects. 

Cataloging past actions and specific information about the direct and indirect effects of their 

design and implementation could in some contexts be useful to predict the cumulative effects 

of the proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require agencies to catalogue or 

exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions. Simply because information about 

past actions may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is 

relevant and necessary to inform decision-making. (40 CFR 1508.7)” 

In determining cumulative effects, the effects of the following past, present and future actions 

were added to the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action and alternatives. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 

Table 3. Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Contributing to Cumulative Effects by Resolikely to Effect 

Activity Type Description Year Unit Of Measure 

Air Quality 

Aquatics 

Botany/NW

Fuels/Fire 

Fuels/CBD 

Human Health

Heritage 

Vegetation 

Roads/Trails USFS, County, State owned and maintained 

Includes the network of inventoried road/trail systems within project subwatersheds 

On-going 86 miles X X X X 

Campground and other USFS Owned Facilities 

Big Sandy Campground, Little Sandy Campground, West Fall Campground, West Fall Fire Station 

Existing 4 sites X X 

Past/Current USFS Timber Sales within Sugar Pine subwatersheds 

Includes: 1) Green Timber Sales 2) Salvage Harvest 3) Thinning 

1) 1980s 2) 1990s 3) 2000-Current 

1) 2,640 acres 2) 1,532 acres 3) 189 acres 

X X X X X X X 

Vegetation Management Plantation Maintenance 

Clearcutting, thinning, hand release, chemical release, and planting in plantations <30 yrs old. 

1980s 115 acres X X X X X X 

Sugar Pine Railroad Yosemite Pack Station Infrastructure 

Special Use Permits which include buildings, amphitheater, RR track, corrals, and trails. 

Existing Approx. 25 acres 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

26 Sie

Activity Type Description Year Unit Of Measure 

Air Quality 

Aquatics 

Botany/NW

Fuels/Fire 

Fuels/CBD 

Human Health

Heritage 

Vegetation 

Power Line Power Line Corridor Existing Approx.4.5 miles X Big Creek Ditch Diversion 

Madera Irrigation Historical Ditch System 1850s Approx.3 miles X 

Roadside Hazard Tree Removal 

Removal of damaged, rotten, dead trees to abate roadside hazard using timber sale contracts. 

2003- present 41 miles X X X/X X X X 

Fire/Fuels Management Activities 

Includes Fuelbreak Construction and Maintenance, Prescribed Burning, ladder fuel removal, mastication 

1980spresent Approx. 600 acres X X X E E X X X 

Private Land Infrastructure for communities of Sugar Pine, Cedar Valley and Fish Camp 

New home construction, power, water, private roads 

Ongoing 378 acres X X X X X X 

Private LandVegetation Management in communities and other private lands 

Timber harvesting, land type conversions Hazard fuels reduction 

Ongoing Individual 

Community Private Acres 

X X X X X X 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 

Activity Type Description Year Unit Of Measure 

Air Quality 

Aquatics 

Botany/NW

Fuels/Fire 

Fuels/CBD 

Human Health

Heritage 

Vegetation 

Special Use Permitted Activities 

Waterlines, Water storage tanks, fiber optic cable, apiary 

Ongoing Various 

MeasuresMapped Locations 

 X X X X X X 

Motorized Recreation 

4X4, OHV, snowmobile uses of system and temporary roads 

Ongoing 86 miles X X X/X 

Livestock Grazing Soquel Allotment Ongoing Soquel Mdw 

Pasture 

 X X/X X X 

Fish Camp Project Vegetation Mgmt Project Project 

proposal being developed 2009-2010 

2,000 to 3,000 acres 

 X X X X X X 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

28 Sierra National Forest 

Cultural Resources __________________________ 

Affected Environment 

All throughout the Sierra National Forest are the remnants of past cultures that illustrate the 

centuries-old relationships between people and the land. These cultural resources hold clues to 

past ecosystems and human adaptations to them, provide links between living communities and 

the unique prehistoric and historic land uses of the Sierra NF, and help transform a visit to the 

woods into an encounter with history. These cultural resources comprise an irreplaceable and 

non-renewable resource record of past human life and land use. This record is contained in 

properties with archaeological research value, and locations of cultural importance to local Native 

American groups. 

Archaeological and Historic Values 

Cultural resources are the buildings, sites, areas, architecture, and properties that bear evidence of 

human activity and use, and have scientific, historic, and cultural importance. The cultural 

resources are not distributed equally across this acreage, but clustered according to the natural 

resources that were being used (e.g. acorn groves, timber stands, water, mineral locations). With 

new discovery upon almost every new survey effort, there continue to be many undiscovered 

cultural resources in the Sierra National Forest (Sierra NF). 

Physical remains of over 10,000 years of human history are found throughout the Sierra National 

Forest. Except for the last century and a half of written history, the only record of this long human 

use is the remains left by the original native people and their descendants. At the time of contact 

with Euro-Americans, in the late 1700s and early 1800s, the Fresno River was the boundary 

between the southern Sierra Miwok to the north and west, and the Chukchansi Yokuts to the 

south and east. The Western Mono occupied the area around what is now Bass Lake. The 

boundaries between the groups were ambiguous, with a lot of overlap in the area between the 

Miwok, Yokuts and Mono. 

The processes of subsistence, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and the resulting indigenous land use 

are seen in the archaeological record with features common to the material culture of the native 

people of the Sierra Nevada (e.g. village sites, bedrock mortars, stone tool artifacts). Some of 

these sites have ethnographic documentation that indicates a fairly recent history of tribal use; in 

some cases, tribal use continues at sites that have an occupational history that spans thousands of 

years. 

Historic-era cultural resources reflect particularly the cultural and economic products of the rapid 

pace of technological achievement in the last 150 years imposed on the terrain of the Sierra 

Nevada. These resources often reflect environmental changes resulting from industrial and 

technological advances in resource extraction, landscape use, and management. Sites include 

remnants of Forest Service administration, exploration and settlement, grazing/range 

management, mining, transportation, travel, tourism and recreation, and the forest products 

industry. Each of these themes has an array of associated sites and features. For example, features 

associated with railroad logging operations may be work camps, refuse dumps, railroad grades, 

trestles, and discarded equipment. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 29 

Native American Cultural Values 

Federally recognized tribal governments associated with the Sierra NF, as elsewhere in the United 

States, have a special political and legal relationship with the U.S. Government. Recognized 

tribes are also beneficiaries of a trust relationship with the Federal government. Federal agencies, 

such as the Forest Service, consult with tribes as with other governments and are responsible for 

protecting tribal interests. The Forest Service also consults with non-recognized tribes. 

There is a deep and abiding concern with many Indian people about what occurs in their 

aboriginal territory. The Sierra NF honors the traditional ties that many tribal communities and 

Indian people have to this portion of the Sierra Nevada. Access to and use of the Forest and other 

public lands is critical for many Indian people, as community identity and cultural survival are 

dependent on continued access to ceremonial and sacred places, cemeteries, traditional gathering 

areas, archaeological sites, and resources at a variety of locations on forest land. Certain plants, 

animals, and locations provide for many needs, including food, medicine, utilitarian type 

materials, and ceremonial items. Specific resources insure that significant cultural traditions, such 

as basket weaving, survive and continue. These areas contribute to the tribal communities’ way of 

life, their identity, their traditional practices and cohesiveness. 

Consultation with tribes, the local Native American communities, and other interested parties to 

identify other cultural values, including contemporary Native American interests, was initiated 

with a Public Scoping Letter that was sent on August 31, 2007, to members and groups in the

Native American community in accordance with the Sierran PA, NHPA, and other laws and 

regulations. Consultation has consisted of meetings, letters, and presentations, and is documented 

in the project record. 

In the area of potential effect, the results of thirty years of cultural resource surveys and 

investigations have identified 15 archaeological properties that are associated with themes of 

Sierra NF history. Most sites represent prehistoric life ways; other sites represent historic-era land 

uses. All of the cultural sites were monitored to determine their current condition and risk of 

adverse effects. 

The Sierra NF manages those cultural resources which are eligible for listing on the NRHP. The 

Forest does not manage or protect ineligible properties in project activities, unless there is local 

interest in preservation. NRHP eligibility has not been determined for every archaeological 

property in the project area. Unevaluated sites are considered potentially eligible, and managed as 

if eligible. The Sierran PA allows for deferred NRHP evaluation if the property would not be 

affected by the project, usually through application of Standard Protection Measures. 

Contemporary Native American interests can include traditional cultural properties (sites 

associated with cultural practices or beliefs that are rooted in history and important in maintaining 

cultural identity), and plant gathering sites for basket materials, medicines, and food resources. 

The Sierra NF manages such known sites as cultural resources under the provisions of the NHPA, 

but where the interests of native people are considered to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome 

during project implementation. The location of these sites is also kept administratively 

confidential. The Sierra NF will maintain appropriate access to sacred and ceremonial sites, and 

to tribal traditional use areas, and has consulted with affected tribes and tribal communities to 

address access to culturally important resources and areas in this project analysis. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

30 Sierra National Forest 

Methodology for Analysis 

Data Sources 

Existing information from cultural resource records, historic archives, maps, and GIS spatial 

layers was reviewed to provide specific information about historic properties, or the likelihood 

that unidentified properties might exist in non-inventoried areas. 

The majority of the project had been adequately surveyed for prior projects between 1979 and 

1994. In 2007 and 2008, additional surveys were completed in previously unsurveyed areas. For 

areas that had never been surveyed, new survey was conducted using a combination of intensive 

(0 – 30 meter transects) and cursory (50+ meter transects) coverage. Intensive survey was done in 

clear and/or non-steep terrain. Cursory survey was done where terrain was very steep or had 

dense brush cover. 

Information about the survey, location of historic properties, and the nature of past or current 

effects, is available for those cultural resources within the area of potential effect, as documented 

in the archaeological inventory reports for the proposed project (Veilleux/Popelish 2007 and 

2008). These reports, which describe the location and composition of the archaeological sites, are 

kept administratively confidential under the provisions of the Archaeological Resource Protection 

Act of 1979, 36 CFR 296. 

Spatial Analysis 

The location of the historic property is the unit of spatial analysis when considering effects in 

action alternatives. For some historic properties (e.g., Traditional Cultural Property), the setting 

beyond the historic property’s location must also be considered when determining whether an 

adverse effect will occur. 

Effects Timeframes 

 Short-term effects occur within one year. 

 Long-term effects occur up to 20 years. 

 Cumulative effects are analyzed at a 20-year interval. 

Measurement Indicator and Rationale 

When assessing direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, assessments are based on a historic 

property possessing at least one of the following NRHP values (36 CFR 60.4(a – d)) unless 

specific information already exists: 

 Prehistoric archaeological site: Criterion D 

 Historic archaeological sites: Criterion D 

 Historic structures: Criterion C 

An undertaking can have no effect, no adverse effect, or an adverse effect. An adverse effect to a 

historic property can occur when an undertaking directly or indirectly causes alterations in its 

character or use. An adverse effect on a historic property occurs when an undertaking alters its 

important characteristics and is measured by the degree to which it diminishes its location, 

design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association (Integrity Measures) (36 CFR 

800.5(a)(1)). These integrity measures can also be used to characterize the nature of any potential 

effects, whether they are direct, indirect or cumulative effects; and their severity. The degree to 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 31 

which historic property values are diminished will be used to measure the direct, indirect and 

cumulative effects of the proposed undertaking. 

When the nature and scope of a proposed undertaking is such that its effects can be reasonably 

predicted and appropriate measures can be undertaken to ensure that the values of cultural 

resources or historic properties are not affected in any way, than those cultural resources or 

historic properties may be managed in a manner which ensures that their values are preserved by 

using the Standard Protection Measures outlined in the Sierran PA. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under this alternative, no fuels reduction land management activities would occur. Current 

management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. 

Direct effects under this alternative could happen should a conflagration occur. The lack of fuel 

reduction management could result in higher intensity wildfires, thereby adversely affecting 

cultural resources, especially those with wooden components. Should a conflagration occur, 

indirect effects could occur as a result of increased access to and visibility of cultural resources, 

increasing the likelihood of artifact looting. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects on cultural resources can be variable as past, current and future actions within 

the project area have occurred and may continue in the future (i.e. logging activities, road 

construction). Historic logging and road construction activities did not account for the presence of 

cultural resources. As no action would occur under this alternative, cumulative effects are 

unlikely. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

There are a total of fourteen cultural resource sites that have the potential to be affected by 

implementing this alternative. One of these sites is an historic railroad logging system that has 

thirteen features that have the potential to be affected. These features include: spur grades, a 

flume, and log chutes that retain intact earthworks; camps and trash dumps; and log chutes with 

sheave posts. All of these cultural resource sites and historic features will be protected through 

avoidance (Sierran PA, Attachment 7, Stipulation II.B). 

In addition, four of the cultural resource sites have forest road or site conflicts on roads identified 

for reconstruction needs through the proposed action. With additional protection measures such 

as padding the site with gravel, staying within the existing road prism or no reconstruction within 

specified site areas, there will be no effect to these sites (Sierran PA, Attachment 7, Stipulation 

II.B). 

By implementing the Standard Protection Measures outlined in the Sierran PA, no historic values 

would be diminished as a result of implementing this alternative. There will be no direct or 

indirect effects to cultural resources under Alternative 2. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

32 Sierra National Forest 

Cumulative Effects 

As all heritage resource sites will be avoided through project design from current project 

activities and predictable future project activities, it is anticipated there will be no cumulative 

effects from this action alternative. 

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Alternative 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects would be the same as Alternative 2. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 33 

Botany: Rare plants and Noxious Weeds ________ 

Affected Environment 

Rare Plants 

Three species of Forest Service sensitive plants occur in the Sugar Pine project area. Generally 

speaking, the project area is relatively homogeneous from the standpoint of rare plant habitat, 

being dominated by various phases of the mixed conifer forest type typical of the western slope of 

the Sierra Nevada. There are no meadows, fens, or significant areas of rock outcrop or open 

gravel habitats. The area is characterized by Sierran mixed conifer forest dominated by white fir 

(Abies concolor), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), 

sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana), with black oak (Quercus kelloggii) as the major hardwood within 

the stands. Areas vary from drier sites with a solid understory of bear clover (Chamabaetia 

foliolosa) to more mesic sites with an understory of dogwood (Cornus nuttallii) and hazelnut 

(Corylus cornuta). Common shrubs are Arctostaphylos viscida var. mariposa, A. patula, 

Chrysolepis sempervirens, Ceanothus integerrimus, C. diversifolius, and C. cordulatus. 

The threatened, endangered, or sensitive plants considered in this document are displayed in the 

following table. 

Table 4. Threatened and Sensitive Plant Species Considered 

Latin Name Common Name Status 

Calyptridium pulchellum mariposa annual pussypaws Fed. Threatened 

Cypripedium montanum mountain lady’s slipper orchid FS Sensitive 

Epilobium howellii subalpine fireweed FS Sensitive 

Hulsea brevifolia short-leafed hulsea FS Sensitive 

Peltigera hydrotheria veined water lichen FS Sensitive 

The Sierra National Forest botanist checked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service web site for 

Federally-listed plants that may be found in the project area (USFWS 2009). The list contains two 

plant species and two categories of critical habitat that may occur within the Forest. Sidalcea 

keckii is only known from outside the Forest to the south, and if it were to occur in the Sierra 

National Forest, it would not be found north of the San Joaquin River at the elevations of the 

Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project. It grows in clay soils (derived from serpentine) in 

sparsely-vegetated grasslands at elevations between 400 and 1,400 feet in the foothills of 

California's central western Sierra Nevada. The proposed critical habitat for Sidalcea keckii falls 

entirely outside the national forest boundary. 

The proposed critical habitat for vernal pool plants does not fall within the Sugar Pine Adaptive 

Management Project area, and none of the Federally-listed vernal pool plants are known or 

expected to occur in the Sierra National Forest. 

Calyptridium pulchellum (Mariposa annual pussypaws) is known to occur in the Sierra National 

Forest at elevations below 3600 feet, but there are no known occurrences of Mariposa pussypaws 

in or near the project area, and no suitable habitat exists. The elevation of the Sugar Pine Project 

is well above the upper elevation limit for the Mariposa pussypaws. No consultation is necessary 

with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and no further analysis will occur.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

34 Sierra National Forest 

Forest Service Sensitive Plant Species in the project area 

Populations of mountain lady’s slipper orchids, short-leafed hulsea, subalpine fireweed, and 

veined water lichen occur within the project area. No other Forest Service sensitive plants were 

found during surveys, and the following effects analysis will focus on these four species. 

Subalpine fireweed – Epilobium howellii 

Subalpine fireweed is known from meadows, riparian areas, and seeps at approximately 120 sites 

in the Sierra NF. Most of these have been discovered since 2005, showing that this species has 

until recently been overlooked and may be more common than previously thought. This small, 

delicate herb prefers bare soil around riparian areas with little competition, and based on new 

information gathered in recent years, it seems to thrive in areas with at least some disturbance 

(e.g. silt deposits in streambeds, ski runs, roadsides). The species ranges from Sierra County at 

Yuba Pass to Fresno County. One population of subalpine fireweed was found in a meadow 

1,000 feet north of unit RX-08 on road 5S06. 

Short-leafed hulsea – Hulsea brevifolia 

The short-leaved hulsea is a locally endemic perennial herb found in montane forests of the 

central and southern Sierra Nevada (Hickman 1993). Plants are 3 to 6 dm tall, with leafy stems. 

Leaves are toothed, and stems and leaves are covered with hairs, some of which are glandular, 

making plants sticky to the touch. Flowerheads are bright yellow-orange, less than 20 mm in 

diameter (Hickman 1993). Elevation range is from 5,000 to 9,000 feet, but most occurrences are 

found above 6500 feet in the red fir forest type. This plant grows in dry forests and openings. 

Short-leaved hulsea is a perennial herb. There are about 46 occurrences documented on the Sierra 

National Forest, and others on adjacent forests and in Yosemite National Park. Elevational range 

is 5000 to 9000 feet, from Tuolumne County south to Tulare County. Habitat for short-leaved 

hulsea is gravelly or sandy exposed areas as well as densely wooded sites in coniferous forest, 

usually red fir forest. Occurrences range in size from a few dozen plants to many thousand 

plants. Most occurrences appear to represent a variety of age classes, from the current year’s 

seedlings to older, well established plants (information on file at Sierra National Forest, North 

Fork, CA), and many populations consist of thousands of individuals. Five populations of shortleafed hulsea occur along Forest Roads 5S22Y and 5S06. 

Veined water lichen – Peltigera hydrotheria 

Veined water lichen is found in cold unpolluted streams in conifer forests along the western slope 

of the Sierra Nevada. The California occurrences are disjunct from other U.S. populations. This 

aquatic lichen is a foliose species with a delicate “leafy” thallus. It is a black “lettuce”-like lichen 

growing on rocks and on stream bottoms. Clumps range in size from a few centimeters to over a 

decimeter Reproductive structures have been observed, but how the lichen actually colonizes 

new habitats is unknown. 

Threats are activities that change the water chemistry, alteration of the stream channel, excessive 

alteration of riparian vegetation thereby increasing water temperature or increasing flows that 

scour the gravels and rocks on which the lichen is attached. This species occurs in streams with 

clear, unpolluted, water. Peak flows are probably not of the intensity that would lead to scouring. 

The streams have a rich aquatic bryophyte flora (Shevock 1998). Increased sedimentation, 

nutrients, or a rise in temperature would significantly impact occurrences (Davis 1999). 

The Sugar Pine Adaptive Management project area contains abundant suitable habitat for the 

veined water lichen, and one occurrence was found in 2007 within the project area, in the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 35 

tributary to Lewis Creek flowing from the Westfall area. Additional stretches of perennially 

flowing water within the project area may contain additional veined water lichen populations. 

Appendix A of the Biological Assessment and Evaluation for Plant Species provides a full list 

of the threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants that might be found in the Sierra National 

Forest, a summary of information about their biology and habitat, and rationale for including or 

excluding them in this analysis. 

Noxious Weeds 

Noxious weed species known to occur in the Sugar Pine project area are: bull thistle (Cirsium 

vulgare), foxglove (Digitalis purpurea), klamathweed (Hypericum perforatum), oxeye daisy 

(Leucanthemum vulgare), perennial sweet pea (Lathyrus latifolius), and Spanish broom (Spartium 

junceum). Other species that occur in the general vicinity and along roads leading to the project 

area are: yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), and 

medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae). 

Bull thistle is a biennial herb native to Eurasia that can grow to heights of 2 meters (Hickman 

1993). It is fairly common in California, though less so at higher elevations or more pristine sites 

in the Sierra National Forest. Large plants can produce over 100,000 seeds (Randall 2000). Bull 

thistle tends to spread rapidly in disturbed meadows and in areas where soil disturbance favors 

weeds such as logged areas or areas cleared for fuels reduction (Randall 2000). There are over 

300 infestations of bull thistle mapped within the Sierra National Forest, ranging from a few 

stems to infestations of several acres. There are 9 infestations within the Sugar Pine project area, 

mostly confined to roadsides and other disturbed areas such as old landings. Hand removal of 

plants within the project area occurred in 2007 and 2008, and will be conducted again in 2009 and 

into the future until infestations are eradicated. 

Foxglove is a tall biennial herb native to Europe and Africa, originally introduced as an 

ornamental that tends to invade wet areas and streamsides. The plants are toxic to livestock and 

wildlife and can form monocultures in riparian areas to the exclusion of the native vegetation 

(Harris 2000). There is at least one small population of foxglove in the project area, possibly 

more along streamsides. 

Klamathweed is a rhizomatous perennial native to Europe. Plants can form dense patches that 

eventually replace native plants and can cause severe problems for conifer regeneration (CDFA 

2009). Spread is by seed and vegetative growth underground (CDFA 2009). Plants produce an 

average of 15,000 to 33,000 seeds, which can remain viable for up to 10 years and are spread by a 

variety of vectors, including tires and heavy equipment (CDFA 2009). There are over 100 

infestations of klamathweed in the Sierra National Forest with several along roads leading to the 

Sugar Pine project area, and this is one of the fastest-spreading weeds in the Forest. One 

infestation of klamathweed was documented and hand-pulled in the project area in 2008. 

Oxeye daisy is a rhizomatous perennial herb that has escaped cultivation in many areas of the 

West. Its potential for spread at high elevations is of concern. The oxeye daisy is native to 

Europe. It displaces native plants in wildlands. When infestations are not controlled early, they 

form large seedbanks of seeds that can remain viable for 20 years. Reproduction is by seed and by 

underground spread via the rhizomes (Alvarez 2000). There is a cluster of oxeye daisy along road 

5S17, which is rumored to have originated from a large infestation on a nearby private parcel. 

Hand-pulling began in 2008 and will continue in 2009. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

36 Sierra National Forest 

Perennial sweet pea is a perennial, sprawling, herb that has escaped cultivation and can form 

large masses that exclude native vegetation. There is at least one small infestation in the project 

area that should be easy to eliminate. 

Spanish broom is an invasive shrub that is native to the southern Mediterranean region, 

originally introduced to California as an ornamental in the 1800s (Nilsen 2000). Shrubs spread in 

wildlands, excluding native plants and posing a fire hazard. There is a dense infestation of 

Spanish broom just south of Tenaya Lodge in the northwest portion of the project area within 

units proposed for fuels reduction activities. This area will be flagged for avoidance to ensure that 

seeds are not spread during project implementation. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide activities in 

the project area. This includes all ongoing activities with existing decisions or permits that would 

not be changed if this alternative were selected including: underburning, plantation maintenance, 

cattle grazing, recreation, and recreation residences. Known sites for botanical resources would 

continue to be managed to maintain present diversity of the species as specified in the LRMP 

(USDA-FS 2001a) and SNFPA ROD (USDA-FS 2004). 

Direct Effects 

No direct effects would occur to threatened, endangered, or Forest Service sensitive plants if the 

no action alternative is chosen because project activities would not take place. 

Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Indirect and cumulative effects have the potential to occur to TES plants under the no action 

alternative primarily from the increased potential for uncontrolled wildland fire. Uncontrolled 

wildfire has the potential to cause significant disturbance to soil, ground cover and canopy cover, 

placing Forest Service sensitive riparian species at risk. For example, lady’s slipper orchid 

populations could be extirpated if the canopy and soil organic layers were incinerated under 

extreme fire conditions (Kaye and Cramer 2005). The veined water-lichen population could be 

extirpated if the extreme heat prevailed for long enough to kill the thalli (plants) within the stream 

reach containing the lichens. 

Except for under the most severe of fire conditions, which would kill all the seeds in the soil, the 

short-leafed hulsea would probably survive and perhaps ultimately benefit from wildfire as it 

tends to thrive along roadsides and in post-burn conditions (e.g. the Big Creek fire in 1994 

resulted in vigorous recovery of short-leafed hulsea near Huntington Lake). 

Uncontrolled wildland fire also introduces a higher potential for the spread of weeds through 

suppression actions. Fires can also allow the opportunity for the introduction and spread of 

invasive non-native weeds when seeds or contaminated soil area introduced, which can affect 

Forest Service sensitive species through competition for resources. However, the overall risk is 

probably about the same as under the action alternatives. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Direct Effects 

The following direct effects to sensitive plants are possible as a result of timber harvest or fuels 

reduction activities: Direct killing of plants when equipment runs over them or parks on them, 

when logs are skidded or dragged over them, when slash piles block their light, and when piles 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 37 

are burned directly over them and the heat intensity is too great to survive. Mastication could 

directly kill plants by running them over or by covering them with a dense layer of chipped wood 

and limbs. 

Indirect Effects 

A possible indirect effect to sensitive plants is the degradation or loss of habitat resulting from the 

introduction or spread of noxious or invasive weeds. Noxious weeds are plant species that can 

spread rapidly and compete with native plants for water and other resources, in some cases 

forming solid stands of plants that may crowd out sensitive plant species. Noxious weeds can be 

transported by vehicles and heavy equipment when equipment passes through or excavates soil in 

contaminated areas and carries weed seeds to new areas. Risk of noxious weed introduction and 

spread can be greatly reduced by power washing all heavy equipment before bringing it onto the 

project site, as recommended by the Forest Service “Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices 

(USDA-FS 2001b).” Noxious weed prevention measures have been incorporated into the design 

of this project, thus these indirect effects should be minimal. 

Mountain lady’s slipper orchid – Cypripedium montanum 

Eight populations of lady’s slipper orchids were discovered within the project area. Most are well 

within the riparian conservation zone and the streamside management zone (see aquatics design 

measures). Reducing canopy cover below 60% is thought to be damaging to lady’s slipper 

orchids. Populations are often very small and isolated from each other; therefore, concerns exist 

related to population size, genetic fitness and the overall viability of the species (Kaye and 

Cramer 2005). However, in the past 5 years, at least 15 new populations have been found in the 

Sierra National Forest, varying in size from a few stems to more than a hundred bringing the total 

number of known populations up to 24 within the Sierra NF. 

The eight known populations are well-protected from detrimental changes in canopy cover or soil 

parameters because they occur next to streams or are flagged for avoidance such that canopy 

cover will not be reduced and heavy equipment will not be allowed. If any new occurrences of 

lady’s slipper orchids were to be discovered in the future they would be protected as follows 

(plants do not emerge every year therefore one year of surveying may not reveal all populations 

that are present): Any new populations would have a zone flagged around them where no timber 

harvest or heavy equipment would be allowed within approximately 60 feet (average tree height 

in the area). The buffer was determined to be sufficient to ensure that canopy cover remains at 

60% or higher within the populations. Populations would also be monitored post-project to ensure 

that these measures were followed and to evaluate the status of the populations. The project 

design measures are expected to prevent any negative direct or indirect effects to the mountain 

lady’s slipper orchids. 

Subalpine fireweed – Epilobium howellii 

Because meadow habitat will be protected by the project design measures for aquatic species (see 

EIS), and because the only population of subalpine fireweed occurs outside the project by at least 

1000 feet, there will be no direct or indirect effects to this species. 

Short-leafed hulsea – Hulsea brevifolia 

Because any short-leafed hulsea populations will be flagged for avoidance prior to project 

implementation, there will be no direct or indirect effects to this species. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

38 Sierra National Forest 

Veined water lichen - Peltigera hydrotheria 

One new veined water lichen population was found during field surveys for the Sugar Pine 

Adaptive Management project, and more may exist in areas not directly surveyed (not every mile 

of perennial stream was surveyed). As this species is sensitive to water pollution and prefers cold 

clear water, any activities that alter water quality or raise water temperature could negatively 

impact plants and habitat. Because of the project design measures for RCAs prohibiting grounddisturbing activities within 100 feet of perennial streams, no negative effects are expected. In 

addition, stream temperatures will not rise as a result of the project because canopy cover will not 

change significantly near streams. 

Cumulative Effects 

The geographic boundaries delineated for surveys and subsequent effects analysis were defined 

by the boundaries of the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project area since this is where the 

proposed activities with potential effects on plant species are to occur. Table 3, on page 25 is a 

listing of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activity within the project area utilized 

in determining cumulative effects on plant species. 

This project and the subsequent maintenance and further vegetation work will move the areas 

treated closer to the pre-European natural range of variability for the area, except for possibly the 

areas where non-native annual grasses become more common after clearing. 

Foreseeable future activity within the project area may include prescribed burning, ongoing 

vegetation maintenance by handwork or possibly heavy equipment, management of the

plantations (thinning), and road maintenance. Other activities likely to occur include personal fuel 

woodcutting, recreational uses such as hiking, bike riding, OHV and dirt bike use, and dispersed 

camping. 

Because suitable habitats for TES plants will be avoided and noxious weed mitigations will be 

implemented, negative effects to any undiscovered sensitive plants are expected to be minimal to 

non-existent for the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project, and therefore should not add to 

any cumulative effects of activities in the project area on sensitive plants. 

Alternative 3 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Effects for rare plants and noxious weeds would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Alternative 4 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Effects for rare plants and noxious weeds would be the same as Alternative 2. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 39 

Geology/Soils ______________________________ 

Methodology for Analysis 

Data used to determine existing soil conditions and projected effects to the soil resource include: 

the Soil Survey of the Sierra National Forest, (Giger 1993), site specific data from soil transects 

collected in 2007, following the Region 5 Protocol for Soil Monitoring (TenPas 2005) and past 

monitoring of similar projects using BMP Monitoring Protocols (USDA-FS 2002) and the Region 

5 Soil Monitoring Protocol. 

Effects of the proposed project will be similar to effects of recent, similar past projects 

implemented with current Best Management Practices and equipment that has been used in recent 

projects. These projects include the Cedar Valley Project, Graham Mountain Project, South of 

Shaver Project and several other similar projects. 

Soil resource management is achieved by maintaining soil productivity using Regional Soil 

Quality Standard and Guidelines and management direction provided in the LRMP (USDA-FS 

1991). Soil productivity is evaluated within an Activity Area. An Activity Area is the area of land 

dedicated to growing vegetation which soil quality standards for soil productivity are applied. It is 

that area within a management area where soil disturbing activities take place and is of practical 

size for management, sampling, and evaluation. Activity areas include timber harvest units and 

fuels treatment units within the Sugar Pine Project area. System roads and trails and other areas 

not dedicated to growing vegetation are not included as part of activity areas. 

The project proposal could affect soil productivity in the Sugar Pine Project Area by reducing 1) 

soil porosity, 2) soil cover and 3) large woody debris and 4) displacement of surface soils. 

The main soil physical property that can be affected by the proposed action is porosity, the space 

between individual soil particles. Soil hydrologic function is primarily dependent on the size and 

arrangement of soil pores, or pore geometry. Soil pore geometry also controls the transmission of 

air through soils, which is critical for plant growth. When porosity is decreased, the soil becomes 

denser, making it more difficult for roots to penetrate. Maintenance of natural soil porosity is 

important for maintaining healthy native plant communities and for maintaining the hydrologic 

function of the soil. Severe losses of porosity through soil compaction decrease the water and air 

available to plant roots, creating droughty and/or anaerobic conditions as well as physically 

inhibiting root growth. Soil hydrologic function is usually impaired as water storage capacity, 

infiltration, and permeability decrease, thus increasing runoff and the subsequent potential for 

erosion and cumulative watershed effects. Soil compaction diminishes soil porosity, and 

decreases the transmission of water, nutrients, and air to roots. Severe compaction can inhibit root 

growth when the soil becomes too dense for roots to penetrate easily. Finally, compaction 

decreases infiltration and hydraulic conductivity, the movement of water into and through soils, 

which in turn increases surface runoff and erosion potential. Severely compacted soils could take 

at least 50 years to recover. Bulk density (ratio of soil mass to soil volume) and soil strength 

(penetration resistance) are two widely accepted indirect means of measuring changes in porosity 

in the field. Qualitative indicators of compaction include platy soil structure, loss of soil structure 

(e.g. puddling), impressions or ruts in the mineral soil surface, and in some cases, redoximorphic 

features that indicate a recent change in soil aeration. Redoximorphic features are soil properties 

associated with wetness that results from reduction and oxidation of iron and manganese 

compounds after saturation and desaturation with water. Both quantitative and qualitative 

indicators will be used to describe compaction. Use of heavy equipment, especially rubber tired 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

40 Sierra National Forest 

skidders, for logging and tractor piling could compact soils, in the upper 12 inches of the soil 

profile. Soil compaction can have a detrimental effect on soil productivity on fine-textured soils 

that are moist or at optimal soil moisture conditions for soil compaction. Soil compaction is not a 

concern in coarse textured soils. In fact, soil compaction has been found to have an increase in 

soil productivity by increasing the available water holding capacity of the soil (Powers, et al 

2008). Soils have been classified into sensitive and non-sensitive soils types for the purpose of 

identifying soils that are susceptible to detrimental soil compaction. Soil porosity should be at 

least 90 percent of total porosity over 85 percent of an activity area (stand) found under natural 

conditions. A 10 percent reduction in total soil porosity corresponds to a threshold for soil bulk 

density that indicates detrimental soil compaction. 

Soil productivity is dependent on the amount of soil organic matter available to prevent 

significant short or long-term nutrient cycle deficits, and to avoid detrimental physical and 

biological soil conditions. Soil organic matter should include fine organic matter and large woody 

debris. 

Fine organic matter provides soil nutrients and protects the soil by providing soil cover. Soil 

cover or the lack of soil cover can affect soil productivity by removal of surface soils from 

accelerated erosion. Accelerated erosion is erosion that occurs at a rate over and beyond normal, 

natural or geological erosion, primarily as a result of human activity. Soil loss should not exceed 

the rate of soil formation (approximately the long-term average of 1 ton/acre/year). Sufficient soil 

cover should be maintained to prevent accelerated soil erosion from exceeding the rate of soil 

formation. Ground cover will be at least 50% on ground slopes less then 35% and on slopes 

greater then 35%, ground cover will be determined by the interdisciplinary (ID) team. 

Replenishment of fine organic matter to preexisting conditions could occur in less then 10 years 

as forests shed their needles and leaves and accumulate on the forest floor. 

Large organic matter or large woody debris, provides habitat for soil micro-organisms including 

fungus, soil insects and soil bacteria. All of these organisms are critical for soil health and soil 

productivity. The loss or reduction of large woody debris in a forest could last anywhere from 10 

to 50 years, depending on the number of decadent trees or snags that are left in the stand after 

treatment. At least five well-distributed logs per acre, representing the range of decompositions 

classes, should be left on the forest floor after the proposed action is completed. 

Soil productivity can be reduced or impacted from displacement of surface soils. Surface soils 

include valuable amounts of organic matter and nutrients that are critical for productive soils. 

Surface soils can be disturbed by logging and mastication equipment operating in the forest, by 

tractors piling slash and by construction of roads and skid roads from excavation of the soil to 

construct a road or skid trail prism. The surface area of new roads will result in a loss of soil 

productivity for that area. Disturbance of surface soils by logging and mastication equipment 

could result in reduced soil productivity. The Sierra NF LRMP provides direction for avoiding 

tractor logging on sustained slopes that exceed 35% (USDA-FS 2001a). There are no slope 

limitations for mastication equipment in the LRMP. Mastication equipment can operate on slopes 

up to 55% slopes. There has been no systematic monitoring of mastication work on slopes greater 

then 35% on the Sierra National Forest. 

The following information addresses the affected environment or existing pre-treatment soil 

condition, the environmental consequences of the proposed action to soil productivity; 

mitigations measures proposed to reduce the impacts of the proposed action and a monitoring 

plan to ensure that Forest Standard and guidelines are met to maintain soil productivity. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 41 

Affected Environment 

Soils in the proposed project area vary in their sensitivity to management. Soils with higher clay 

content and soil moisture have the highest potential to reduced soil porosity. Soil compaction can 

occur down to 12 inches deep. 

 There is a concern that areas proposed for ground based harvest have soils that are highly 

susceptible to reduction of soil porosity caused from compaction by heavy equipment

operating when soils are moist or wet. 

 There a concern that prescribed fire and tractor piling will reduce soil cover and 

accelerated erosion could result in a loss of soil productivity. 

 There is a concern that ground based harvest systems on slopes that are too steep will 

displace surface soil horizons that could result in accelerated erosion and reduced soil 

productivity. 

The area is underlain with nine soil types that combine into nine soil map units. The most 

dominant soils affected by the project include: Holland family, Chaix family, Chawanakee 

family, Ledford family, Entic Xerumbrepts, Neuns family, Umpa family, Cagwin family and 

Lithix Xeropsamments. Rockout crop is secondary component of several soil map units and is 

located throughout the treatment areas. The soils vary in characteristics from shallow to deep, 

thermic to frigid temperature regimes, xeric moisture conditions and have developed in 

metamorphic and granitic parent materials (Giger 1993). A map of the Soil Map Units and 

complete unit tables are included in the Soils Report available in the project file. Table 5 displays 

a summarization of this information. 

Table 5. Summary of Soil Map Units 

MUSYM MUNAME Sensitive Acres

137 Holland Family, 35 to 65 Percent Slopes Yes 934 

136 Holland Family, 5 to 35 Percent Slopes Yes 488 

123 Chaix-Chawanakee Families-Rock Outcrop Complex, 35 to 65 

Percent Slopes 

No 446 

143 Ledford Family-Entic Xerumbrepts-Rock Outcrop Association, 10 

to 45 Percent Slopes 

No 265 

140 Holland-Chawanakee Families Complex, 35 to 65 Percent Slopes Yes 245 

146 Neuns Family, 25 To 60 Percent Slopes No 176 

124 Chaix-Holland Families Complex, 15 to 35 Percent Slopes Yes 155 

176 Umpa Family, Deep, 20 to 60 Percent Slopes No 75 

114 Cagwin Family-Lithic Xeropsamments-Rock Outcrop Complex, 45 

to 65 Percent Slopes 

No 2 

Some of the proposed treatment units are underlain with multiple soil types and multiple soil map 

units. The western part and lower elevations of the proposed project area is underlain with 

Holland soils. Holland family soil consists of deep, sandy loams and sandy clay loams that are 

well drained. Holland soil is the only soil in the Sugar Pine Project area that is a sensitive soil. 

Holland family soils have a moderate soil compaction hazard and high to very high maximum 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

42 Sierra National Forest 

erosion hazard rating. These soils are most susceptible to compaction when soils are moist and 

are very erosive without adequate soil cover. Holland soils occur in soil map units 124, 136, 137, 

and 140. Holland soils are deep (60 to 66 feet), well drained soils with a sandy, clay loam subsoil. 

These soil map units occur in treatment areas M2, M6, M7, M8, M9, M10, M11, M12, RX3, 

RX5, T16, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9, T10, and T11. 

The middle part of the proposed project area is underlain with Soil Map Units 123 and 146. Soil 

types within these soil map units include Chaix, Chawanakee and Neuns family soils. Chaix 

family soils consist of moderately deep to deep, coarse sandy loams that are somewhat 

excessively drained or well drained. Chawanakee family soils consist of shallow, coarse sandy 

loam that is somewhat excessively drained. Neuns family soil consists of moderately deep to 

deep, gravelly loam and cobbly loam that is well drained. Neuns family soil has 25% pebbles 

and/or rock fragments. The Chawanakee soils are susceptible to loss of soil productivity from 

displacement of the surface soils. The Neuns family soil has a moderate erosion hazard rating and 

is difficult to compact because of the rock fragment content. Treatment areas M1, M4, M5, RX1, 

RX2, T2, and the east end of T15 are underlain with Soil map Unit 123, which includes Chaix, 

Chawanakee family soils and rock outcrop. Treatment area M4 is underlain with Soil map Unit 

146, which includes Neuns family soil. Treatment area T3 is underlain with Soil Map Units 140 

and 146, which includes Holland family soils in the lower elevations and Neuns family soil in the 

upper elevations of the unit. Treatment area T7 is underlain with Soil Map Units 124 and 136, 

which includes Chaix family soils and Holland family soils. 

The eastern part of the proposed project area is underlain with Soil Map Units 143 and 176. Soil 

types within these soil map units include Ledford family soil, Entic Xerumbrepts, Umpa family 

soils and rock outcrop. A Ledford family soil consists of deep, coarse sandy loams that are 

somewhat excessively drained. Entic Xerumbrept soil consists of shallow, sandy loams and 

coarse sandy loams that are somewhat excessively drained. These Entic Xerumbrepts soils are 

susceptible to loss of soil productivity from displacement of the surface soils. Umpa family soil 

consists of deep, bouldery and stony coarse sandy loam that is well drained and moderately well 

drained. This area has approximately 15% rock outcrop distributed throughout the area. 

Soil map units with high amounts of impervious surfaces such as rock outcrop or shallow soils 

are most susceptible to runoff and subsequent surface erosion of soils adjacent to the rock 

outcrop. Shallow soils and/or rock outcrop occur in soil map units 123, 140, and 143. 

Chawanakee family soils are shallow (<20 inches), somewhat excessively drained with a coarse 

sandy loam surface soil and subsoil. Entic Xerumbrepts soils are shallow (<18 inches), somewhat 

excessively drained or excessively drained with a sandy loam surface soil. The Chawanakee soils 

are susceptible to loss of soil productivity from displacement of the surface soils. The 

Chawanakee soils are also susceptible to accelerated erosion from runoff off the rock outcrop, 

especially if adequate soil cover is not available. Treatment areas that occur in these soil map 

units include: M1, M11, M-14, M-16, M-20, M5, M7, M8, RX-07, RX-08, RX1, RX2, RX3, 

RX5,T2, T3, T4, T5, T7, T9, T10, T15, T16, T-23, T-24, T-26, T-30, T-31, T-32, T-33, T-35, and 

T-37 (see Table 6). 

Areas proposed for ground based harvest systems are generally less than 35%. However, some 

areas exist where slopes exceed 35% and tractor logging could result in soil disturbance that 

mixes or removes soils below the A horizon. Commercial thin units with sustained slopes greater 

then 35% include T2, T4, T5, T7 and T10. Mastication units with sustained slopes greater then 

55% include M1, M4, M5, and M7. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 43 

Table 6. Treatment Areas with Greater than 35 Percent Slopes 

> 35 Slopes > 55 Slopes > 55%

Unit_ID Acres Unit_ID Acres 

M1 29 M1 8 

M2 23 M2 2 

M4 8 M4 2 

M5 52 M5 13 

M6 17 M6 1 

M7 17 M7 5 

M8 6 RX1 27 

RX1 61 RX3 7 

RX3 4 T10 3 

T10 33 T2 2 

T12 4 T3 3 

T13 4 T4 6 

T2 15 T5 3 

T3 47 T6 2 

T4 61 T7 1 

T5 6 

T6 41 

T7 17 

T8 15 

T9 2 

Soil conditions have been reviewed in the Sugar Pine Project Area. Soil data along 12 soil 

transects were collected using the 20 point transect method and soil data along 6 soil transects 

were collected using the line transect method to characterize soil conditions using the 2005 

Framework Soil Monitoring Methods Protocol and a soil monitoring protocol known as the Iron 

Canyon Intensive Soil Monitoring Protocol (TenPas 2005; Gallegos 2007). Data for soil cover, 

soil disturbance, soil compaction and large woody debris were collected along these 18 transects 

and summarized. This report documents baseline conditions from which to compare soil 

conditions in the future (see Table 7). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

44 Sierra National Forest Table 7. Summary of Transect Data Transect Unit Number Soil 

Cover

Slope D1 D2 D3 Total 

Disturbance

LWD 

(acre)

Percent Unit Detrimental 

Comp/Dist 

M6 SP-TR-9 96 37 5 0 0 5 18 0.00% T3 SP-T1-1,SP-T1-2,SPT1-3 94 20 27 0 0 27 102 9.67% T4 SP-TR-7,SPTR--8 97 26 18 3 5 25 113 10.00% T7 SP-TR-3 86 21 20 15 0 35 0 5.00% T8 SP-TR-5,SP-T2-1,SPT2-1,SP-T2-3 91 31 24 8 1 33 100 9.00% T10 SP-TR-1,SP-TR-2,SPTR-4,SP-TR-6 91 21 19 3 5 26 45 2.50% T26 SP-TR-14 62 16 5 5 15 25 20 15.00% T32 SP-TR-13,SP-TR-15 76 14 18 3 5 25 122 2.50% Average 87 23 17 4 4 25 65 6.71% 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 45 

Soil transect data indicates that soil cover and large woody debris are meeting Regional Soil 

Standard and Guideline thresholds. The average soil cover is 87% and the average number of 

large woody debris (LWD) is approximately 65. Several areas within the proposed project area 

are currently not meeting Regional Standard and Guideline thresholds for detrimentally disturbed 

soils. See Table 8 for description of soil disturbance classes. The average for detrimental 

disturbed soils throughout the project area is approximately 6.71%. Detrimentally disturbed soils 

include those areas with D3 soil disturbance or detrimentally compacted soils. Detrimentally 

compacted soil is where soil porosity is below 90 percent of total porosity found under natural 

conditions. A 10 percent reduction in total soil porosity corresponds to a threshold soil bulk 

density that indicates detrimental soil compaction. Some areas have soil compaction or 

detrimental soil disturbance as high as 15 to 20 percent. 

The middle of the treatment area T3 has approximately 20% of the area with detrimentally 

disturbed soils. Treatment area T3 overall has approximately 9.67% of the area with detrimentally 

disturbed soils. Treatment area T4 has approximately 8% of the area with D2 and D3 soil 

disturbance and 10% of the area with detrimentally compacted soils. Treatment area T7 has 

approximately 15% of the area with D2 soil disturbance and 5% of the area with detrimentally 

compacted soils. Treatment area T8 has approximately 9% of the area with D2 and D3 soil 

disturbance and 9% of the area with detrimentally compacted soils. Treatment area T10 has 

approximately 8% of the unit with D2 and D3 soil disturbance and 2.5% of the area with 

detrimentally compacted soils. Treatment area T26 has approximately 20% of the area with D2 

and D3 soil disturbance and 15% of the area with detrimentally compacted soils. Treatment area 

T32 has approximately 8% of the area with D2 and D3 soil disturbance and 2.5% of the area with 

detrimentally compacted soils. 

Table 8. Description of Disturbance Classes 

D0 – Undisturbed D1 – Slightly 

Disturbed 

D2 – Moderately 

Disturbed 

D3 – Highly Disturbed 

Soil Surface: 

- No evidence of 

equipment operation 

Soil Surface: 

- Light tracks, slight 

depressions 

- Duff and litter cushion 

mostly in place 

- Topsoil in place 

Soil Surface: 

- Clear tracks 

- Duff and litter 

displaced, or reduced 

- Topsoil exposed and 

mixed or compacted 

Soil Surface: 

- Prominent tracks, main 

skid trail or landing 

- Duff and litter displaced 

- Topsoil highly 

compacted, and/or eroded 

Compaction: 

- Soil has natural 

structure and 

resistance to spade 

Compaction: 

- Soil strength increase in 

top 4 inches 

- Structure changes in top 

4 inches 

Compaction: 

- At threshold of 

detrimental compaction 

- Soil strength increase 

in top 4 to 8 inches 

- Some structure 

changes below 4 inches 

- Platy or massive 

structure is generally 

continuous 

Compaction: 

- Soil strength and spade 

resistance increased to 

depth > 8 inches 

- Structure changes 

continuous to 8 inches 

- Platy or massive 

structure 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

46 Sierra National Forest 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management 

of the project area. No thinning, either commercial, pre-commercial and/or biomassing, of mixed 

conifer and pine stands, mastication of brush/shrub patches, prescribed burning to reduce natural 

fuel accumulations and/or treatment of infestations of noxious weeds and replanting of conifers in 

failed conifer plantations would be implemented to accomplish the purpose and need. 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Under the Alternative 1, soil conditions would not change from the existing conditions. Soil 

transect data indicates that soil cover and large woody debris (LWD) are meeting Regional Soil 

Standard and Guideline thresholds. Soil cover will increase and LWD will increase. The average 

soil cover is 87% and the average number of LWD is approximately 65. This is well over the 

guideline of five logs per acre. Several areas within the proposed project area are not meeting 

Regional Standard and Guideline thresholds for detrimentally disturbed soils. Some areas have 15 

-20% detrimentally disturbed and compacted soils. The average throughout the project area for 

detrimental disturbed and compacted soils is approximately 6.71%. Compacted soils will 

continue to recover over time. 

If vegetation is left in its current state of high fuels and high wildfire risk, it is inevitable that a 

wildfire will occur. Many areas within a potential wildfire area would not meet soil quality 

standards in terms of soil cover and surface erosion rates in a fire event. Soil cover would be less 

then 20% and some soils would develop hydrophobic conditions. Accelerated erosion will occur, 

especially during precipitation events. Soil loss could range from 10–60 tons per acre in these 

areas. Soil Productivity will be reduced in some areas by at least one site class. Past monitoring of 

wildfire areas on the nearby Stanislaus National Forest has found that bare ground averaged about 

70% by spring of the first year and by spring of the second year bare ground averaged 27% 

(Janicki 2003). In a study conducted by Berg and Azuma (2007) bare ground and evidence of 

surface erosion recovered to pre-fire conditions within four to five years after a wildfire. Large 

woody debris would probably be consumed in a fire and long term soil productivity could be 

decreased without large woody debris. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative soil effects have been addressed under the cumulative watershed effects (CWE) 

section under the Hydrology/Water Quality Section. Analysis of cumulative soil effects use the 

Equivalent Roaded Acre (ERA) Model, which is used in the CWE analysis. The ERA model 

quantifies disturbance based on the degree of disturbance as compared to an acre of road and 

measured relative to disturbance in a given watershed. ERAs reflect changes to Soil Hydrologic 

Function, and are an indicator of rutting potential, erosion potential and loss of water control. See 

Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project CWE Analysis (Gallegos 2008) for a full description 

of assessment and assumptions including list of past, present and future foreseeable actions. The 

Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region (R5) methodology is used to determine the overall 

disturbed footprint. The disturbed footprint is a semi-quantitative measure of acres of detrimental 

soil disturbance and hence an approximation of change in Soil Quality as defined by the R5 Soil 

Quality Standards (USDA-FS 1995). 

The Sugar Pine CWE Assessment modeled recovery from previous management actions over a 

30 year time span for 12 subdrainages for the existing condition and No Action Alternative. Two 

of those subdrainages (501.5053 and 503.0055) are currently exceeding their lower threshold of 

concern for cumulative watershed effects. A detailed field assessment of those subdrainages did 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 47 

not find any evidence that cumulative watershed effects was occurring. Other planned actions that 

are not part of this decision would still occur, but the total ERAs in the project sub-watersheds 

would be lower than if the project was implemented. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Treatment areas within the project area were delineated to include those areas where some form 

of treatment was necessary to meet the purpose and need. First treatment areas were designed to 

create SPLATs to reduce the intensity and spread of wildfires in and around WUI. Treatment 

areas near key transportation corridors (for egress and ingress into the community) and within the 

defense zone of the WUI were designed next. These treatment areas are designed to focus on 

those treatments needed to meet fire and fuel objectives (lower and limited mid-level canopy 

treatments), but the forested stands within the project area are also considered overstocked with 

conifers (basal area and stand densities that are greater than can be sustained with changing 

environmental conditions). Treatment areas were further designed to address these areas. There 

would be approximately 2,920 acres treated. The acres displayed in the affected environment 

section are the total acres of the treatment unit polygons, including Streamside Management 

Zones, rock outcrop and other areas that will not be treated. Whereas the following proposed 

treatment acres are the estimated acres that will actually be treated. 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

The following is a discussion of the various kinds of treatments proposed and their potential 

direct and indirect effects to the soil resource. 

Commercial and Biomass Thinning activities (mechanical harvesters), Mastication operations, 

Pre-commercial Thin/Release operations, and Tractor Piling operations use equipment that 

includes steel tracked heavy equipment and rubber tired tractors. These activities have the 

potential to impact the soil resource by mechanically disturbing the soil or compact the soil. 

Planting and hand release operations do not effect the soil resource. 

Soil Disturbance and Soil Porosity or Soil Compaction

Mechanical harvesters and rubber tired tractor skidders used for the proposed commercial and 

biomass thinning, tractor piling, and mastication will cause soil disturbance and their use poses 

increased risk of detrimental soil disturbance, detrimental soil compaction and accelerated soil 

erosion. Standard operating procedures such as cross ditching skid trails for erosion control will 

reduce the risk of erosion and promote surface soil stabilization and re-vegetation. Tractor 

logging is planned for areas with slopes under 35%, which will reduce excessive soil 

displacement. Areas of slopes in excess of 35% should be logged with a cut-to-length logging 

system or logs should be favorable skidded to prevent undue soil disturbance. The soils in this 

project area are highly productive so rapid natural re-vegetation is expected. 

Holland soils are highly susceptible to soil porosity loss, due to compaction from heavy 

equipment, such as rubber tired skidders and mechanical harvesters operating when soils are 

moist or wet. Holland soils occur in treatment areas T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9, T10, T11, and 

T16. These units are highly susceptible to detrimental soil compaction exceeding 15% of the 

treatment area. Treatment areas T3, T4, and T8 have detrimentally compacted soils at 9-10% and 

treatment area T26 has detrimentally compacted soils at 15%. Parts of treatment area T3 and T8 

have detrimentally compacted soils at 20%. These treatment units will probably exceed 15% of 

the treatment unit in detrimentally compacted soils immediately after the first phase of project 

implementation. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

48 Sierra National Forest 

In order to minimize detrimental soil compaction, soil moisture needs to be dry enough to reduce 

the susceptibility to compaction during thinning and biomass removal operational periods. The 

ideal moisture content varies between soils and should not be above 12% to prevent soil 

compaction. A soil scientist or other earth scientist will be consulted prior to mechanical 

equipment operating on soils that have a moderate soil compaction hazard. The standard 

operating period from June 1 to October 15, and avoidance of operating mechanical equipment on 

soils with more then 12% soil moisture should minimize detrimentally compacted soils in an 

average rain year (See Soil Design Measure 2 and 3). 

Areas with detrimentally compacted soils should be less then 15% for most of the treatment areas. 

Some portions of the commercial thin or biomass treatment areas (Units T3, T4, T8, and T26) 

will have detrimentally compacted soils in excess of 15% until subsoiling is completed in the 

unit. Subsoiling will occur after the last mechanical treatment is needed, generally the 2nd year 

after the initial commercial thinning operation or biomass treatment. Detrimentally compacted 

soils in excess of 15% will probably occur for at least 1 year, until after tractor piling of slash has 

occurred in the second year of project implementation. Subsoiling landings (BMP 1-16) and 

primary and secondary skid trails should result in less then 15% of the treatment areas with 

detrimentally compacted soils. Soil productivity will be reduced in areas with detrimentally 

compacted soils for 1 or 2 years. 

There are no potential indirect effects of the proposed action if soil compaction is kept to less 

than 15% of an activity area and erosion control measures are implemented in a timely manner. 

There could be an occasional summer storm event that could cause accelerated erosion of bare 

exposed soils. In the event that this should occur soil erosion sites will be restored to pre-storm 

conditions. 

Large Woody Debris (LWD) 

Commercial thinning, biomass removal and tractor piling will probably reduce existing fuel loads 

to levels where fire hazards and fuels have been reduced to achieve the desired conditions for the 

Wildland Urban Interface. After treatment, on the ground fuel loads are expected to be no more 

then 5 – 10 tons/acre (see Fire/Fuel Section). This will probably reduce existing LWD to at least 

25% of existing levels, which will be higher then the minimum five logs per acre that is needed to 

meet the Soil Standard and Guideline Threshold for LWD. 

Soil Cover 

In areas where tractor piling of slash is planned, it is a normal Sierra NF practice to leave at least 

50 percent, well distributed soil cover for erosion protection on slopes under 35%. If slopes are 

greater then 35%, soil cover should be at least 70%. Past observations on the Sierra NF have 

found that this amount of soil cover generally prevents accelerated erosion. A buffer of 100 feet 

will be provided around rock outcrop to prevent accelerated erosion of the adjacent soils from 

rapid runoff from rock outcrops. 

Mastication Treatment Areas 

Areas planned for mastication pose little risk of reducing soil productivity. This includes all of the 

M treatment areas, including M4, which is proposed for Fuel Break Maintenance. The masticator 

equipment reduces erosion potential by increasing soil cover and generally causes little soil 

disturbance and compaction. Soil masticating equipment generally does not result in compacted 

soils because the equipment has lower ground pressures then conventional logging equipment and 

because this treatment creates a bed of chips that the masticator travels over. All mastication 

treatment units have slopes in excess of 35%. Most mastication treatment will be on slopes less 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 49 

the 35%; however some areas with slopes in excess of 35% will be treated. This will probably 

occur in treatment areas M1, M5 and M7. A minor amount of soil disturbance will probably occur 

where the masticator makes turns during the operations. Soil disturbance will be higher on steeper 

slopes. 

Prescribed Fire 

Areas planned for prescribed fire pose little risk of causing significant effects to soil productivity 

based on the past performance of the prescribed fire program on the Sierra National Forest. Past 

prescribed fires on the forest has resulted in low burn severity in most areas. Prescribed fire burns 

in a mosaic pattern leaving patches of unburned vegetation and patches of burned areas, where 

duff and litter is completely consumed. Most trees are left undamaged, except for a few small 

patches that have burned at a moderate burn severity. Soil quality standards have been met from 

past prescribed fires and are expected to be met from the proposed action. Soil cover of 50% is 

expected to be met in the prescribed fire treatment areas. 

Road Construction 

Approximately 0.7 miles of new and temporary road construction is proposed for the Sugar Pine 

Project. Road construction results in removal of surface soils and subsoil and complete loss of 

soil productivity within the road prism. The 0.7 miles of road is approximately 1.2 acres of 

ground with total loss of soil productivity. The direct effect of this new road construction is 

irreversible and irretrievable. Erosion on newly constructed roads is usually higher immediately 

after the road is constructed. There is potential that accelerated erosion could occur off the road 

prism and reduce soil productivity off site and after the road is constructed. Applicable soil and 

water conservation Best Management Practices (BMP) will be implemented, including erosion 

control measures, such as water bars, straw mulching of fills and fertilization of soils to revegetate the bare soils. Road reconstruction and road maintenance operate within the road prism 

and have little effect to the soil resource. However, there can be a positive effect to the soil 

resource out site of the road prism from road reconstruction by restoring proper drainage features 

of the road. Restoration of drainage features will result in less surface erosion and soil loss that 

leads to loss in soil productivity. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative soil effects have been addressed under the cumulative watershed effects (CWE) 

section under the Hydrology/Water Quality Section. See the discussion in the No Action 

Alternative, Soil Cumulative Effects section for additional discussion on soil cumulative effects. 

The Sugar Pine CWE Assessment, modeled disturbance from the proposed action and recovery 

from previous management actions over a 30 year time span for 12 subdrainages. Five of those 

subdrainages (501.5006, 501.5007, 501.5053, 503.0010 and 503.0055) will exceed their lower 

threshold of concern for cumulative watershed effects after the project is implemented, but not 

their upper Threshold of Concern of 14%. A detailed field assessment for subdrainages 501.5053 

and 503.0055 did not find any evidence that cumulative watershed effects was currently 

occurring. Implementation of Soil and Water Conservation Best Management Practices and other 

design measures, including subsoiling of detrimentally compacted soils will minimize effects to 

the soil resource. No significant impacts to soil productivity are expected if soil cover is over 

50%, detrimental soil disturbance and detrimental soil compaction is limited to no more then 15% 

of a treatment unit; and large woody debris is at least five logs per acre. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

50 Sierra National Forest 

Alternative 3 

In Alternative 3, treatment areas and the types of treatments would remain the same for all areas, 

as in Alternative 2, except for those portions of treatment areas T-4 and T-3 that are designated 

within the 700-acre Pacific Fisher den site buffer (as established by SNFPA ROD 2004, S&G #85 

and #86) for known den sites. Treatments would be altered within the den site buffer to treat the 

lower and limited mid-level canopy (surface and ladder fuels) to address fire and fuels objectives 

within WUI. There would be no additional treatment of the mid-level canopy (stand density) 

within the den site buffer. All other treatment areas would continue to have treatments similar to 

those listed in Alternative 2, which includes treatment of lower and middle level canopies. There 

would continue to be approximately 2,920 acres treated under Alternative 3. 

There is virtually no difference between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 to the soil resource (see 

effects analysis for Alternative 2). The only difference between Alternative 2 and 3 is an 

additional limited operating period for treatment areas T3 and T4. The same acres will be treated, 

but fewer larger trees will be removed in treatment areas T3 and T4. These fewer trees result in 

fewer trips with mechanical equipment, but this will probably have no measurable effect. 

Alternative 4 

In Alternative 4, treatment areas would remain the same as in Alternative 2, but the treatments 

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

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

Alternative 4 there would be no additional treatments (i.e. additional thinning in the mid-level 

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

This alternative would, in effect, assume the entire project area as a Pacific Fisher den site, 

whereby, it would be treated to achieve fire and fuels objectives for the urban wildland intermix 

zone and limit treatments to mechanical clearing of ladder and surface fuels. As such, all design 

criteria and SNFPA ROD (USDA-FS 2004) standards and guidelines associated with Pacific 

Fisher den sites would be implemented with this alternative. 

This alternative was developed to address the issue listed on page 6. As well, this alternative is 

being analyzed in detail to measure the effects as they relate to focusing treatments on fire and 

fuels objectives without additional treatment for forest health (stand density). There would be 

approximately 2,920 acres treated under Alternative 4. 

There is no difference between Alternative 2 and Alternative 4 to the soil resource (see effects 

analysis for Alternative 2). The only difference between alternative 2 and 4 is an additional 

limited operating period for the whole project area. The same acres will be treated, but those acres 

that are proposed for commercial thinning in Alternative 2 will be treated for biomass removal. 

Fewer larger trees will be logged in the T treatment areas. The same equipment will be used to 

remove the biomass and the potential for disturbing soils is similar to Alternative 2. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 51 

Lands/Special Uses__________________________ 

Affected Environment 

There are numerous land-type special uses authorized under permit within the project area 

including: water systems (spring developments, water lines and storage tanks) that provide 

potable water to Sugar Pine Camp/Yosemite Mountain Railroad, and for an individual residence; 

buried fiber optic and telephone lines; a telephone carrier site along the Sugar Pine Road 630; 

overhead and buried electrical lines; the Madera Irrigation District’s gauging station; private and 

County roads; signs, and apiary sites. 

Recreation special uses authorized under permit in the project area include the Yosemite 

Mountain Sugar Pine Railroad (YMSRR) and Yosemite Trails Pack Station (YTPS). The 

YMSRR operates the railroad 6 months a year between March and October; however, their peak 

visitor season is between June and mid-August. 

The Yosemite Trails Pack Station offers horseback rides three seasons of the year from their pack 

station headquarters. In addition, YTPS offers horse driven sleigh rides during winter months 

when snow conditions are favorable from a secondary location south of Tenaya Lodge. The 

YTPS is authorized to use and maintain some of the horseback riding trails they take their clients 

on. 

The Lewis Creek Recreation Trail crosses through the southern portion of the project area. 

Map 5, found in the Map Package in Appendix A, identifies the permitted special uses found 

within the project area and how they relate to the proposed treatment areas. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide activities in 

the project area. This includes all ongoing activities with existing decisions or permits that would 

not be changed if this alternative were selected. This would include all current uses as permitted. 

While special use permittees would continue to perform hazardous fuels reduction around the 

facilities they operate, they would be limited to the standard 100 feet required by the State of 

California. Like the community of Sugar Pine, there would be no added protection from moderate 

to high intensity fires. 

The continuation of natural fuels build-up could pose a wild fire threat to permit holder 

improvements, and for commercial permit holders, a loss of revenue. Overstocked stands have the 

potential to be effected by epidemic infestations of bark beetles and, in combination with disease, 

and/or drought-induced mortality, the forested areas the commercial permit holders depend on for 

their livelihood are at risk. Commercial permit holders would likely experience loss of revenue 

because forest visitors they depend on may be hesitant to visit parts of the forest that have high 

tree mortality. As public safety concerns (mainly from snag densities and high fire danger) began 

to increase there would be the potential need for areas to be closed to public access. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

52 Sierra National Forest 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Alternative 2, like the No Action alternative, would not change the management and currently 

permitted activities within the project area. The activities associated with the proposed action 

would include commercial, pre-commercial and biomass thinning of conifer stands and 

prescribed burning (understory and pile) with associated post-activity treatments. These are the 

actions that have the largest possibility of effecting special use permitted operations. Design 

criteria were developed to minimize the impacts that could occur from the implementation of this 

alternative and are listed on pages 12-13. 

Alternative 3 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

The effects of this alternative would be similar to that of Alternative 2. 

Alternative 4 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

The effects of this alternative would be similar to that of Alternative 2. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 53 

Terrestrial Wildlife ___________________________ 

Affected Environment 

Species specific habitat needs as well as the habitat availability within the project area are listed 

within the following effects analysis by species. The effects analysis further describes the changes 

to this habitat for each alternative. When describing vegetation aggregates as it relates to wildlife 

habitat California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) mapping is used. Map 6, found in the 

Map Package, Appendix A, shows these CWHR types for the project area. Tables 40 and 41, in 

Appendix D, show the existing acres by CWHR type and changes to CWHR type, if any, from 

treatments in each action alternative. 

Mitigation and Monitoring 

Within this project area under the action alternatives, special considerations have been given to 

perennial streams to leave higher levels of biodiversity (see EIS and BE/BA for a description of 

Old Forest Linkages), higher levels of biodiversity are planned for retention around large oaks 

and large tree groups have been designated across the project area which will advantage those 

species which utilize dense large tree groups and their prey species. Surveys will be conducted for 

California spotted owls and northern goshawks prior to implementation of any project activities, 

as well, surveys for these species will be conducted on a schedule as outlined in the LRMP, as 

amended, during project implementation (USDA-FS 2001a). Additionally, as a result of the 

involvement of UC Berkeley as a part of the SNAMP project, fisher activity in the project area 

will be intensively monitored. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct Effects 

There would be no direct effects to any terrestrial wildlife species under this alternative. 

Indirect Effects 

The continued immediate threat of wildfire would remain unabated. In failing to make an attempt 

at density management of the stands the eventual changes through drought stress and subsequent 

insect and disease mortality acceleration, the threat of stand replacing fire would be exacerbated. 

Additionally, the high probability of a drying climate change in the Western United States would 

potentially further compound these effects. 

Cumulative Effects 

According the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, “cumulative impact” 

is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency 

(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Effects are spatial 

and temporal. In determining cumulative effects, the effects of the past, present and future actions 

were added to the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action and alternatives. Table 2 on 

page 25 of this document list those activities. 

Under Alternative 1, no additional cumulative effects will occur. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

54 Sierra National Forest 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

This alternative leads to a lower level removal of larger trees within the project treatment units. 

Those areas within the current fisher den site buffer would be reduced to a removal of surface and 

ladder fuels. While no currently designated habitat (PPN, SMC, MHC and RFR, 4D and 5D 

types) are intended to be reduced below those designations, understory and some co-dominates 

will be removed. Those 4D and 5D habitat types have been identified as being the most important 

to old growth species such as California spotted owls, northern goshawks or Pacific fisher for 

denning, resting and breeding habitat. None of those habitats will be reduced to less than their 

current designation. This alternative will lead to higher growth rates amongst the remaining 

stems, leading to old growth characteristics the fastest and reduce potential mortality from 

drought stress and subsequent beetle and disease mortality. 

Direct Effects 

The most probable direct effect to species will be a noise disturbance effect, potentially leading to 

an energetic response in avoiding project activities. No direct mortality from project activities 

would be expected as complete surveys of old forest threatened, endangered or sensitive (TES) 

species will be completed prior to project activities occurring and those locations and an 

appropriate perimeter around them would be avoided until after the appropriate Limited 

Operating Periods are completed. With respect to the Pallid bat, which is known to use sloughing 

bark of large snags, every effort would be made to avoid damaging or removing those snags. 

Indirect Effects 

Maintenance of the highest areas of biodiversity Old Forest Linkages (OFL), and oak understory 

characters as well as large tree groups will provide cover for species of concern and their prey. It 

is poorly understood as to the rate of recovery of those areas that are manipulated; whether they 

will be immediately begin to be reused by old forest species or whether there will be some lag 

time. That is one of the questions we are attempting to address with the Universities Sierra 

Nevada Adaptive Management Study; however, it is expected that without some form of density 

management of the stands, eventual higher levels of mortality and reduced growth rates within 

those stands will occur. With respect to stand-replacing wildfire events, this alternative provides 

the highest level of protection possible without diminishing the ability of those stands to support 

species of concern and their prey. 

Cumulative Effects 

This area includes private in-holdings, permanent roads, dispersed camping, occasional OffHighway vehicle use, and day-use areas, and several timber plantations. Road maintenance, 

culvert maintenance, hazard tree removal, management of plantations including gopher control, 

pre-commercial and commercial thinning, conifer planting and release operations, brush removal, 

and timber harvest all occur. On private property, there has been homebuilding, maintenance of 

access roads, and brush removal (hazard reduction). The potential for additional construction of 

homes on the private in-holdings within the project area is low within the foreseeable future. 

Current projects within the Fresno River watershed area include Sonny Meadows North, South 

and Cedar Valley fuels reduction projects which will have effects to the habitat similar to the 

proposed project. There are no reasonably foreseeable projects in the watershed that have a 

proposed action developed so that effects can be predicted. Reasonably foreseeable Forest 

Service projects, including projects generated by the Healthy Forest Initiative and the National 

Fire Plan, in the nearby area include continuing vegetation management activities such as fuels 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 55 

management activities (mastication, pruning, slash disposal, brush removal, fuelbreak 

maintenance), hazard tree removal, maintenance of roads and culverts and possibly prescribed 

burning. 

Not all areas shown as being covered with 70% or more cover within potential treatment areas 

will be treated. Steep slopes, Streamside Management Zones, Old Forest Linkages, etc. will not 

be treated. Habitat will remain the same from the perspective that we are not proposing any 

treatments in these areas. Only about 2/3 of the mastication treatment areas acreage will actually 

be treated, if funded. Other portions are either too steep, too rocky; contain too much oak, etc. for 

treatment. Therefore, some of the areas shown as dense cover within these proposed treatment 

areas will remain dense cover. 

There is a 30-inch diameter limit. In all previous thinnings, pockets of trees too large to remove 

had to be left that had greater than proposed leave basal area stocking levels. There is no reason 

to think that the same situation will not occur on this project. Timber marking crews do not 

always mark trees for removal down to the desired leave basal area. Crews have habitually left 

more trees than the prescription called for. Minimal to no harvest will be done in archeological 

sites. Trees within arch sites will generally remain following harvest. 

To the south of the Sugar Pine project lies the Progeny Sale Area. This area was thinned several 

years ago. Crowns are beginning to close back in. Much of the area is shown as 70% or more 

crown closure. Post sale work (thinning and piling or mastication) is being completed within the 

next year or two. Suitable denning and nesting habitat should be available in much of this area as 

treatments are undertaken within Sugar Pine. 

The district has been thinning younger stands for the past 12 to 15 years to the same 

specifications. Since thinning is done from below, suppressed and intermediate trees (those with 

the poorest crowns) are removed first. If additional trees need to be removed to reach the desired 

leave basal area, co-dominant trees are then removed until the desired basal area is reached or 

diameter restrictions require retention of the remaining stems whichever occurs first. Thinning 

from below generally retains the largest crowned trees. Thinnings have called for a 15 to 20 year 

reentry period. Experience has shown crowns recapture the sites fairly rapidly. Reproduction 

pockets growing in openings are planned to be pre-commercially thinned and slash treated. These 

thinned trees will then be able to maintain good health and vigor. Crown cover, where present, 

even in more open areas will recover over time. 

Plantations will be thinned to maintain good health and vigor. Plantations will be able to more 

rapidly fill in crown closures by maintaining rapid growth. 

Potential Cumulative Effects by Species 

Pacific Fisher 

The area considered in determining the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable activities on fisher encompasses the Kings River project area, the Sierra NF, and the 

Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area (SSFCA), which is approximately 1,018,000 acres in 

size. This conservation area is defined by an elevational band from 3,500 to 8,000 feet on the 

Sierra and Sequoia National Forests and includes the known occupied range of the fisher in the 

Sierra Nevada (USDA-FS 2001:A-45). This is an appropriate scale for cumulative effects 

analysis because the SSFCA is an integral component of the conservation strategy described in 

the 2001 SNFPA ROD (USDA-FS 2001:43). Maintaining the capability for movement and 

dispersal of fisher between southern Sierra Nevada populations and populations found in northern 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

56 Sierra National Forest 

California is one of the key objectives of the SSFCA and is another reason why the SSFCA 

represents an appropriate scale for the analysis of cumulative effects. 

Since about the mid 1960s, past activities have included clearcutting and salvage logging (1960s 

to 1972), sanitation and salvage harvests (1972 through 1978), clearcutting, shelterwood cutting, 

and salvage harvests (1978 through 1992), and commercial thinning from below and salvage in 

recent times. The only fires to burn substantial amounts of timber were the Rock Fire in 1981, the 

Big Creek Fire in 1995 and the North Fork Fire in 2001, with each fire burning about 3000 acres 

of forest. Clearcuts or burned areas that took place prior to 1972 are most likely successful 

plantations today exhibiting size class 3 and density class M stands. Other, more recent 

disturbances, while they may be reforested have probably not yet reached size class 3. 

Availability of suitable resting/denning habitat versus foraging habitat 

Within the SSFCA, we examined the availability of suitable resting/denning habitat versus 

foraging habitat. The availability of suitable resting/denning habitat is considered to be more 

limiting to fisher populations than the availability of foraging habitats (USDA-FS 2006). We used 

data presented by Freel (1991) to help inform the definitions of resting/denning versus foraging 

habitat. Also, we validated these habitat definitions by comparing them to CWHR Version 8.1 

(CDFG 2005) and discussing them with fisher research scientists (Dr. W. J. Zielinski, Dr. K. 

Purcell, and R. Truex, pers. comm., 21 Sept 2006). This discussion resulted in the identification 

of an alternative method for describing fisher reproductive habitat. 

In general, we found Freel’s (1991) definition for resting and denning habitat matched the 

CWHR’s definition of reproductive habitat. However, we noted that CWHR’s definition of 

foraging habitat included several “S” and “P” densities that were not used by Freel. Interestingly, 

the discussions with research scientists, particularly Dr. Zielinski, indicated recent field work 

shows fisher are using most CWHR types for foraging. Nonetheless, we retained the somewhat 

more restrictive Freel model for the sake of consistency of approach and did not include the S and 

P densities as foraging habitat. We do not believe this appreciably changes the habitat picture, 

since foraging habitat is clearly not limiting to fisher. The fisher scientists believe that 

reproductive habitat is limiting to fisher. 

CWHR version 8.1 was used as a basis to define what we consider to be a minimum habitat map, 

based solely upon forest types, ages, and canopy densities listed therein as HIGH quality 

reproductive habitat. We further restricted the forest types considered to provide reproductive 

habitat from those listed in CWHR, based upon personal communication with Dr. Bill Zielinski 

(21 Sept 2006). This resulted in the elimination of the following types: aspen, eastside pine, 

lodgepole pine, red fir, and subalpine conifer. This generated a more restrictive map of high 

quality reproductive habitat. 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities on the Bass Lake Ranger District are 

described at the beginning of Chapter 3 of the DEIS. The scale for cumulative effects also 

includes the Sierra National Forest and Sequoia National Forest. 

On the Bass Lake Ranger District, there is one present project (Sonny Meadows South – 1,400 or 

more acres of commercial thinning that will not result in changes to suitable habitat) and two 

reasonably foreseeable projects (Sonny Meadows North with 955 acres of treatments and Sugar 

Pine with approximately 915 acres of commercial thinning) that could influence the cumulative 

effect on fisher habitat. While Sonny Meadows North will not result in any changes in suitable 

habitat, nor will the Sugar Pine project result in a reduction in quality of suitable habitat on about 

816 acres. On the High Sierra District, there is one present project (Jose Basin 1 – 1,263 acres of 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 57 

commercial thinning) where habitat would be degraded on 60 acres and 8 acres of foraging 

habitat would be diminished temporarily. 

American Marten 

The area considered in determining the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable activities on marten encompasses the Sierra NF. This is an appropriate scale for 

cumulative effects for a wide-ranging species (such as the marten) that has also been selected as a 

Management Indicator Species for the Sierra NF. Based on the following analysis, a 

determination of viability for the marten will be made. 

In addition to the previously mentioned habitat risk factors, there are two important 

uncontrollable habitat risk factors for martens: (1) development and (2) climate change. Climate 

change is beyond the scope of this analysis and areas of large-scale development are not planned 

for the Sugar Pine project area. 

Biological Evaluations for many of the past projects in the Sierra NF were reviewed to help 

inform the present analysis. Our review of these documents revealed the following basic 

information about effects to marten from these activities: 

 Twenty-six (26) total project Biological Evaluations (BEs) were reviewed, dating back to 

1993 on the Sierra NF. 

 Determinations reached were: 

 No effect – 7 BEs 

 May affect individual marten, but not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing 

or loss of viability – 15 BEs 

 May affect individual marten, and likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or 

loss of viability – 0 BEs 

 Marten were not addressed in the document we reviewed due to lack of habitat or 

other reasons – 4 BEs 

 Types of projects: Fuels reduction, harvest, hazard tree removal, and thinning were the 

proposed activities that were most often represented in the sample of BEs in which the 

marten was analyzed. 

 Relative to “May Affect” projects, the described impacts to marten most often fell in the 

following categories: 

 Temporary disturbances 

 Foraging area may be burned if underburning gets out of control 

 Removed hazard trees could serve as resting or denning sites 

 Habitat altered or removed 

 Reduction of habitat quality (e.g., reduction in canopy cover) 

 Habitat will be entered 

 Noise disturbance (FEIS) 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

58 Sierra National Forest 

Northern Goshawk 

The Northern Goshawk has a continuous distribution throughout the Sierra Nevada with a 

network of 56 managed territories on the Sierra National Forest. Given the scope and scale of the 

Sugar Pine project relative to the size of the Sierra Nevada and the goshawk’s overall North 

American distribution, the area considered in determining the cumulative effects of past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable activities on the Northern Goshawk will focus on the Sierra NF. 

Based on the following analysis, a determination of viability for the Northern Goshawk will be 

made. 

Biological Evaluations for many of the past projects in the Sierra NF were reviewed to help 

inform the present analysis. Our review of these documents revealed the following basic 

information about effects to Northern Goshawks from these activities: 

 Twenty-six (26) total project Biological Evaluations (BEs) were reviewed, dating back to 

1993 on the Sierra NF. 

 Determinations reached were: 

 No effect – 4 BEs 

 May affect individual goshawks, but not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal 

listing or loss of viability – 20 BEs 

 May affect individual goshawks, and likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing 

or loss of viability – 0 BEs 

 Northern Goshawk was not addressed in the document we reviewed due to lack of habitat 

or other reasons – 2 BEs 

 Types of projects: Fuels reduction, harvest, hazard tree removal, thinning, and 

underburning were the proposed activities that were most often represented in the sample 

of BEs in which the Northern Goshawk was analyzed. 

 Relative to “May Affect” projects, the described impacts to Northern Goshawks most 

often fell in the following categories: 

 Noise disturbances 

 Loss of foraging area if underburn gets out of control 

 Loss of plucking trees 

 Habitat quality reduction 

As with other species, the SNFPA (USDA-FS 2001) provided our analysis of Northern Goshawks 

with useful historical and habitat information. Evidence suggests the low number of goshawk 

breeding territories (ranging from 12 reported in the SNFPA (USDA-FS 2001) to the 56 such 

territories known to exist today) has increased since some of the earliest data were reported by 

Grinnell and Miller (1944 – as cited in USDA-FS 2001), because there has been no apparent 

change in the geographic distribution of Northern Goshawks in the Sierra Nevada since then. 

Thus, goshawk numbers in the Sierra NF remain fairly stable. Reasons for this, as put forth by the 

SNFPA (USDA-FS 2001), include (1) vegetation management practices, (2) the fact that the 

Sierra NF is near the southernmost edge of the goshawk’s range, and (3) survey efforts for 

goshawks may be lower on the Sierra NF. 

The major risk factors identified by the SNFPA (USDA-FS 2001) for goshawks are the effects of 

vegetation management and wildfires on the amount and distribution of quality habitat. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 59 

Unfortunately, goshawk biologists are unsure of what constitutes “high quality” Northern 

Goshawk habitat in the Sierra Nevada, and as a result, historical patterns of land-use and its 

effects on goshawks are difficult to interpret. Brian Woodbridge (pers. comm., 8 Sept 2006), 

however, stated that the 4D CWHR size/density class, and perhaps also 5D, is used most 

frequently by nesting goshawks. Immediately after the implementation of the Proposed Action, 

the amount of suitable habitat would not appreciably decrease. 

Because the alternatives put forth in this project will result in long-term increases in Northern 

Goshawk suitable habitat over time, along with the relatively stable geographic distribution and 

population levels of goshawks in the area, and the project’s goal of increasing large diameter 

trees, the cumulative effects of vegetation management activities in the Sugarpine treatment units 

taken together with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities on the Forest will not 

result in a loss of viability for the Northern Goshawk.” (FEIS) 

Great Gray Owl 

While this species may move through the project area during winter movements, as there is no 

suitable breeding habitat within the project area, there are no expected direct or indirect negative 

effects to these species from the project; therefore, there are no expected cumulative effects from 

the project. 

California Spotted Owl 

At a forest-wide scale, there currently are 321 designated Home Range Core Areas and 258 

Protected Activity Centers encompassing over 113,000 acres. Over 450,000 acres of suitable 

habitat currently exist on the Forest. Considering the proposed activities, ongoing actions, and 

reasonably foreseeable activities, less than one percent of suitable habitat on the Sierra National 

Forest would be affected. 

Since about the mid 1960s, past activities have included clearcutting and salvage logging (1960s 

to 1972), sanitation and salvage harvests (1972 through 1978), clearcutting, shelterwood cutting, 

and salvage harvests (1978 through 1992), and commercial thinning from below and salvage in 

recent times. The only fires to burn substantial amounts of timber were the Rock Fire in 1981, the 

Big Creek Fire in 1995 and the North Fork Fire in 2001, with each fire burning about 3000 acres 

of forest. Clearcuts or burned areas that took place prior to 1972 are most likely successful 

plantations today exhibiting size class 3 and density class M stands. Other, more recent 

disturbances, while they may be reforested have probably not yet reached size class 3.

In its 12-month finding in which it decided to not list the California Spotted Owl as threatened or 

endangered, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concluded that the scale, magnitude, or 

intensity of effects on the California Spotted Owl resulting from fire, fuels treatments, timber 

harvest, and other activities did not rise above the threshold necessitating protection of the species 

under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2006). The USFWS reached this conclusion after 

considering the impacts of the Forest Service implementation of the SNFPA ROD. The USFWS 

conclusion (2006) is supported by: 

 Data which indicate that California Spotted Owl populations in the Sierra Nevada are 

stable and comprise 81% of the species’ known territories. 

 The anticipation that current and planned fuels-reduction activities throughout the range 

of the species will have a long-term benefit by reducing the risk of stand replacing 

wildfire; these activities embrace those described by the SNFPA ROD. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

60 Sierra National Forest 

 Barred Owls represent only about 2% of California Spotted Owl habitat in the Sierra 

Nevada. 

 Protection measures are being implemented for the California Spotted Owl on private 

lands, including the largest private landholders within the range of the species (FEIS). 

Pallid Bat 

The area considered in determining the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable activities on pallid bats encompasses the Sierra NF. Based on the following analysis, 

a determination of viability for the bat will be made. 

Biological Evaluations for many of the past projects in the Sierra NF were reviewed to help 

inform the present analysis. Our review of these documents revealed the following basic 

information about effects to pallid bats from these activities: 

 Twenty-six (26) total project Biological Evaluations (BEs) were reviewed, dating back to 

1993 on the Sierra NF. The species was not listed as Forest Service sensitive until the 

updated list from June 1998. 

 Determinations reached were: 

 No effect – 4 BEs 

 May affect individual bats, but not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or 

loss of viability – 10 BEs 

 May affect individual bats, and likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability – 0 BEs 

 Pallid bat was not addressed in the document we reviewed due to lack of habitat or 

other reasons – 12 BEs 

 Types of projects: Fuels reduction, hazard tree removal, thinning, and underburning were 

the proposed activities that were most often represented in the sample of BEs in which 

the pallid bat was analyzed. 

 Relative to “May Affect” projects, the described impacts to pallid bats most often fell in 

the following categories: 

 Loss of roosting trees/snags 

 Displacement because of smoke from underburning 

 Noise disturbance 

Pallid bats occur most frequently below 6,000 feet and are especially sensitive to the removal of 

hardwoods (USDA-FS 2001). Except for 4D and 5D, CWHR rates all size classes and densities in 

blue oak woodlands as High for pallid bat, in terms of meeting its foraging needs. Montane 

hardwood conifer and montane hardwood habitats are rated Low for pallid bat by CWHR (CDFG 

2005). Currently, there are 32,600 acres of blue oak woodlands and 251,000 acres of montane 

hardwoods and montane hardwood conifers below 8,000 ft on the Sierra NF in CWHR size 

classes 2 and higher. The protection, maintenance, and enhancement of such westside foothill 

oaks and montane oaks are expected to benefit pallid bats by ensuring the continued availability 

of roosting sites. Indeed, all alternatives proposed in the SNFPA would lead to an increase in oak 

species (USDA-FS 2001). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 61 

Cumulative effects discussed in the SNFPA stated that there have been no recent changes in the 

range or distribution of the pallid bat (USDA-FS 2001). For these reasons, and given the longterm objective for increasing the number of large trees across the landscape, the intention of 

reducing fuels, and the foregoing discussion of effects, the cumulative effects of vegetation 

management activities in the Sugar Pine treatment areas taken together with past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable activities on the Forest will not result in a loss of viability for the pallid 

bat. 

Townsend’s Big-eared and Western Red Bat 

There are no expected direct or indirect negative effects to these species from the project; 

therefore, there are no expected cumulative effects from the project. 

Alternative 3 

This alternative leads to a lower level of removal of larger trees within the project treatment units. 

Those areas that are within current fisher den site buffer will be treated for surface and ladder 

fuels only. For a detailed description of those fuels to be removed, please see the Fuels Treatment 

portion of the DEIS. While no currently designated habitat (PPN, SMC, MHC and RFR, 4D and 

5D types) are intended to be reduced below those designations, understory and some codominates will be removed. Those 4D and 5D habitat types have been identified as being the 

most important to old growth species such as California spotted owls, northern goshawks or 

Pacific fisher for denning, resting and breeding habitat. None of those habitats will be reduced to 

less than their current designation. This alternative will lead to highest growth rates of retained 

trees outside of the fisher den site buffer, stems, leading to old growth characteristics the fastest 

and reduce potential mortality from drought stress and subsequent beetle and disease mortality. 

Those retained stems within the den site buffer will receive some small relief from the removal of 

fuel ladders but not to the extent of those trees outside of the buffer area. 

Direct Effects 

The most probable direct effect to species will be a noise disturbance effect, potentially leading to 

an energetic response in avoiding project activities. There would be no appreciable difference in 

the direct effects inside or out of the den site buffer. No direct mortality from project activities 

would be expected as complete surveys of old forest TES species will be completed prior to 

project activities occurring and those locations and an appropriate perimeter around them would 

be avoided until after the appropriate Limited Operating Periods are completed. With respect to 

the Pallid bat, which is known to use sloughing bark of large snags, every effort would be made 

to avoid damaging or removing those snags. 

Indirect Effects 

Maintenance of the highest areas of biodiversity Old Forest Linkages (OFL), and oak understory 

characters as well as large tree groups will provide cover for species of concern and their prey. It 

is poorly understood as to the rate of recovery of those areas that are manipulated, whether they 

will be immediately begin to be reused or whether there will be some lag time. That is one of the 

questions we are attempting to address with the Universities Sierra Nevada Adaptive 

Management Study; however, it is expected that without some form of density management of 

the stands, eventual higher levels of mortality and reduced growth rates within those stands will 

occur. With respect to stand replacing wildfire events this alternative provides the highest level of 

protection possible without diminishing the ability of those stands to support species of concern 

and their prey. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

62 Sierra National Forest 

Cumulative Effects 

The Cumulative Effects for Alternative 3 will be identical to those for Alternative 2 with the 

exception of a lower canopy treatment with limited mid-level canopy treatment within the current 

fisher den site buffer area. 

Alternative 4 

This alternative leads to no removal of large trees within the project treatment units. The project 

area will be treated for surface and ladder fuels only. For a detailed description of those fuels to 

be removed, please see the Fuels Treatment portion of the DEIS. No currently designated habitat 

(PPN, SMC, MHC and RFR, 4D and 5D types) are to be reduced below those designations, 

understory and ladder fuels only will be removed. This action alternative will lead to the lowest 

growth rate leading to old growth characteristics within the project area and a higher potential 

mortality from drought stress and subsequent beetle and disease mortality. 

Direct Effects 

The most probable direct effect to species will be a noise disturbance effect, potentially leading to 

an energetic response in avoiding project activities. There will be no change CWHR type across 

the project with the exception of prescribed burn areas which occasionally see small torching of 

trees resulting in small canopy losses, typically less than 1 acre in size. No direct mortality from 

project activities would be expected as complete surveys of old forest TES species will be 

completed prior to project activities occurring and those locations and an appropriate perimeter 

around them would be avoided until after the appropriate Limited Operating Periods are 

completed. With respect to the Pallid bat, which is known to use sloughing bark of large snags, 

every effort would be made to avoid damaging or removing those snags by lining them out within 

the prescribed burn areas. 

Indirect Effects 

Maintenance of the highest areas of biodiversity Old Forest Linkages (OFL), and oak understory 

characters as well as large tree groups will provide cover for species of concern and their prey. It 

is poorly understood as to the rate of recovery of those areas that are manipulated, whether they 

will be immediately begin to be reused or whether there will be some lag time. That is one of the 

questions we are attempting to address with the Universities Sierra Nevada Adaptive 

Management Study; however, it is expected that without some form of density management of 

the stands, eventual higher levels of mortality and reduced growth rates within those stands will 

occur. With respect to stand replacing wildfire events this alternative provides the highest level of 

protection possible without diminishing the ability of those stands to support species of concern 

and their prey. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects of Alternative 4 will consist of only treating lower canopy and moderate 

mid level fuels. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 63 

Aquatic Wildlife and Management Indicator 

Species____________________________________ 

Affected Environment 

The Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project drains to two watersheds, Lewis Creek and Big 

Creek, comprised of two 6th code Hydrologic Units (HUC6s). Lewis Creek is tributary to the 

Fresno River, and Big Creek flows directly into the Merced River. Each of these basins is further 

divided into HUC7s and HUC8s. Analysis was conducted at the HUC8 scale, which ranges from 

466 to 2,564 acres in the project area. For this analysis, the term ‘subwatershed’ is used to refer to 

these HUC 8s. The Analysis Area is the 12 HUC8 subwatersheds that include the treatment areas 

proposed under the Sugar Pine Project. Table 9 indicates stream drainage and flow regime within 

the aquatic analysis area based on Geographic Information Systems (GIS). 

Table 9. Watershed Summaries by Stream Classification 

Main Stream Miles 

Stream 

System(s) 

Watershed 

(HUC 5) 

Subwatersheds 

(HUC 8) Perennial Intermittent Ephemeral Total 

Lewis 

Creek 

Fresno River 

(1804000701) 

503.0008 

503.0009 

503.0010 

503.0011 

503.0055 

503.3001 

16.6 11.5 112.2 140.3 

Big Creek SF Merced 

(1804000803) 

501.5003 

501.5005 

501.5006 

501.5007 

501.5053 

501.5054 

17.1 13.5 90.5 121.1 

The project area drainage is considered part of the Sacramento-San Joaquin zoogeographic 

province as described by Moyle (1976, 2002). It is not known whether salmonids are native to the 

two watersheds within the project boundaries. Moyle (et al. 1996, 2002) identifies much of the 

west slope of the Sierra Nevada range above 5,000 feet elevation as being historically fishless due 

to glaciation during the Pleistocene and steep topography. The fish community for the project 

area elevation and zoogeographic province is described by Moyle (2002) as the rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) assemblage. That species is found in clear high-gradient, perennial 

streams at high elevations. Such habitats are characterized as having more riffle than pools, with 

water temperatures seldom exceeding 21 degrees Celsius (o C). 

Between 1991 and 2007, primary streams and meadows were surveyed over various times and 

locations. Surveys have been conducted for aquatic species, stream channel characteristics, and 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

64 Sierra National Forest 

watershed restoration needs. Channels were defined by reach type based on observed channel 

gradient, width/depth ratios, channel meander, substrate material, channel stability (Pfankuch 

1975), riparian zone, large woody debris and fish habitat. Channel reach types (Rosgen 1996) 

were determined based on observed channel attributes such as channel morphology, along with 

sediment and transport characteristics. Channel types are evaluated in terms of sensitivity to 

disturbance as presented by Rosgen (1996), which varies by channel gradient and size of 

substrate. Five Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) (USDA-Forest Service 2005a) plots were 

established along possible response or depositional channels (Montgomery and Buffington 1997) 

(low gradient, fine substrate) to evaluate current conditions and establish a possible baseline 

comparison for future monitoring. Benthic macroinvertebrates were evaluated using biotic indices 

from Hilsenhoff (1987) and Winget et al. (1979). Separate surveys for reptiles and amphibians 

(Fellers and Freel 1995) were completed in 2007. 

Surveys within the aquatic analysis area have identified that rainbow and brown trout occur in all 

the larger perennial tributaries within the project area. These two species are collectively referred 

to as resident trout. Upstream fish movements are limited by areas of high channel gradient, falls, 

and several small dams (private property). A put-and-take fishery is maintained by the California 

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) within the project area, although streams are selfsustaining. Both Lewis and Big Creek are subject to angling pressure. There are 34 miles of 

perennial streams occurring in the project area subwatersheds. The perennial streams are 

potentially habitat for resident trout, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and herpetofauna, although 

intermittent and ephemeral channels can serve as migration corridors for herpetofauna and also 

influence habitat in the perennial streams. Map 9 located in the Appendix A, Map Package, 

displays the perennial stream systems and subwatersheds for the Sugar Pine Adaptive 

Management Project area. 

A number of special interest amphibian or reptile (herpetofauna) species may occur or have 

suitable habitat in the project area subwatersheds. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 

2009) indicated that potential habitat may be present for the threatened, endangered, or candidate 

species: California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii); mountain yellow-legged frog (R. 

muscosa); and Yosemite toad (Bufo canorus). Additionally, suitable habitat may be present for 

the Forest Service sensitive western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) and foothill yellow-legged 

frog (R. boylii). Potentially suitable habitat for these species would be perennial streams, 

meadows, and ponds. Additionally, foothill yellow-legged frog and western pond turtle may also 

utilize intermittent streams. Elevations less than 5000 feet may provide habitat for California redlegged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, or western pond turtle. Elevations greater than 5000 feet 

may provide habitat for mountain yellow-legged frog, and meadows at elevations greater than 

6000 feet could provide Yosemite toad habitat. 

Existing Condition Summaries 

The following tables and figures summarize information within project area HUC8 

subwatersheds. Information is summarized from the Project Hydrology, Aquatics, Aquatic 

Species Biological Assessment/Evaluation, and Management Indicator Species reports. Table 10 

indicates present stream channel conditions and overall sensitivity to disturbance. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 65 

Table 10. Summary of Subwatershed Conditions 

Subwatershed Acres Current Channel 

Stability 

Sensitivity to 

disturbance 

501.5003 466 Stable Low 

501.5005 2229 Stable Moderate 

501.5006 638 Stable Moderate 

501.5007 668 Stable Moderate 

501.5053 1817 Stable Low 

501.5054 1480 Stable Low 

503.0008 945 Stable Moderate 

503.0009 2010 Stable High 

503.0010 1549 Stable High 

503.0011 645 Stable Moderate 

503.0055 2564 Stable Low 

503.3001 1381 Stable Moderate 

Table 11 displays miles of perennial streams, miles occuppied by resident trout, 2007 maximum 

(15-minute) summer water temperatures from the larger perennial streams, stream shading, and 

results from benthic macroinvertebrate sampling expressed as Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI), and 

Biotic Condition Index (BCI) (Vinson 2008). Table 12 presents woody debris data from the 

project SCI plots and stream channel surveys, while Table 13 notes potential habitat for 

threatened, endangered, proposed or sensitive (TEPS) herpetofauna, along with Aquatic 

Management Indicator Species (MIS). Figure 2 displays mean daily water temperatures through 

the summer of 2007. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

66 Sierra National Forest 

Table 11. Perennial Streams; Resident Trout Occupancy, Maximum 15-Minute 

Water Temperatures, Percent Stream Shading, and Indices for Benthic 

Macroinvertebrates 

Subwatershed Perennial 

(mi) 

Resident 

Trout 

occupied 

(mi) 

Max Water 

Temp ( oC) 

Stream 

Shading 

HB 

Index 

BCI 

501.5003 1.1 0.5 13.3 >70% ND ND 

501.5005 4.2 3.0 ND ND 4.14 140 

501.5006 1.6 1.2 19.2 70% 4.09 85 

501.5007 1.1 0.3 ND ND ND ND 

501.5053 4.8 4.8 19.4 70% 4.13 86 

501.5054 4.3 4.3 ND ND ND ND 

503.0008 1.5 0.2 ND 70% ND ND 

503.0009 3.7 3 ND 70% ND ND 

503.0010 2.4 1.7 17 78% 4.14 82 

503.0011 1.2 0 ND 84% 4.60 119 

503.0055 5.4 5.4 18.3 70% 3.14 100 

503.3001 2.4 1.8 ND ND ND ND 

(ND= No SCI data) 

Table 12. Woody Debris Data 

Subwatershed Min length (m) Mean density/100 m 

(d >=0.1 m) 

LWD/100 m (0.3 x 3 m) 

501.5003 ND ND ND 

501.5005 ND ND ND 

501.5006 1.1 110 7 

501.5007 ND ND ND 

501.5053 7.7 22.3 1.4 

501.0054 ND ND ND 

503.0008 3 ND 5.3 

503.0009 3 ND 8.9 

503.0010 1.4 167 2 

503.0011 0.9 135 0.7 

503.0055 3.6 140 2.5 

503.3001 ND ND 11.1 

(ND= No SCI or stream survey data) 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 67 

Table 13. Summary of Potential Habitat within Project Area Subwatersheds 

(Potential Acres Includes Marginal Acres) 

Note: foothill yellow-legged frog acres are within western pond turtle habitat (overlap). 

Species Potential Habitat (ac) Marginal (ac) 

California red-legged frog 5 0 

Foothill yellow-legged frog 900 590 

Western pond turtle 1740 1150 

Mountain yellow-legged frog 670 330 

Yosemite toad 110 0 

Benthic macroinverbrates 34 (mi) 0 

Pacific tree frog 172 0 

Figure 2. 2007 average summer water temperatures for project area streams 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

68 Sierra National Forest 

Environmental Consequences 

This section analyzes the effects of the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project on 

aquatic/riparian species and their habitats. A list of past, present, and foreseeable projects for the 

project area is located in Chapter 3. Proposed management actions have the potential to directly 

alter stream shading (solar radiation); and indirectly or cumulatively alter water temperature; 

water quantity; water quality; sediment, nutrient, and litter inputs; woody debris; and channel 

structure. All of these elements can affect aquatic habitat and nutritional resources of aquatic 

organisms (Gregory et al. 1987; Chamberlin et al. 1991; Furniss et al. 1991; Dwire et al. 2006). 

Aquatic (benthic) macroinvertebrates (a Management Indicator Species or MIS) are recognized 

for their importance in the aquatic/riparian systems within the project area. Thus, if the project 

alters stream temperature, canopy cover, hydrologic regime, sediment inputs, 

seeps/springs/headwater areas, and nutrient cycling (LWD or litter inputs), it could affect 

aquatic/riparian species indirectly through affects to the invertebrate community. Various life 

stages of resident trout and herpetofauna utilize benthic macroinvertebrates as a food source. 

Stream flow may increase as basal area (and evapotranspiration) declines, and peak flows can be 

indirectly affected by vegetation removal (Chamberlin et al. 1991; Kattleman 1996). Troendle 

(2001) indicated increased water yields following timber harvest, although treatments were 

primarily clearcuts rather than thinnings that are being proposed for the Sugar Pine project. 

Alteration of the hydrologic regime (timing, duration or magnitude of flows) from the combined 

effects of silviculture and underburning could affect spawning for fish, amphibian breeding, and 

MIS habitat (benthic macroinvertebrates and Pacific tree frog). Such an alteration could also 

result in channel downcutting, bank instabilities and degradation of aquatic habitat through 

additional accumulations of sediment in pool habitat and covering of spawning gravels. In snowdominated areas, such as the Sugar Pine drainage area, nearly all of the change in flows would 

occur during spring runoff, and spring runoff may occur slightly sooner if reductions in canopy 

allow faster melting of the snowpack. 

Fire Effects 

One of the objectives of the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project is to modify the intensity 

and spread of fire in the Wildland Urban Interface near the communities of Sugar Pine and Fish 

Camp. This would be accomplished using a combination of thinning and fuels reduction. 

Nakamura et al. (2008) noted some success with reducing crown fire after thinning and burning 

for the Cone and Megram Fires. They also note that some fires are so large (McNally or Cedar 

Fires) that would likely continue to burn through or around treatment areas. 

Little is known about fire history of riparian areas in the west, but it is expected to vary from 

those experienced in upland areas (Dwire and Kauffman 2003; Bisson et al. 2003). Riparian areas 

differ from upland areas in topography, microclimate, geomorphology, and vegetation. Further 

they are characterized as having cooler air temperatures, lower daily maximum air temperatures, 

and higher relative humidity. These characteristics may contribute to higher moisture content of 

live and dead fuels, and riparian soils, which presumably lowers the intensity, severity and 

frequency of fire (Dwire and Kauffman 2003). 

Fire, both prescribed and wild, has potential to affect aquatic/riparian systems. Prescribed burning 

could indirectly affect streambank stability, aquatic foodwebs, stream temperature, and large 

wood dynamics (Dwire et al. 2006; Bêche et al. 2005). High intensity fires can severely disrupt 

aquatic ecosystems, and that these affects can be prolonged (up to 300 years for LWD). Specific 

influences may include decreased channel stability; greater and more variable stream discharge; 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 69 

altered woody debris delivery and storage; increased nutrient availability; higher sediment 

delivery and transport; and increased solar radiation and altered water temperature regime (Bisson 

et al. 2003; Dunham et al. 2003). 

Impact of fire on the benthic macroinvertebrate community varies by burn intensity and extent; 

steam size and gradient; precipitation and amount of runoff; vegetative cover; geology; and 

topography. Some indicators of community health may return to pre-fire conditions within 1 to 2 

years, but the overall community will probably vary for 5 to 10 years after the fire (Minshall 

2003; Reardon et al. 2005). 

The extent of fire effects on fish populations would be related to recovery of suitable water 

temperatures, suitable water quality, and connectivity to population refugia. Trout are noted as 

being resilient and adapted to disturbance (Rieman and Clayton 1997; Dunham et al. 2003; Rinne 

and Jacoby 2005), but recovery could take a decade or more. Sestrich (2005) reported that native 

trout populations recovered rapidly, with some sites exceeding pre-fire population levels within 

three years following fires in the Bitterroot River Basin (2000). Greswell (1999) considered the 

disturbance regime resulting from wildfire could facilitate invasion by nonnative fish species. 

The ecological diversity of riparian corridors is maintained by natural disturbance regimes 

including fire and fire-related flooding, debris flows, and landslides (Dwire and Kauffman 2003). 

Many species have adapted life histories that are shaped by, and may depend on disturbance 

events (Dunham et al. 2003; Bisson et al. 2003; Rieman et al. 2005). There remains debate among 

Aquatic Ecologists regarding the need to treat riparian areas, and the types of treatments. Part of 

the controversy is related to the diverse and complex effects that fire can have on aquatic systems 

(Dunham et al. 2003). Researchers agree that aquatic systems have developed under a disturbance 

regime. Some aquatic biologists believe that wildfire poses additional risk to endangered species, 

while others feel affects from treatments are more likely to damage aquatic systems than fire 

(Erman 1996; Bisson et al. 2003). Analysis following the Angora Fire (USDA-FS 2007), 

identified fire spread was facilitated in part by corridors provided in the no-treatment Streamside 

Environmental Zones. 

Desired Conditions 

Desired conditions for the project area were described in the Fresno River Landscape Analysis 

(USDA-FS 2005a). Indicators are measures that can be used to describe the condition of 

aquatic/riparian ecosystems. They represent elements that might change as a result of 

management activities. There are two riparian vegetation indicators identified in the Landscape 

Analysis; canopy cover and large woody debris. While not identified in the Fresno River 

Landscape Analysis, water temperature will also be used as an aquatic indicator. The Sierra 

Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) (Jennings 1996; Moyle et al. 1996; Erman 1996) notes that 

these aquatic indicators could be potentially be affected by the types of activities being proposed. 

The aquatic indicators are described in the following:

Canopy Cover 

Canopy cover is the degree to which tree canopies obscure the sky or block the sun. Canopy 

cover was measured as the percentage of stream shading and varies by the width of the stream 

channel, which is generally a function of stream order. Stream shading is important in 

maintaining water temperature with the effect varying by the height of adjacent vegetation, 

proximity to the stream, topography, angle of the sun, and aspect (Beschta et al. 1987; USGS 

1997, 2002; Moore et al. 2005). The Fresno River Landscape Analysis (USDA Forest Service 

2005a) identifies stream shading of 70 to 80% within the riparian zone as a desired condition. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

70 Sierra National Forest 

Large Woody Debris 

Large woody debris (LWD) is of both physical and biological importance within stream channels 

and riparian zones (Bisson et al. 1987; Sedell et al. 1988). LWD provide sediment traps, affect 

stream channel morphology to create pool habitat, increase channel roughness to dissipate energy, 

provide complexity to habitat, provide structural cover, and provide nutrient inputs (Bisson et al. 

1987). LWD provide cover for fish and animal species, are directly consumed by specialized 

macroinvertebrates. Factors influencing LWD in the Sierra Nevada mountain range may include 

geomorphology, decay resistance of local species, floods and past management (Ruediger and 

Ward 1996). The desired condition from the Fresno River Landscape Analysis is that project 

streams should average (over the watershed) between 3 to 15 LWD/100 m of the larger (stable) 

class. 

Water Temperature 

Water temperature has multiple effects on aquatic/riparian species and their behavior. Thermal 

effects relate to directing behavior (trigger migration or spawning); controlling factors (time of 

incubation and emergence); lethal (lead to breakdown of homeostatic system and increased 

susceptibility to disease); and growth (metabolic regulation; affected by food supply) (Beschta et 

al. 1987; Armour 1988; USGS 1997; 2002; Sauter et al. 2001). Elevation, aspect, stream width, 

channel roughness coefficient, riparian shading, solar radiation, air temperature, cloud cover, and 

stream discharge levels can affect water temperature. Of these elements, direct effects on riparian 

shading and indirect effects on stream discharge level could have the most effect on stream 

temperature (Beschta et al. 1987; Moore et al. 2005). A desired condition for water temperature 

was not identified in the Fresno River Landscape Analysis. The CDFG discontinues trout 

stocking if water temperatures exceed 21° C (CDFG 2009), thus the Desired Condition for this 

analysis is that water temperatures be less than 21° C. This temperature is also consistent with 

that described by Moyle (1976; 2002) within the rainbow trout assemblage. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide activities in 

the project area. This includes all ongoing activities with existing decisions or permits that would 

not be changed if this alternative were selected including: underburning, plantation maintenance, 

cattle grazing, recreation, and recreation residences. No treatments would be implemented in any 

subwatershed as displayed in Table 14. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 71 Table 14. Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Activities Proposed under Alternative 1 by Subwatershed 

Subwatershed 

501.5003 

501.5005 

501.5006 

501.5007 

501.5053 

501.5054 

503.0008 

503.0009 

503.001 

503.0011 

503.0055 

503.3001 

Total 

Commercial or precommercial thinning or tractor piling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Precommercial Thin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mastication 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Underburn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Treatments 466 2229 638 668 1817 1480 945 2010 1549 645 2564 1381 16392 Subwatershed Acres 466 2229 638 668 1817 1480 945 2010 1549 645 2564 1381 16392 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

72 Sierra National Forest 

The No Action Alternative would not implement the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project to 

reduce fire ladder conditions or stand densities (thinning); pile slash for burning; burn slash piles; 

masticate and/and or precommercially thin stands; plant trees; reduce fuel loading through 

controlled burning; construct handline around jackpot burn areas; manually remove noxious 

weeds, or construct and reconstruct roads. Potentially affected habitat for aquatic threatened, 

endangered, sensitive and MIS species is displayed in Table 15. Indicators for aquatic/riparian 

habitat and species are canopy cover, water temperature, and large woody debris. 

Direct Effects 

Canopy Cover 

No commercial timber removal or underburning would occur under this alternative. No direct, 

indirect, or cumulative affects to riparian canopy cover (current stream shading > 70%) are 

anticipated from Alternative 1. There would be no direct effects on TES aquatic species or their 

habitat. Stream shading would meet the desired condition of > 70 to 80%.

Water Temperature 

There would be no anticipated direct effect on water temperature as a result of the Alternative 1. 

Large Woody Debris 

There are no activities proposed under Alternative 1. There would be no direct effects on LWD 

recruitment. 

Indirect Effects 

Canopy Cover 

No indirect effects on canopy cover from stand density alteration or fuel treatment would occur 

under Alternative 1. Pilliod et al. (2003) suggest that no action may have consequences for 

amphibians due to overgrown forests changing the quality of amphibian habitat and increasing 

susceptibility for a high severity fire. 

Water Temperature 

Water temperature data collected from the project area in 2007 indicate project area streams are 

within the desired condition and within the range for resident trout species. 

It is anticipated that Alternative 1 would maintain water temperatures within the desired condition 

(< 21° C) and no indirect affects would be anticipated. 

Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Large Woody Debris 

There are no anticipated indirect or cumulative effects on LWD from the No Action Alternative. 

LWD would remain lower than desired within subwatersheds 501.5053, 503.0010, 503.0011, and 

503.0055. Several other subwatersheds have no LWD data and may also be less than desired. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the project areas are displayed in Chapter 

3 on page 25. Under Alternative 1, the Sugar Pine Project would not be implemented. Within the 

project area, other known activities are off-highway vehicle use, fuels, culture, and timber 

projects (past Federal and activities on private property), cattle grazing, road and road 

maintenance, and recreational use (both developed and undeveloped). Of the actions evaluated 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 73 

within the analysis area, timber harvesting on private land and cattle grazing have the greatest 

potential to alter aquatic habitat. 

Timber harvesting on private land requires a Timber Harvest Plan (THP) that evaluates 

compliance with State and Federal rules and laws (CDF 2005). The THP includes a cumulative 

effects analysis that considers effects on water temperatures, stream shading, and measures to 

reduce sediment movement. Most of the Forest Service actions over the past decade, along with 

those proposed in the next decade, relate to fuels reduction or forest thinning. These actions have 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) (USDA-FS 1983, 2002), along with Forest standards and 

guidelines to restrict off-site erosion and activities within Streamside Management Zones 

(SMZs). Stream channels would be expected to remain stable, with some sites of localized 

instability. LWD would remain below desired in subwatersheds 501.0053, 503.0010, 503.0011, 

and 503.0055. Approximately 0.8 miles of road cross wet meadows, representing impacts to 

roughly 2 acres (18 foot road template) of wet meadow habitat 

The project area is primarily within the Soquel grazing allotment. Most of the primary and 

secondary grazing areas occur in subwatersheds 501.5005, 501.5006, and 501.5007. Proper 

Functioning Condition (USDI-BLM 1995) was conducted at Boggy and Soquel Meadows within 

the allotment in 2007. Both sites were at Properly Functioning Condition. It is expected that cattle 

grazing will locally result in exposed streambanks and erosion. 

The Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis (CWEA) prepared for this project (Gallegos 2009) 

includes consideration of actions on private lands in addition to Forest Service permitted actions. 

The Project CWEA does not indicate that a cumulative effect to watersheds would be expected 

from Alternative 1. However, it does note that subwatersheds 501.5053 and 503.0055 would 

remain above the lower bound threshold of concern (TOC). The bounds are guidelines developed 

to indicate risk of cumulative effects, and to identify areas for field review. The stream channel 

within subwatershed 503.0055 is the main stem of Lewis Creek. The creek through this 

subwatershed is primarily high gradient, with a bedrock and boulder substrate, thus has limited 

probability of stream channel instabilities developing. Observations of the water temperatures 

were recorded from Lewis Creek (within subwatershed 503.0055) during the summer of 2007. 

Water temperatures never exceeded 18.3° C (15 minute step) or had a daily average greater than 

16.6° C. It does not appear that current upstream uses are negatively affecting conditions within 

the subwatershed. Benthic macroinvertebrate sample data indicates water quality presently is in 

good condition within this subwatershed. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

74 Sierra National Forest 

Table 15. Summary from analyses for aquatic Threatened (T), Endangered (E), 

Sensitive (S) and Management Indicator Species (MIS) for effects from Alternative 

1 

Species (status) Potential 

Habitat 

(ac) 

Marginal 

(ac) 

Potential 

Habitat in 

Treatment 

Area (ac) 

Marginal 

Habitat in 

Treatment 

Area (ac) 

Determination 

California red-legged 

frog (T) 

5 0 0 0 No effect 

Foothill yellowlegged frog (S) 900 590 0 0 No effect 

Western pond turtle 

(S) 

1740 1150 0 0 No effect 

Mountain yellowlegged frog (S) 670 330 0 0 No effect 

Yosemite toad (S) 110 0 0 0 No effect 

Benthic 

macroinvertebrate 

habitat (MIS) 

34 mi. 0 0 0 Stable 

Pacific tree frog 

habitat (MIS) 

170 0 0 0 Stable 

Source: Strand 2009, Strand 2009a 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Under Alternative 2, the development of Strategically Placed Area Treatments (SPLATs) would 

occur. Additional areas would be treated to provide a defensible fuels profile near key 

transportation corridors and within the defense zone of the wildland urban intermix. In addition to 

those treatments needed to meet fire and fuels objectives treatments would be created to reduce 

stand densities (basal area) to such a level as to improve the growth and vigor of remaining trees. 

Treatments included in this alternative are: thinning from below in conifer stands, either precommercially, commercially, biomassing and/or mastication to reduce lower and mid-level 

canopy stand densities; mastication of brush and shrub patches; prescribed burning, both 

understory and piles; manual reduction and/or prescribed burning of noxious weed infestations; 

and prepare and plant failed conifer plantations. Proposed treatments by subwatershed are 

displayed in Table 16. 

Table 17 displays herpetofauna and MIS habitat potentially affected by the Proposed Action. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 75 Table 16. Activities Proposed within Project Area Subwatersheds under Alternative 2 

Subwatershed 

501.5003 

501.5005 

501.5006 

501.5007 

501.5053 

501.5054 

503.0008 

503.0009 

503.0010 

503.0011 

503.0055 

503.3001 Total

Commercial/pre-commercial thinning or tractor piling 0 5 194 132 124 11 297 323 627 33 162 1908 Mastication 19 8 79 0 34 18 110 294 3 139 80 14 797 Underburn 0 9 15 0 21 22 15 113 22 0 0 215 No Treatments 447 2207 352 536 1638 1429 524 1280 897 473 2322 1367 13472 Subwatershed Acres 466 2229 638 668 1817 1480 945 2010 1549 645 2564 1381 16392 % Subwatershed treated 4% 1% 45% 20% 10% 4% 45% 35% 42% 27% 9% 1% 18%

Table 17. Overlap of Proposed Treatment Areas and Potential Habitat for species CRLF acreage represent suitable breeding habitat (most acres evaluated under the site assessment did not represent suitable site review.) RABO acres are within WPT habitat (overlap). Marginal acres are included in Potential Habitat acres. No trea

core areas along perennial streams (50 ft) and intermittent streams (25 ft) that would have no activity. 

Species Potential 

Habitat (ac) 

Marginal 

(ac) 

Potential Habitat in 

Treatment Area (ac) 

Marginal Habitat in 

Treatment Area (ac) 

N

California red-legged frog (CRLF) 5 0 0 0 Foothill yellow-legged frog (RABO) 900 590 320 230 Western pond turtle (WPT) 1740 1150 630 440 Mountain yellow-legged frog (RAMU) 670 330 90 50 Yosemite toad (BUCA) 110 0 30 0 Benthic Macroinvertebrates (MIS) 34 mi 0 8 mi 0 Pacific tree frog (MIS) 170 0 7 ac 0 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

76 Sierra National Forest 

Commercial or pre-commercial thinning, along with tractor piling, would occur over 1900 acres 

(gross treatment area) under the Proposed Action. The actual area treated would be less 

considering SMZs, Old Forest Linkage corridors, controlled areas, aggregations within treatment 

areas not requiring treatment to achieve project objectives, and access limitations due to 

topography. Commercial thinning would occur over approximately 850 acres under the Proposed 

Action. Underburning is proposed over approximately 215 acres (<2 % of the project area). 

Within the 34 miles of perennial stream channel, approximately 7.6 miles are either within or 

bordered by a proposed treatment unit. Additionally, approximately 7 acres of wet meadow are 

within or adjacent to proposed treatment units. Project implementation would incorporate Best 

Management Practices (BMPs). BMPs (USDA-Forest Service 1983; 2002) were developed to 

reduce erosion and off-site transport of sediment to stream channels. BMPs implemented with 

this project are detailed under Project Design Criteria and were identified in the project 

Hydrology Report (Kaplan-Henry and Stone 2008). Literature indicates that BMPs are effective 

in minimizing the erosion in harvest units and at preventing sediment from reaching streams. In a 

study of sediment redistribution after harvesting, Wallbrink and Croke (2002) found that 

sediment eroded from skid trails was deposited in the harvest unit and the 23 to 30 m wide stream 

buffers. MacDonald and Stednick (2003) note that forest harvest and fuels treatments should have 

little effect on water quality if they are well-planned and BMPs are implemented. Monitoring of 

BMP on Forest Service lands in California has shown that, when implemented, timber 

management BMP are 95 to 98% effective (USDA-FS 2004a). 

Aquatic habitat indicators are canopy cover, water temperature, and large woody debris. 

Direct Effects 

The 5 acres of potential habitat for California red-legged frog are the private ponds in the Sugar 

Pine and Fish Camp areas, which are not part of this project. Potential effects on foothill yellowlegged frog (RABO), western pond turtle (WPT), mountain yellow-legged frog (RAMU), or 

Yosemite toad (BUCA) could occur from crushing of individual animals by tractor thinning, 

tractor piling, or mastication, or from burning of animals. Most direct effects would not be 

expected to occur due herpetofauna primarily occupying riparian areas where proposed 

treatments are limited. During primary periods of project operations (May through Sept) it is 

expected that frogs and turtles would remain within the riparian areas due to presence of water, 

the microclimate provided, and riparian connectivity, except during rainy periods. The possibility 

of direct effects from crushing would be most likely in October when species leave streamside 

areas for overwintering sites or during rainy periods when species may move beyond riparian 

areas. Operation of heavy equipment ceases during periods of prolonged precipitation to prevent 

compaction. 

Introduced fire could directly affect herpetofauna. Some species may use slash piles for cover or 

for estivation. The possibility of direct effects on individual animals from burning piles within the 

Old Forest Linkage Corridors would be reduced by implementing the project design measure to 

light piles on one side to allow an escape from the pile. Underburning may also represent a direct 

effect to herpetofauna. Underburning is proposed adjacent to perennial streams in units RX 1, 3, 

and 5. RX units 3 and 5 represent approximately 7 acres of RABO and 13 acres of WPT habitat. 

RX 3 contains approximately 5 acres of RAMU habitat. All of these potentially effected habitats 

were considered marginal due to dense canopy cover, but could serve as dispersal corridors. 

Prescribed burning would be expected to occur during the spring or fall. During spring, 

amphibians may be moving to breeding sites or dispersing after breeding. During the fall, 

herpetofauna may be moving to overwintering sites or estivating within areas to be burned. 

Allowing fire to creep into the SMZ (as opposed to active introduction) would provide 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 77 

opportunity for herpetofauna to move away from areas burning, but not eliminate the possibility 

of mortality. 

Direct effects to listed herpetofauna would not be anticipated from implementing the Proposed 

Action due to project design measures; non-detection of listed species during surveys; and no 

records of these species occurring within the project area subwatersheds. 

Canopy Cover 

Current levels of stream shading for project area perennial streams are presented in Table 9. 

These levels are currently within the desired condition of 70 to 80%. Naiman et al. (2000) note 

that riparian forests strongly influence stream microclimate; including air, soil, and surface 

temperatures; relative humidity; and solar radiation. Proposed commercial thinning and 

underburning have the potential to directly affect canopy cover or stream shading. If canopy 

altering treatments occurred in streamside areas there could be an increase solar radiation to the 

stream channel. 

Streamside shading affects the amount of solar radiation that filters to the surface of the water. 

During late summer, solar radiation potential is greatest, air temperatures are warmest, and stream 

flows are lowest. Only perennial channels flow are expected to flow during this period, thus 

concerns over water temperature focus on these stream channels. Perennials also comprise the 

potential habitat for resident trout, benthic macroinvertebrates, and herpetofauna. Base flows may 

be augmented by the reduction in vegetation (an indirect effect), but no effect is expected within 

the stream channels (Kaplan-Henry and Stone 2008). Possible increases in soil moisture would be 

utilized by the remaining vegetation, so it would not likely be available for stream flow. 

Benthic macroinvertebrates serve as food source for various lifestages of fish and herpetofauna. 

Kattleman (1996) notes several studies have demonstrated that communities of aquatic 

invertebrates changed significantly in response to upstream logging, with some of these effects 

persisting for two decades. Much of the food base for stream ecosystems is derived from adjacent 

terrestrial ecosystems with litter fall from deciduous stands exceeding that of coniferous stands. 

Deciduous input (leaves) generally breaks down in less than half the time necessary for the 

breakdown of coniferous input (needles; Gregory et al. 1991). Buffer strips 30 m (98.4 feet) wide 

are noted as protecting invertebrate communities from logging induced changes (Gregory et al. 

1987; EPA 1991). 

Dwire et al. (2006) suggest that prescribed fire may top-kill some riparian trees and shrubs. A 

study at Blodgett Forest in northern California introduced prescribed fire into the riparian zone 

and found that a 4.4% mortality rate resulted, occurring in trees 11 to 40 centimeters (4.5 to 15.7 

inches) dbh (diameter at breast height; Bêche et al. 2005). Prescribed fire is not proposed for 

introduction into the perennial SMZs for this project, but it would be allowed to creep within the 

SMZ. 

Perennial stream channels, which represent the potential habitat for aquatic/riparian species, 

would have Class I SMZs. Class I SMZs are a minimum of 100 feet from each streambank, with 

widths adjusted for slope as presented under project design criteria. Class I SMZs are within the 

Old Forest Linkage corridors. These corridors extend 150 feet from both streambanks along the 

perennial streams within the project area. There are no proposed treatments within the inner 50 

feet from each streambank. The outer 50 feet would implement hand treatments to remove the 

understory ladder fuels. No alteration of the existing stream shading (> 70%) would be 

anticipated from the Proposed Action. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

78 Sierra National Forest 

Water Temperature 

As measured during the summer of 2007 (displayed in Figure 2), daily mean water temperatures 

in the project area were less than 21° C (desired condition). The maximum water temperatures 

(15 minute data) during the 2007 monitoring period are presented in Table 9. No maximum water 

temperatures recorded during 2007 exceeded the desired condition. There are no anticipated 

alterations to canopy cover, thus there would be no direct effects on water temperature anticipated 

from the Proposed Action. 

Large Woody Debris 

Table 4 indicates that subwatersheds 501.5053; 503.0010; 503.0011; and 503.0055 are lower than 

Desired Condition for large woody debris. Other subwatersheds lacking LWD data may also be 

less than desired. This condition is likely a result of historic logging that occurred throughout the 

project area, including riparian areas. Naiman et al. (2000) project that 80% of LWD has a stream 

channel residence of less than 50 years. Trees are now of sufficient size and are large enough, in 

combination with individual mortality, to provide additional input. The element within the SMZs 

that represents the most immediate source of LWD is snags. There is no proposed removal of 

snags within the first 50 feet from the perennial stream channel within the Old Forest Linkage 

corridors. Beyond 50 feet snags may be removed if they contribute to ladder conditions (generally 

10 to 50 ft high). Some snags to be removed may have contributed to LWD recruitment. 

Indirect Effects 

Thinning to reduce ladder fuels would occur on over 800 acres under this alternative. 

Underburning is proposed over approximately 215 acres, and mastication on 800 acres. Table 17 

identifies that perennial streams adjacent to treatment areas represent approximately 320 acres of 

foothill yellow-legged frog; 630 acres western pond turtle; 90 acres mountain yellow-legged frog; 

and 30 acres of Yosemite toad habitat, 8 miles of benthic macroinvertebrates, and 7 acres of 

Pacific tree frog habitat. The foothill yellow-legged frog habitat acreage is within western pond 

turtle habitat (overlap). Within the foothill yellow-legged frog and turtle habitat are 90 acres that 

would have no treatments (corridors along perennial and intermittent streams). Similarly, 30 acres 

of mountain yellow-legged frog habitat occurs along no treatment corridors. The perennial 

streams and wet meadows (MIS habitats) are also buffered by no treatment areas. The Proposed 

Action has a risk of compacting soil (tractor thinning, mastication, new road construction, and 

machine piling or slash), which could result in both short and long-term sediment delivery to 

riparian and aquatic habitats. Reduction in stand densities could affect canopy cover (indirectly 

affecting micro-climate and water temperatures), availability of large woody debris; 

macroinvertebrate community, and changes to water yield (indirectly affecting stream channel 

stability). Alterations to habitat complexity, air temperature, decreased soil moisture or relative 

humidity within areas adjacent to perennial streams could influence herpetofauna. 

Canopy Cover 

Indirect effects on canopy cover (stream shading) could occur if the Proposed Action results in an 

alteration to the hydrologic regime. Such alteration could be expressed in bank and channel 

instabilities, widening of the stream channel, and undermining of bank trees. The widening of the 

stream channel would increase the level of reduced canopy cover over the stream (less stream 

shading). Unit T-11 is proposed adjacent to a segment of stream channel that is currently has poor 

channel stability, within a subwatershed (503.0010) that is considered sensitive to disturbance. 

Project design criteria have been developed to protect the channel from further degradation, and 

indirect effects would not be anticipated. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 79 

Effects to canopy cover would be similar to direct effects. Alterations to habitat complexity, air 

temperature, decreased soil moisture or relative humidity within areas adjacent to perennial 

streams could influence herpetofauna. 

Water temperature 

Solar radiation through forest canopies depends on the heights of the crowns and density, along 

with the foliage (Moore et al. 2005). In evaluating possible project direct effects to canopy cover 

it was noted that large changes in overhead canopy from stands adjacent to perennial streams 

would not be anticipated. Stream shading would meet the desired condition of > 70 to 80%. 

However, in addition to direct solar radiation, Beschta et al. (1987) addresses possible affects 

from angular solar radiation and describes how canopy cover can be evaluated as angular canopy 

density. In the outer 50 feet of treated Old Forest Linkage (riparian corridors) there is a possible 

increase of open space within the understory component of the treated stand. This provides an 

opportunity for increased angular solar radiation. It is anticipated that the majority of the trees 

would be retained and the inner 50-foot no treatment zone would intercept angular solar radiation. 

Wilkerson et al. (2006) found that a 23 m (75 feet) buffer resulted in no change to water 

temperature, while a 11 m buffer (>60% canopy retention) resulted in an increased weekly 

maxima of 1.0 to 1.4° C. There would be no anticipated indirect change to water temperatures. 

Some underburning would take place through within Old Forest Linkage corridors. When this 

occurs there are design measures that allow for creeping into the SMZ, but not for active 

introduction of fire. It is expected underburning would occur within the 100-foot zone and some 

understory trees could be killed as a result. It is not expected that overstory trees contributing to 

stream shading and blocking solar radiation would be killed by the underburning proposed under 

the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project. 

Changes in stream discharge level could be potentially affected by the proposal. Altered stream 

discharge would be an indirect effect from the proposal, since basal area (and evapotranspiration) 

decline due to changes in stand density (Chamberlin et al. 1991; Kattelman 1996). If more water 

were available as baseflow during the late summer, there would be a possible reduction in stream 

temperature. Researchers have concluded that if less than 10% of the basal area is removed, there 

is little impact on flows (Troendle et al. 2006). Removal of between 10 and 20% of basal area 

may affect flow, but the change is not detectable due to the natural variability of flow. Other 

investigators found that approximately 20% of the basal area must be removed before a statistical 

change in flow is detected (Troendle et al. 2006). MacDonald and Stednick (2003) report that 

15% basal area must be removed before a change in flow can be detected in small research 

watersheds, and detection becomes more difficult as watershed size increases. Huff et al. (2002) 

modeled water yield for similar treatments (thinning) in the Feather and Yuba River basins, 

estimating an increase of 0.3% in water yield. However, individual areas could have higher water 

yields within the range of variability estimated. 

The Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project Hydrology Report (Kaplan-Henry and Stone 

2008) considered anticipated changes to hydrologic regime. The Project Hydrology Report notes 

that base flows may be augmented by the reduction in vegetation, but the effect is not likely to 

persist into the dry summer season where it would be detectable. The increase in soil moisture 

would be utilized by the remaining vegetation, so it would not be available for stream flow. 

Thinning trees is not expected to have much effect on hydrologic regime. It is anticipated that 

project design measures for Alternative 2 would maintain water temperatures within the current 

and desired condition (< 21° C), within the project area. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

80 Sierra National Forest 

Large Woody Debris 

Of the treatments that would be implemented under the Proposed Action, delivery of large woody 

debris could be affected by reduction in stand density through commercial harvest or 

underburning. It has been identified that stream channels within subwatersheds 501.0053; 

503.00010; 503.0010; and 503.0055 are below desired condition for LWD. There are 

approximately 200 miles of stream channels within project area subwatersheds. However, this 

evaluation focuses the perennial and intermittent stream channels (approximately 60 miles) 

within project area subwatersheds. Perennial channels have Class I SMZs and are within the Old 

Forest Linkage corridors. However, intermittent channels (Class II SMZs) contribute water over 

half of the year and may be important for herpetofauna dispersal. Additionally, intermittent 

channels may have sufficient flow to transport smaller pieces of LWD, thus influence LWD in the 

perennial channels. The ephemeral channels are more likely to retain LWD rather than transport it 

due to limited channel capacity. 

Modeling LWD recruitment has been challenging considering that tree fall patterns may be 

chronic or episodic and influenced by geomorphology; tree or snag angle; bank steepness; 

prevailing wind direction; fragmentation; decomposition; mortality rates; and stem failure (Van 

Sickle and Gregory 1990; Bragg et al. 2000; Bragg and Kershner 2002, 2004; Mellen and Ager 

2002; Meleason et al. 2002). The models attempt to address direction of tree fall and assign 

probability to angle of fall or assume angle is random. The random scenario could occur if tree 

failure is not influenced by disturbance or geomorphology. However, Naiman et al. (2000)

suggest the probability of fall direction is strongly influenced by local topography, thus trees are 

more likely to fall toward the channel than other directions. It appears the more mature and intact 

the adjacent riparian forest is, the greater the likelihood of sustained LWD recruitment (Bragg et 

al. 2000). 

McDade et al. (1990) indicated that 70% of LWD originated within 1⁄2 stand height (20 m in that 

study) of the stream channel and approximately 85% of LWD would have been provided within a 

30 meter (98.4 ft) buffer. Meleason et al. (2002) noted that 90% of woody inputs were found to 

originate within 26 meter (85 ft) for mature conifer stands. To maintain LWD recruitment, the 

SMZs should be between 0.75 and 1.0 tree heights. The basic premise presented by Robison and 

Beschta (1990) is that the probability of LWD entering a stream by direct fall is zero when the 

distance exceeds the tree height. 

The perennial streams have Class I SMZs and are within the Old Forest Linkage (riparian 

corridors). There are 34 miles of perennial streams in the aquatics analysis area. Approximately 

7.7 miles of stream are adjacent to or within a treatment area. The Old Forest Linkage corridors 

have a 50-foot no treatment buffer on the inner 50 feet of the stream channel. The remaining outer 

50-feet excludes heavy mechanical equipment, but understory trees could be removed to reduce 

fire ladder conditions. There is no proposed removal of snags within the first 50 feet from the 

perennial stream channel within the Old Forest Linkage corridors. Beyond 50 feet snags may be 

removed if they contribute to ladder conditions (generally 10 to 50 ft high). Some of these snags 

may have contributed to LWD. 

Class II (intermittent channels) are not likely to have flow during late summer. Class II SMZs are 

75 feet (each side), and exclude heavy equipment. There are 25 miles of intermittent streams in 

the aquatics analysis area. Approximately 8.7 miles of stream are adjacent to or within a 

treatment area. When project treatments are to occur within Class II SMZs, it is primarily 

removal of suppressed and intermediate trees contributing to ladder fuels. It is anticipated that 

commercial thinning could be implemented within 25 feet of the stream. Robison and Beschta 

(1990) discuss the concept of effective height of the tree, which is the height to the minimum 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 81 

diameter and length necessary to qualify as LWD. If a diameter of 10 cm (4 inches) is applied, the 

top 10 feet of the tree would not meet the LWD criteria. Thus, it is more probable that 35 feet is 

the minimum height that might have a probability of contributing LWD to a stream channel. 

These trees have potential to reach the stream channel if the occur in the band between 25 and 50 

feet from the stream channel and it is probable that some would have contributed to LWD. 

Underburning proposed in Rx Units 1 and 3 would take place within Class I/II SMZs. When this 

occurs there are design measures that allow for creeping into the SMZ, but not active introduction 

of fire. Dwire et al. (2006) speculate that fuels reduction could potentially directly and indirectly 

affect aquatic/riparian habitat by altering the recruitment of LWD. They further note that 

prescribed fire would not necessarily remove LWD from riparian areas, and that mortality 

resulting from prescribed fire would likely contribute LWD to aquatic systems. In a limited (60 

acre) study of active burning within the riparian zone, Bêche et al. (2005) noted a loss of 4.4% of 

trees, with mortally occurring between 11 to 40 cm (4.5 to 15.7 in) dbh. In that study several 

snags fell after being burned, but no overall increase in the amount or movement of LWD relative 

to unburned control sites. These effects were similar to those theorized by Dwire and Kauffman 

(2003) that moister, cooler microclimates within riparian areas likely contribute higher moisture 

content in fuels and soils, which could lower the intensity and severity of burns. Skinner (2002) 

also noted that fire often consumes material in the advanced stages of decay, but also creates 

snags and downed logs. It is expected underburning would creep within the SMZs and some 

understory trees could be killed a result and possibly contribute to LWD. 

Limited indirect negative effects to LWD recruitment would be anticipated as a result of 

implementing the Proposed Action, primarily contribution from intermittent stream segments. It 

is expected that LWD would remain lower than desired condition within subwatersheds 

501.0053; 503.0010; 503.0011; and 503.0055 for several decades. Several other subwatersheds 

did not have LWD data and may also be less than desired. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the project areas are displayed in Chapter 

3 on page 25. For the Sugar Pine Project Area, other known activities are off-highway vehicle 

use; fuel, culture, and timber projects (including activities on private property); cattle grazing, 

road maintenance; and recreational use (both developed and undeveloped). Of the actions 

elevated within the analysis area, timber harvesting, (including that occurring on private lands), 

and cattle grazing have the greatest potential to alter aquatic habitat. 

Of the actions evaluated within the analysis area, timber harvesting, including that occurring on 

private lands, has the greatest potential to alter aquatic habitat. Effects from timber harvesting on 

private land would be similar to those discussed under Alternative 1. For actions considered 

under Alternative 2, changes to microclimate could affect air temperature, which is one of the 

components affecting water temperature and quality of habitat for herpetofauna. No treatments 

would occur within the inner 50 feet of a Class I SMZ. When timber removal occurs in SMZs, it 

would be primarily from suppressed and intermediate trees that are creating fuel ladder 

conditions. It is not expected that overhead canopy reductions would result in large changes in 

solar radiation or air temperature. It is anticipated that water temperatures within the project area 

would be maintained within the desired condition (< 21o C) under the Proposed Action. The 

combination of the Federal and private timber removal is not expected to cumulatively effect 

LWD recruitment, which would remain lower than desired, within subwatersheds 501.0053, 

503.0010, 503.0011, and 503.0055. Several other subwatersheds did not have LWD data and may 

also be less than desired. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

82 Sierra National Forest 

The CWEA prepared for this project (Gallegos 2009) includes consideration of actions on private 

lands in addition to Forest Service permitted actions. The lower bound threshold of concern 

(TOC) in subwatersheds 501.5053 and 503.0055 are currently exceeded. Additionally, 

subwatersheds 501.5006, 501.5007 and 503.0010 would exceed their lower TOC as a result of 

implementing the proposed action. Upper bound TOC would not be exceeded if Alternative 2 

were implemented. Upper and lower bounds are guidelines developed to indicate risk of 

cumulative effects, and to identify areas for field review. The probable result from a cumulative 

effect would be an increase in sediment, which would negatively affect aquatic habitat. The 

stream channel within subwatershed 503.0055 is the main stem of Lewis Creek. The creek 

through this subwatershed is primarily high gradient with a bedrock and boulder substrate, thus 

has limited probability of stream channel instabilities developing. Further buffering the 

subwatershed from sediment effects is the lower pond at Sugar Pine. The pond is not within 

subwatershed 503.0055, but functions as a settling basin for any sediment generated upstream of 

the site. The effect of the pond decreases the amount of sediment in the system, further reducing 

the probability of a cumulative effect in the downstream subwatershed. A cumulative watershed 

effect would not be anticipated from Alternative 2 (Gallegos 2008). Stream channels would be 

expected to remain overall stable, with some sites of localized instability. Habitat for benthic 

macroinvertebrates (34 miles) and Pacific tree frog (170 acres) would be expected to be stable. 

The project area is primarily within the Soquel grazing allotment. Most of the primary and 

secondary grazing areas occur in subwatersheds 501.5005, 501.5006, and 501.5007. Proper 

Functioning Condition (USDI-BLM 1995) was conducted at Boggy and Soquel Meadows within 

the allotment in 2007. Both sites were at Properly Functioning Condition. It is expected that cattle 

grazing will locally result in exposed streambanks and erosion. The majority of the primary use 

areas are within subwatersheds that drain to North Fork Willow Creek, rather than the Fresno or 

Merced Rivers. 

Table 20 summarizes anticipated effects from the action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) on 

aquatic threatened (T), endangered (E), sensitive (S) species, along with habitat for management 

indicator species (MIS). 

Alternative 3 

Under Alternative 3, all treatment areas would be carried forward from Alternative 2, but in areas 

where there are known Pacific Fisher den sites, treatments within associated den site buffer would 

include only those treatments needed to achieve fire and fuels objectives (treatment of surface and 

ladder fuels). All other treatment areas would continue to treat for both fire/fuels and forest health 

(stand density) objectives. Gross acres of proposed treatments by subwatershed are displayed in 

Table 8. The actual area treated is expected to be less (approximately 85%) similar to Alternative 

2. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 83 Table 18. Activities Proposed within Project Area Subwatersheds under Alternative 3 

HUC8 Subwatershed 

501.5003 

501.5005 

501.5006 

501.5007 

501.5053 

501.5054 

503.0008 

503.0009 

503.0010 

503.0011 

503.0055 

503.3001 Total 

Commercial/precommercial thinning or tractor piling 

0 5 194 132 124 11 119 181 627 33 99 0 1525 

Lower canopy treatment/precommercial thinning or tractor piling 

0 0 0 0 0 0 178 142 0 0 63 0 383 

Mastication 19 8 79 0 34 18 110 294 3 138 80 14 797 Underburn 0 9 13 0 21 22 15 113 22 0 0 215 No Treatments 447 2207 352 536 1639 1429 523 1280 897 474 2322 1367 13473 Subwatershed Acres 466 2229 638 668 1817 1480 945 2010 1549 645 2564 1381 16392 % Subwatershed treated 4% 1% 45% 20% 10% 3% 45% 36% 42% 27% 9% 1% 18%
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

84 Sierra National Forest 

Direct Effects 

Similar to Alternative 2, there could be potential direct effects from crushing of RABO, WPT, 

RAMU, or BUCA by tractor thinning, tractor piling, or mastication, or from burning of animals. 

The 5 acres of potential habitat for CRLF are the private ponds in the Sugar Pine and Fish Camp 

areas, which are not part of this project. 

Also similar to Alternative 2, direct effects would not be expected to occur due herpetofauna 

primarily occupying riparian areas where proposed treatments are limited. Project design 

measures include the Old Forest Linkage corridors for Pacific fisher. These migration corridors 

extend 150 feet from both streambanks along the perennial streams within the project area. There 

are no proposed treatments within the inner 50 feet from each streambank. The outer 50 feet 

would implement hand treatments to remove the understory ladder fuels. No heavy equipment 

would be allowed within 100 feet of the streambank within these corridors. During primary 

periods of project operations (May through Sept) it is expected frogs and turtles would remain 

within the riparian areas due to presence of water; the microclimate provided; and riparian 

connectivity, except during rainy periods. The possibility of direct effects from crushing would be 

most likely in October when species leave streamside areas for overwintering sites, or during 

rainy periods when species may move beyond riparian areas. Operation of heavy equipment 

ceases during periods of prolonged precipitation to prevent compaction. 

Introduced fire could directly affect herpetofauna similar to Alternative 2. Allowing fire to creep 

into the SMZ (as opposed to active introduction) would provide opportunity for herpetofauna to 

move away from areas burning, but not eliminate the possibility of mortality. 

Direct effects to listed herpetofauna would not be anticipated from implementing Alternative 3 

due to project design measures; non-detection of listed species during surveys; and no records of 

these species occurring within the project area subwatersheds. 

Indirect Effects 

Thinning to reduce ladder fuels would occur over approximately 760 acres under Alternative 3, 

90 acres less than Alternative 2. Underburning is proposed over approximately 215 acres, and 

mastication on 800 acres. Table 17 identifies that perennial streams adjacent to treatment areas 

represent approximately 320 acres of foothill yellow-legged frog; 630 acres western pond turtle; 

90 acres mountain yellow-legged frog; 30 acres of Yosemite toad; 8 miles of benthic 

macroinvertebrates, and 7 acres of Pacific tree frog habitat. The RABO habitat acreage is within 

WPT habitat (overlap). Within the RABO and WPT habitat are 90 acres that would have no 

treatments (corridors along perennial and intermittent streams). Similarly, 30 acres of RAMU 

habitat occurs along no treatment corridors. Effects from compaction and stand density would be 

similar to Alternative 2. 

Canopy Cover 

Currently the levels of stream shading (based on 2007 data) are within the desired condition of > 

70%. Similar to Alternative 2, there would be no indirect effects on water temperature anticipated 

from Alternative 3. Changes to microclimate beyond the riparian corridors may affect habitat and 

dispersal of herpetofauna through changes to air temperature, wind speed, and relative humidity. 

Water Temperature 

Similar to Alternative 2, there would be no anticipated alterations to canopy cover, thus there 

would be no direct effects on water temperature expected from Alternative 3. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 85 

Large Woody Debris 

Table 10 indicates that stream channels in subwatersheds 501.5053; 503.0010, 503.0011, and 

503.0055 are lower than the desired condition for large woody debris. There is no proposed 

removal of snags within the first 50 feet from the perennial stream channel within the Old Forest 

Linkage (Riparian corridors). Beyond 50 feet snags may be removed if they contribute to ladder 

conditions (generally 10 to 50 ft high). Thinning to remove ladder fuels would also remove some 

trees that could have potential to reach a stream channel. Indirect negative effects to LWD 

recruitment would similar to those presented under Alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the project areas are displayed in Chapter 

3 on page 25. For the Sugar Pine Project Area, other known activities are off-highway vehicle 

use, fuel, culture, and timber projects (including activities on private property), cattle grazing, 

road maintenance, and recreational use (both developed and undeveloped). Similar to Alternative 

2: 

 The combination of the Federal and private timber removal is not expected to 

cumulatively effect LWD recruitment, which would remain lower than desired within 

HUC8 subwatersheds 501.5053, 503.0010, 503.0011, and 503.0055.

 A cumulative watershed effect would not be anticipated from Alternative 3 (Gallegos 

2009). Stream channels would be expected to remain overall stable, with some areas of 

localized instability. 

 It is expected that cattle grazing will locally result in exposed streambanks and erosion. 

The majority of the primary use areas are within subwatersheds that drain to North Fork 

Willow Creek, rather than the Fresno or Merced Rivers. 

Table 20 summarizes anticipated effects from the action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) on 

aquatic threatened (T), endangered (E), and sensitive (S) species, along with habitat for 

management indicator species (MIS). 

Alternative 4 

Gross acres of proposed treatments by subwatershed are displayed in Table 19. The actual area 

treated is expected to be less (approximately 85%) similar to Alternatives 2 and 3. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

86 Sierra National Forest Table 19. Activities Proposed within Project Area Subwatersheds under Alternative 4 

HUC8 Subwatershed 

501.5003 

501.5005 

501.5006 

501.5007 

501.5053 

501.5054 

503.0008 

503.0009 

503.0010 

503.0011 

503.0055 

503.3001 

Biomass/mastication/ precommercial thinning or tractor piling 0 5 194 132 124 11 297 323 627 33 162 Mastication 19 8 79 0 34 18 110 294 3 138 80 14 Underburn 0 9 13 0 21 22 15 113 22 0 0 No Treatments 447 2207 352 536 1638 1429 523 1280 897 474 2322 1367 Subwatershed Acres 466 2229 638 668 1817 1480 945 2010 1549 645 2564 1381 % Subwatershed treated 4% 1% 45% 20% 10% 3% 45% 36% 42% 27% 9% 1% 

(Acres generated by GIS)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 87 

Direct Effects 

The 5 acres of potential habitat for CRLF are the private ponds in the Sugar Pine and Fish Camp 

areas, which are not part of this project. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, there could be potential

direct effects from crushing of RABO, WPT, RAMU, or BUCA by biomass thinning, tractor 

piling, or mastication, or from burning of animals. 

Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, it would be expected that direct effects to herpetofauna would be 

limited. Project design measures include the Old Forest Linkage corridors for Pacific fisher. 

These migration corridors extend 150 feet from both streambanks along the perennial streams 

within the project area. There are no proposed treatments within the inner 50 feet from each 

streambank. The outer 50 feet would implement hand treatments to remove the understory ladder 

fuels. No heavy equipment would be allowed within 100 feet of the streambank within these 

corridors. During primary periods of project operations (May – Sept) it is expected frogs and 

turtles would remain within the riparian areas due to presence of water; the microclimate 

provided; and riparian connectivity, except during rainy periods. The possibility of direct effects 

from crushing would be most likely in October when species leave streamside areas for 

overwintering sites, or during rainy periods when species may move beyond riparian areas. 

Operation of heavy equipment ceases during periods of prolonged precipitation to prevent 

compaction. 

Introduced fire could directly affect herpetofauna similar to Alternatives 2 and 3. Allowing fire to 

creep into the SMZ (as opposed to active introduction) would provide opportunity for 

herpetofauna to move away from areas burning, but not eliminate the possibility of mortality. 

Direct effects to listed herpetofauna would not be anticipated from implementing Alternative 4 

due to project design measures; non-detection of listed species during surveys; and no records of 

these species occurring within the project area subwatersheds. 

Indirect Effects 

Biomass thinning to reduce ladder fuels would occur on over approximately 1,065 acres under 

Alternative 4, which is 850 acres more than Alternative 2. Underburning is proposed over 

approximately 215 acres, and mastication on 800 acres. Table 17 identifies that perennial streams 

adjacent to treatment areas represent approximately 320 acres of foothill yellow-legged frog; 630 

acres western pond turtle; 90 acres mountain yellow-legged frog; 30 acres of Yosemite toad; 8 

miles of benthic macroinvertebrate, and 7 acres of Pacific tree frog habitat. The RABO habitat 

acreage is within WPT habitat (overlap). Within the RABO and WPT habitat are 90 acres that 

would have no treatments (corridors along perennial and intermittent streams). Similarly, 30 acres 

of RAMU habitat occurs along no treatment corridors. Effects from compaction and stand density 

would be similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, although somewhat less due to fewer trees being 

removed. Alterations to habitat complexity, air temperature, decreased soil moisture or relative 

humidity within areas adjacent to perennial streams could influence herpetofauna. 

Canopy Cover 

Currently the levels of stream shading (based on 2007 data) are within the desired condition of > 

70%. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, there would be no indirect effects on water temperature 

anticipated from Alternative 4. Changes to microclimate beyond the riparian corridors may affect 

habitat and dispersal of herpetofauna through changes to air temperature, wind speed, and relative 

humidity. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

88 Sierra National Forest 

Water Temperature 

Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, there would be no anticipated alterations to canopy cover, thus 

there would be no direct effects on water temperature expected from Alternative 4. 

Large Woody Debris 

Under Alternative 4, there is no proposed removal of snags within the first 50 feet from the 

perennial stream channel within the Old Forest Linkage (riparian corridors). Beyond 50 feet snags 

may be removed if they contribute to ladder conditions (generally 10 to 50 ft high). Thinning to 

remove ladder fuels would also remove some trees that could have potential to reach a stream 

channel, although the number would be fewer than Alternatives 2 or 3. Indirect negative effects to 

LWD recruitment would similar, but less than those presented under Alternatives 2 and 3 due to 

greater retention of commercial sized trees. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the project areas are displayed in Chapter 

3 on page 25. For the Sugar Pine Project Area, other known activities are off-highway vehicle 

use, fuel, culture, and timber projects (including activities on private property), cattle grazing, 

road maintenance, and recreational use (both developed and undeveloped). Similar to 

Alternatives 2 and 3: 

 The combination of the Federal and private timber removal is not expected to 

cumulatively effect LWD recruitment, which would remain lower than desired, within 

HUC8 subwatersheds 501.5053, 503.0010, 503.0011, and 503.0055.

 A cumulative watershed effect would not be anticipated from Alternative 4 (Gallegos 

2009). Stream channels would be expected to remain overall stable, with some sites of 

localized instability. 

 It is expected that cattle grazing will locally result in exposed streambanks and erosion. 

The majority of the primary use areas are within subwatersheds that drain to North Fork 

Willow Creek, rather than the Fresno or Merced Rivers. 

Table 20 summarizes effects to TES species and MIS habitat. 

Table 20. Summary from Analyses for Aquatic Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive 

(BA/BE), and Management Indicator Species for Effects from Project Alternatives 

Species (status) Determination 

California red-legged frog (T) No effect 

Foothill yellow-legged frog (S) May affect individuals, but is not likely to lead to 

Federal listing or loss of viability. 

Western pond turtle (S) May affect individuals, but is not likely to lead to 

Federal listing or loss of viability. 

Mountain yellow-legged frog (S) May affect individuals, but is not likely to lead to 

Federal listing or loss of viability. 

Yosemite toad (S) No effect 

Benthic Macroinvertebrates Habitat (MIS) Stable 

Pacific tree frog Habitat (MIS) Stable 

Source: Strand 2009, Strand 2009a 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 89 

Terrestrial Management Indicator Species _______ 

The purpose of the terrestrial MIS report is to evaluate and disclose the impacts of the Sugar Pine 

Adaptive Management Project on the habitat of terrestrial Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

identified in the Sierra NF LRMP (USDA-FS 1991) as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forests 

Management Indicator Species Amendment (SNF MIS Amendment) Record of Decision (USDA 

Forest Service 2007a). The MIS report documents the effects of the proposed action and 

alternatives on the habitat of selected project-level MIS. 

MIS are animal species identified in the SNF MIS Amendment Record of Decision (ROD) signed 

December 14, 2007, which was developed under the 1982 National Forest System Land and 

Resource Management Planning Rule (1982 Planning Rule) (36 CFR 219). The current rule 

applicable to project decisions is the 2004 Interpretive Rule, which states “Projects implementing 

land management plans...must be developed considering the best available science in accordance 

with §219.36(a)...and must be consistent with the provisions of the governing plan.” (Appendix 

B to §219.35). Guidance regarding MIS set forth in the Sierra NF LRMP as amended by the 2007 

SNF MIS Amendment ROD directs Forest Service resource managers to (1) at project scale, 

analyze the effects of proposed projects on the habitat of each MIS affected by such projects, and 

(2) at the bioregional scale, monitor populations and/or habitat trends of MIS, as identified in the 

Sierra NF LRMP as amended. 

Affected Environment 

MIS Habitat Status and Trend 

All habitat monitoring data are collected and/or compiled at the bioregional scale, consistent with 

the LRMP as amended by the 2007 Sierra NF MIS Amendment ROD (USDA Forest Service 

2007a). 

Habitats are the vegetation types (for example, early seral coniferous forest) or ecosystem 

components (for example, snags in green forest) required by an MIS for breeding, cover, and/or 

feeding. MIS for the Sierra Nevada National Forests represent 10 major habitats and 2 ecosystem 

components (USDA-FS 2007a and project record). These habitats are defined using the 

California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) System (CDFG 2005). The CWHR System 

provides the most widely used habitat relationship models for California’s terrestrial vertebrate 

species (ibid). Appendix D includes tables explaining the acronyms used for available habitat 

stages in the CWHR system. It is also described in detail in the Sierra NF Bioregional MIS 

Report (USDA Forest Service 2008). 

Habitat status is the current amount of habitat on the Sierra Nevada Forests. Habitat trend is the 

direction of change in the amount or quality of habitat over time. The methodology for assessing 

habitat status and trend is described in detail in the Sierra NF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA 

Forest Service 2008). 

MIS Population Status and Trend 

All population monitoring data are collected and/or compiled at the bioregional scale, consistent 

with the LRMP as amended by the 2007 Sierra NF MIS Amendment ROD (USDA Forest Service 

2007a). The information is presented in detail in the 2008 Sierra NF Bioregional MIS Report 

(USDA Forest Service 2008). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

90 Sierra National Forest 

Population monitoring strategies for MIS of the Sierra NF are identified in the 2007 Sierra 

Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species (SNF MIS) Amendment ROD (USDA Forest 

Service 2007a). Population status is the current condition of the MIS related to the population 

monitoring data required in the 2007 SNF MIS Amendment ROD for that MIS. Population trend 

is the direction of change in that population measure over time. 

There are a myriad of approaches for monitoring populations of MIS, from simply detecting 

presence to detailed tracking of population structure (USDA Forest Service 2001, Appendix E, 

page E-19). A distribution population monitoring approach is identified for all of the terrestrial 

MIS in the 2007 SNF MIS Amendment, except for the greater sage-grouse (USDA Forest Service 

2007a). Distribution population monitoring consists of collecting presence data for the MIS 

across a number of sample locations over time. Presence data are collected using a number of 

direct and indirect methods, such as surveys (population surveys), bird point counts, tracking 

number of hunter kills, counts of species sign (such as deer pellets), and so forth. The specifics 

regarding how these presence data are assessed to track changes in distribution over time vary by 

species and the type of presence data collected, as described in the Sierra NF Bioregional MIS 

Report (USDA Forest Service 2008). 

Methodology for Analysis 

Project-level effects on MIS habitat are analyzed and disclosed as part of environmental analysis 

under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This involves examining the impacts of 

the proposed project alternatives on MIS habitat by discussing how direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects will change the habitat in the analysis area. 

These project-level impacts to habitat are then related to broader scale (bioregional) population 

and/or habitat trends. The appropriate approach for relating project-level impacts to broader scale 

trends depends on the type of monitoring identified for MIS in the LRMP as amended by the SNF 

MIS Amendment ROD. Hence, where the Sierra NF LRMP as amended by the SNF MIS 

Amendment ROD identifies distribution population monitoring for an MIS, the project-level 

habitat effects analysis for that MIS is informed by available distribution population monitoring 

data, which are gathered at the bioregional scale. The bioregional scale monitoring identified in 

the Sierra NF LRMP, as amended, for MIS analyzed for the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management 

Project is summarized in Section 3 of the Terrestrial MIS report.

Adequately analyzing project effects to MIS generally involves the following steps: 

 Identifying which habitat and associated MIS would be either directly or indirectly 

affected by the project alternatives; these MIS are potentially affected by the project. 

 Summarizing the bioregional-level monitoring identified in the LRMP, as amended, for 

this subset of MIS. 

 Analyzing project-level effects on MIS habitat for this subset of MIS. 

 Discussing bioregional scale habitat and/or population trends for this subset of MIS. 

 Relating project-level impacts on MIS habitat to habitat and/or population trends at the 

bioregional scale for this subset of MIS. 

These steps are described in detail in the Pacific Southwest Region draft document “MIS 

Analysis and Documentation in Project-Level NEPA, R5 Environmental Coordination” (May 25, 

2006). This Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report documents application of the above 

steps to select project-level MIS and analyze project effects on MIS habitat for the Sugar Pine 

Adaptive Management Project. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 91 

Mitigation and Monitoring 

Special project design measures for the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project were 

developed in concert with the Bass Lake Ranger District interdisciplinary team, USFWS, PSW 

Research scientists, and concerned public participation groups. These design measures would be 

implemented under any of the three action Alternatives. Within this project area special 

considerations have been given to maintaining higher levels of biodiversity through actions such 

as delineating Old Forest Linkages (OFLs) surrounding perennial streams (see USDA-FS 2009a 

and 2009b for a description of OFLs). Higher levels of biodiversity have also been planned for by 

marking retention groups of large diameter trees. Two hundred and eighty (280) such tree groups 

were identified in the main project area, and an additional 74 were identified in the hydrology 

study area. These tree groups are composed of a cluster of three or more trees, 30 inch dbh or 

greater, with touching crowns, and will benefit those species which utilize dense groupings of 

large trees. Another project design measure which will maintain biodiversity is the identification 

of retention areas around large oaks within treatment units. Two to three large oaks per acre were 

identified and marked with paint. These oaks will retain a zone of no activity around them 

measuring 35 feet, or dripline circumference around the oak (whichever is greater). The 

delineation of OFLs, retention of large tree groups, and oak no treatment zones will ensure a 

heterogeneous post treatment landscape resulting in the continued accessibility of both hiding 

cover and prey availability within these areas of biodiversity. (USDA Forest Service 2009e) 

The project is designed to improve habitat conditions through the acceleration of latesuccessional habitat characteristics, while still maintaining current functional habitat. Specific 

project design criteria include: canopy closure will be maintained at 60 to 70% or greater where 

available; ground disturbance will be limited to those guidelines with the LRMP as amended; 

vegetation species diversity and composition will be maintained; no management will occur in 

designated riparian reserves; and retention of snags and downed logs would be retained at 80 to 

100% of the average numbers found within mature and old growth stands within the Sierra NF. 

Any snag felled for safety reasons will be left on site as downed woody debris. Additional cull 

logs will be left on site from the logging operation as well. All riparian reserves within the project 

have been identified and buffers established. In addition, no operations will occur during the wet 

weather season. (USDA Forest Service 2009e) 

Category 1 MIS 

Species that will not be discussed further in this document include Category 1 and Category 2 

MIS. Category 1 defines MIS whose habitat does not occur in or adjacent to the project area. For 

the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project Category 1 MIS include the greater sage-grouse 

and the black-backed woodpecker. No sagebrush (SGB) or burned forest habitat is currently 

present in or adjacent to the project area. 

Category 2 MIS 

Category 2 defines MIS whose habitat is in or adjacent to the project area, but whose habitat 

would not be directly or indirectly affected by the project. For the Sugar Pine Adaptive 

Management Project, Category 2 MIS include: yellow warbler, sooty grouse, California spotted 

owl, American marten, and northern flying squirrel. Though habitat for these species occurs 

within the project area, that habitat will not be directly or indirectly affected by the project. The 

primary reasons for this appraisal are the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project design 

features which limit the activities reducing canopy closure. These design features, as well as 

applicable Forest Service standards and guidelines protecting species habitats are discussed 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

92 Sierra National Forest 

further in the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project MIS Report for each of the Category 2 

MIS. 

Category 3 MIS 

The MIS whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the Sugar Pine Adaptive 

Management Project, identified as Category 3, are carried forward in this analysis, which will 

evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives on the 

habitat of these MIS (see project record). The MIS selected for project-level MIS analysis for the 

Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project are: fox sparrow, mule deer, mountain quail, and hairy 

woodpecker. 

The following section documents the analysis for the following Category 3 species: fox sparrow, 

mule deer, mountain quail, and hairy woodpecker. The analysis of the effects of the Sugar Pine 

Adaptive Management Project on the terrestrial MIS habitat for the selected project-level MIS is 

conducted at the project scale. The analysis used the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship 

model (CWHR (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988)) data to determine vegetative type within the 

entire Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project Boundary. Existing acres of vegetation type 

(base vegetation layer) were determined using the Sierra National Forest Corporate GIS 

vegetation feature class of 2001 ExistingVeg2001_pl. This base layer was refined using existing 

structure analysis from more than 50 stand examination plot data collected in 2007 and 2008, as 

well as forest aerial photography interpretation from the 2001 flightline, and 1 meter resolution 

satellite imagery from the National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP). Treatment acres 

relative to existing vegetation were based on mapping and field visits conducted by the Bass Lake 

Ranger District Silviculturist. These field visits refined the base vegetation layer and determined 

the net acres of treatment. Detailed information on the MIS is documented in the SNF 

Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2008), which is hereby incorporated by reference. 

MIS Project-level Effects Analysis - Shrubland (West-Slope 

Chaparral) Habitat 

Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area: There are a total of 71 acres 

of shrubland (chaparral) habitat within the project boundary. Sixty-five (65) acres are classified as 

montane chaparral (MCP) and the remaining 6 acres are classified as mixed chaparral (MCH). Of 

the 71 acres of chaparral within the project boundary, only 38%, or 27 acres occur within 

treatment analysis areas and have the potential to be treated under this project while only 21 acres 

are actually proposed to be treated. Please refer to Tables 40 and 41 in Appendix D (Sugar Pine 

CWHR Data Table, Main Project Area and Hydrology Study Area, Present Compared to 

Alternative 2 Proposal) for a full breakdown of all CWHR habitat types within the project 

boundary pre- and post-treatment. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, current management 

plans would continue to guide management of the project area. This includes all ongoing 

activities with existing decisions or permits that would not be changed if this alternative were 

selected including: underburning, plantation maintenance, cattle grazing, recreation, and 

recreation residences. The No Action Alternative would not implement the Sugar Pine Adaptive 

Management Project to reduce fire ladder conditions (thinning); pile slash for burning; burn slash 

piles; masticate and/and or precommercially thin stands; plant trees; reduce fuel loading through 

controlled burning; construct handline around jackpot burn areas; or construct and reconstruct 

roads. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 93 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat 

There are no direct effects to shrubland habitat under this alternative. There is a potential for 

indirect effects under the No Action Alternative as the continued immediate threat of wildfire 

would remain unabated. In failing to make an attempt at density management of the stands, the 

eventual changes through drought stress and subsequent insect and disease mortality acceleration 

would exacerbate the threat of stand replacing fire. Additionally, the high probability of a drying 

climate change throughout the Western United States would have the potential to further 

compound these effects (USDA Forest Service 2009a, 2009c, 2009d). 

Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area 

According the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, “cumulative impact” 

is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency 

(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7). 

The cumulative effects boundary area was identified as the extent of the 12 HUC 8 subwatersheds 

contained in or adjacent to the project boundary: 503.0008, 503.0009, 503.0010, 503.0011, 

503.0055, 503.3001, 501.5003, 501.5005, 501.5006, 501.5007, 501.5053, and 501.5054 and 

covers an area of 16,381 acres. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within all 12 

subwatersheds surrounding the project area are displayed in Table 3 of the Sugar Pine Adaptive 

Management Project Environmental Impact Statement (USDA-FS 2009a, USDA 2009f). 

Cumulative Effects Conclusion 

Under Alternative 1 the Sugar Pine Project would not be implemented. The immediate effect of 

wildfires in shrubland habitat would be a loss of function for that portion of the habitat until 

shrubs recovered enough to provide foraging, nesting, and cover habitat. However because most 

shrubland ecosystems are fire adapted, and because most fires burn with a mosaic of severity and 

intensity across the landscape, post fire shrub habitats may still provide forage, nesting, and cover 

for many species. Unfortunately, without fuels treatments, the extent of shrublands severely 

impacted by wildfire is expected to be much greater and take much longer for recovery, having 

more lasting impacts on the distribution and abundance of this habitat type on the landscape. 

Within the cumulative effects analysis area, other known activities are off-highway vehicle use, 

fuel, culture, and timber projects (past Federal and activities on private property), cattle grazing, 

road maintenance, and recreational use (both developed and undeveloped). Many of the ongoing 

management activities within the cumulative effects boundary do not contribute to significant 

cumulative impacts upon shrubland habitat. Of the actions elevated within the analysis area, road 

maintenance along the 86 miles of road and plantation maintenance of the 115 acres of existing 

plantation within the extended subwatershed boundary area would be the most likely actions to 

affect shrubland habitat. Changes in shrubland densities would be relatively short-lived because 

many shrubs would sprout within a year (depending on shrub type, treatment type, and treatment 

intensity). There are a total of 861 acres of MCH and MCP habitat within the cumulative effects 

boundary of this project, of which a very small percentage may be treated during road and 

plantation maintenance activities. Any cumulative effects to shrubland habitat would be minimal 

as a result of choosing Alternative 1, and in the absence of a catastrophic wildfire, habitat would 

be expected to remain in fair condition. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

94 Sierra National Forest 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat 

Under Alternative 2 direct effects to 21 acres of shrubland habitat are proposed through 

mastication and prescribed burning treatments. These 21 acres would be treated to maintain the 

growth and vigor of existing trees, or to create conditions suitable for the establishment of planted 

trees. The change in seral stage of 21 acres of chaparral out of 71 acres within the project 

boundary is a treatment of 38% of the total chaparral available within the Sugar Pine Project 

Boundary. There are an additional 50 acres of shrubland habitat identified within the project 

boundary that are not proposed for treatment under the current project, and would still provide 

suitable habitat for fox sparrow during implementation of mastication and burning activities. 

Two (2) acres of proposed prescription burning would occur in MCP habitat in the hydrology 

study area, and 19 acres of proposed mastication treatments would occur in MCP habitat in the 

main project area. Immediately after treatment, these 21 acres would not be useable as shrubland 

habitat because shrubs would be reduced below 20 percent cover. This shrub cover reduction 

would be temporary, and shrubs would likely begin to recover in less than one year since 

chemicals would not be used in either treatment. Shrubland habitat that is currently senescent 

would be brought back to an early seral stage chaparral, increasing its vigor and habitat value. 

Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area 

A table of current and future projects within the analysis area for the Sugar Pine Adaptive 

Management Project was presented in the Cumulative Effects discussion of Alternative 1. There 

are a total of 861 acres of MCH and MCP habitat within the cumulative effects boundary of this 

project. This project proposes treating at most 3% of the existing shrubland habitat within the 

cumulative effects boundary. 

Cumulative Effects Conclusion 

There are a total of 861 acres of MCH and MCP habitat within the cumulative effects boundary 

of this project. This project proposes treating at most 3% of the existing shrubland habitat within 

the cumulative effects boundary. Further activities taking place within the cumulative effects 

boundary that may alter shrubland habitat include road brushing and plantation maintenance. 

These activities may alter a very small percentage of the available shrubland habitat through 

removal of senescent chaparral bordering roads and inside plantations, resulting in natural 

regeneration of early seral stage chaparral habitat. 

Alternative 3 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Habitat and Conclusion 

The proposed treatments for the shrubland habitat within Alternative 3 are the same as for 

Alternative 2, therefore the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for Alternative 3 would be the 

same as those discussed under the Proposed Action. 

Alternative 4 

The proposed treatments for the shrubland habitat within Alternative 4 are the same as for 

Alternative 2, therefore the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for Alternative 4 would be the 

same as those discussed under the Proposed Action. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 95 

Summary of Fox Sparrow Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale 

The Sierra NF LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale 

habitat and distribution population monitoring for the fox sparrow; hence, the shrubland effects 

analysis for the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project must be informed by both habitat and 

distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and 

distribution population status and trend data for the fox sparrow. This information is drawn from 

the detailed information on habitat and population trends in the Sierra Nevada Forests 

Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2008), which is hereby incorporated by reference. 

Habitat Status and Trend 

There are currently 922,000 acres of west-slope chaparral shrubland habitat on National Forest 

System lands in the Sierra Nevada. Within the last decade, the trend is stable. 

Population Status and Trend 

The fox sparrow has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by avian 

point counts and breeding bird survey protocols, including: 1997 to present – Lassen National 

Forest (Burnett and Humple 2003, Burnett et al. 2005); 2002 to present – Plumas and Lassen 

National Forests (Sierra Nevada Research Center 2007); on-going monitoring through California 

Partners in Flight Monitoring Sites (CPIF 2002); 1992 to 2005 – Sierra Nevada Monitoring Avian 

Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) stations (Siegel and Kaschube 2007); and 1968 to present 

– BBS routes throughout the Sierra Nevada (Sauer et al. 2007). These data indicate that fox 

sparrows continue to be present at these sample sites, and current data at the rangewide, 

California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that, although there may be localized declines in the 

population trend, the distribution of fox sparrow populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable. 

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Fox Sparrow 

Trend 

The 861 acres of shrubland habitat that exists within the Cumulative Effects (CE) boundary 

account for less than 1% of the 922,000 acres that exists at the bioregional scale, and only 21 of 

these acres are proposed for treatment. Therefore, cumulative impacts within the CE boundary 

would not alter the existing bioregional trends in this habitat, nor would they lead to a change in 

the distribution of fox sparrows across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. 

Oak-Associated Hardwoods and Hardwood/Conifer Habitat (Mule 

deer) 

Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area 

There are currently 850 acres of montane hardwood and montane hardwood conifer habitat within 

the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project boundary of which 53% or 450 of these acres are 

within treatment analysis areas. Please refer to Tables 40 and 41 located in Appendix D (Sugar 

Pine CWHR Data Table, Main Project Area and Hydrology Study Area, Present Compared to 

Alternative 2 Proposal) for a full breakdown of all CWHR habitat types within the Project 

boundary pre- and post-treatment. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

96 Sierra National Forest 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat 

There would be no direct effects to montane hardwood or montane hardwood-conifer habitat 

under this alternative. There is a potential for indirect effects under the No Action Alternative as 

the continued immediate threat of wildfire would remain unabated. In failing to make an attempt 

at density management of the adjacent conifer stands, the eventual changes through drought stress 

and subsequent insect and disease mortality acceleration would exacerbate the threat of stand 

replacing fire. Additionally, the high probability of a drying climate change throughout the 

Western United States would have the potential to further compound these effects (USDA Forest 

Service 2009a, 2009c, 2009d). 

Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area and Conclusion 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the 12 subwatersheds inside and adjacent 

to the project area are displayed in Table 3 of this document, referenced from the Sugar Pine 

Adaptive Management Project Environmental Impact Statement (USDA-FS 2009a). Under 

Alternative 1 the Sugar Pine Project would not be implemented. The immediate effect of 

wildfires in hardwood and hardwood/conifer habitat would be a loss of function for that portion 

of the habitat until the hardwoods recovered enough to provide foraging, and nesting habitat. 

However because most hardwood ecosystems are fire adapted, and because most fires burn with a 

mosaic of severity and intensity across the landscape, post fire hardwood habitats may still 

provide forage, nesting, and cover for many species. Unfortunately, without fuels treatments in 

the conifer types, the extent of hardwood habitat severely impacted by wildfire is expected to be 

much greater and take much longer for recovery, having more lasting impacts on the distribution 

and abundance of this habitat type on the landscape. 

Many of the ongoing management activities within the cumulative effects boundary do not 

contribute to significant cumulative impacts upon montane hardwood or hardwood/conifer 

habitat. Of the cumulative effects actions elevated within the analysis area, private land 

residential development and roadside hazard tree removal have the greatest potential to alter 

hardwood and hardwood conifer habitat. There is a total of 3341 acres of MHC and MHW habitat 

within the cumulative effects boundary. Hardwood and hardwood/conifer habitats account for 

20% of the total available habitat in the cumulative effects boundary. It is possible that a very 

small percentage of MHC and MHW habitat may be removed as hazards during roadside hazard 

tree removal or as residential construction continues within the cumulative effects boundary. Any 

cumulative effects to hardwood and hardwood/conifer habitat would be minimal as a result of 

choosing Alternative 1, and in the absence of a catastrophic wildfire, habitat would be expected to 

remain in good condition. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat 

A direct effect of implementing Alternative 2 would be a change in CWHR type for 2 acres of 

mule deer habitat. Although not the intent of the proposed prescribed burning, it is possible that 2 

acres of MHC4D habitat would be converted to MHC4M habitat through flare-ups during 

burning activities. This would represent a less than 1% decrease in the amount of MHC4D habitat 

within the project boundary, and a 3% increase in the amount of MHC4M habitat available within 

the project boundary. With the application of the LRMP standards and guidelines, direct and 

indirect effects to deer will be minimal because the most important habitat types to deer will 

receive the management emphasis called for in the LRMP, and the Sugar Pine Adaptive 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 97 

Management Project uneven-aged silvicultural treatments and prescribed burning will tend to 

improve deer foraging habitat. Forest Service standards and guidelines pertaining to hardwood 

habitat are included in the project record. Additional protections for hardwood habitat that will be 

applied to this project include the formation of oak no treatment areas, described on page 15 of 

this document and in the project EIS and BE/BA (US Forest Service 2009a, 2009b). 

Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area and Conclusion 

Of the cumulative effects actions elevated within the analysis area, private land residential 

development and roadside hazard tree removal have the greatest potential to alter hardwood and 

hardwood conifer habitat. There is a total of 3341 acres of MHC and MHW habitat within the 

cumulative effects boundary. The proposed treatment of 2 acres would constitute a treatment of 

less than 1% of the total available habitat within the cumulative effects boundary. Additional 

effects to habitat through roadside hazard tree work and private land residential development will 

be insignificant compared with the amount of habitat available. 

Alternative 3 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Habitat and Conclusion 

The proposed treatments for the montane hardwood and montane hardwood/conifer habitat within 

Alternative 3 are the same as for Alternative 2, therefore the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects for Alternative 3 would be the same as those discussed under the Proposed Action. 

Alternative 4 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Habitat and Conclusion 

The proposed treatments for the montane hardwood and montane hardwood/conifer habitat within 

Alternative 4 are very limited in scope and will not change any CWRH habitat type, size, or 

density, therefore no direct effects to montane hardwood and montane hardwood/conifer habitat 

would be expected to occur with implementation of Alternative 4. Indirect effects can be 

expected by failing to make an attempt at density management of the stands, the eventual changes 

through drought stress and subsequent insect and disease mortality acceleration would exacerbate 

the threat of stand replacing fire. Additionally, the high probability of a drying climate change 

throughout the Western United States would have the potential to further compound these effects. 

(USDA Forest Service 2009a, 2009c, 2009d). 

Summary of Mule Deer Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale 

The Sierra NF LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale 

habitat and distribution population monitoring for the mule deer; hence, the oak-associated 

hardwood and hardwood/conifer effects analysis for the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management 

Project must be informed by both habitat and distribution population monitoring data. The 

sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status and trend data for the 

mule deer. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and population 

trends in the Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2008), which 

is hereby incorporated by reference. 

Habitat Status and Trend 

There are currently 809,000 acres of oak-associated hardwood and hardwood/mixed conifer 

habitat on National Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada. The trend is slightly increasing 

(within the last decade, changing from 5% to 7% of the acres on National Forest System lands). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

98 Sierra National Forest 

Population Status and Trend 

The mule deer has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by herd 

monitoring (spring and fall) and hunter survey and associated modeling (CDFG 2007). California 

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) conducts surveys of deer herds in early spring to 

determine the proportion of fawns that have survived the winter, and conducts fall counts to 

determine herd composition (CDFG 2007). This information, along with prior year harvest 

information, is used to estimate overall herd size, sex and age rations, and the predicted number 

of bucks available to hunt (ibid). These data indicate that mule deer continue to be present across 

the Sierra Nevada, and current data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales 

indicate that, although there may be localized declines in some herds or Deer Assessment Units, 

the distribution of mule deer populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable. 

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Mule Deer 

Trend 

The 3341 acres of montane hardwood and montane hardwood/conifer habitat that exists within 

the Cumulative Effects boundary account for less than 1% of the 809,000 acres that exists at the 

bioregional scale. The change of 2 acres out of 809,000 acres of oak-associated hardwood and 

hardwood/conifer habitat in the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project Area will not alter the 

existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a change in the distribution of mule deer across the 

Sierra Nevada bioregion.

Early and Mid Seral Coniferous Forest Habitat (Mountain quail) 

Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area 

There is currently 3,566 acres of early and mid seral coniferous forest habitat within the Sugar 

Pine Adaptive Management Project boundary of which 58% or 2064 acres of this habitat are 

within treatment analysis areas. Please refer to Tables 40 and 41 located in Appendix D (Sugar 

Pine CWHR Data Table, Main Project Area and Hydrology Study Area, Present Compared to 

Alternative 2 Proposal) for a full breakdown of all CWHR habitat types within the Project 

boundary pre- and post-treatment. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat 

There would be no direct effects to early and mid seral coniferous habitat under this alternative. 

There is a potential for indirect effects under the No Action Alternative as the continued 

immediate threat of wildfire would remain unabated. In failing to make an attempt at density 

management of the stands, the eventual changes through drought stress and subsequent insect and 

disease mortality acceleration would exacerbate the threat of stand replacing fire. Additionally, 

the high probability of a drying climate change throughout the Western United States would have 

the potential to further compound these effects (USDA Forest Service 2009a, 2009c, 2009d). 

Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area and Conclusion 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the 12 subwatersheds inside and adjacent 

to the project area are displayed in the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project Environmental 

Impact Statement (USDA-FS 2009a). Under Alternative 1 the Sugar Pine Project would not be 

implemented. The immediate effect of wildfires in early and mid seral coniferous habitat would 

be a loss of function for that portion of the habitat until the habitat recovered enough to provide 

foraging, and nesting habitat. Without fuels treatments, the extent of early and mid seral habitat 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 99 

severely impacted by wildfire is expected to be much greater and take much longer for recovery, 

having more lasting impacts on the distribution and abundance of this habitat type on the 

landscape. 

There is a total of 8171 acres of early and mid seral coniferous habitat within the cumulative 

effects boundary. These habitat types constitute 50% of the total available habitat in the 

cumulative effects boundary. Many of the ongoing management activities within the cumulative 

effects boundary do not contribute to significant cumulative impacts upon early and/or mid seral 

coniferous forest habitat. Of the cumulative effects actions elevated within the analysis area 

private land residential development, roadside hazard tree removal, on-going plantation 

maintenance, and past and future timber sale activity have the greatest potential to alter early and 

mid seral coniferous habitat. 

It is possible that a small percentage of early and mid seral stage coniferous habitat may be 

removed as residential construction continues within the cumulative effects boundary. It is 

reasonable to assume that some portion of the roadside hazard trees are in the later stages of early 

seral habitat, as well as mid and late seral habitat. Nevertheless, removal of a few trees within a 

stand does not change its habitat rating. Therefore, roadside hazard tree removal would not 

impact either early, mid, or late seral habitat. Early and mid seral habitats treated under ongoing 

plantation maintenance projects likely have or will experience better health, vigor, and growth by 

being released from competition. 

About 2,640 acres of thinning occurred within the CE boundary during the 1980s, with an 

additional 2000 to 3000 acres proposed for future treatment under the Fish Camp Adaptive 

Management project in the next few years. Due to the thinning prescriptions implemented under 

previous projects, seral stages did not change. Stands merely reflected less density. It is expected 

that those stands treated have experienced better health, vigor, and growth and will be less 

susceptible to wildfires. Proposed Fishcamp Project prescriptions should mirror those proposed 

under the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management project, including any special design measures for 

wildlife recently developed for the Sugar Pine Project. Any cumulative effects to early and mid 

seral coniferous habitat within the cumulative effects boundary would be minimal as a result of 

choosing Alternative 1, and in the absence of a catastrophic wildfire, habitat would be expected to 

remain in good condition. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat 

Under Alternative 2, minimal changes in CWHR composition of early and mid seral coniferous 

habitat are proposed for a little over 1% of the 3,566 acres of habitat within the project boundary. 

37 acres of PPN3D would be converted to PPN3M through proposed mechanical thinning 

treatments. One (1) acre of PPN4D would likely be converted to PPN4M through proposed 

prescribed burning. Three (3) acres of SMC3D would be converted to SMC3M through proposed 

mechanical thinning work, and 5 acres of SMC4D would be converted to SMC4M through 

proposed prescription burning. The remaining 2,018 acres of early and mid seral coniferous 

habitat within the treatment analysis acres will not experience a change in CWHR habitat type, 

size, or density under the Alternative 2 proposal. Due to the thinning prescriptions proposed, 

additional seral stage changes beyond those described will not change. Stands will merely reflect 

less density. Where stand density is at 60% or greater, it will not be brought below this level. It is 

expected that those stands treated will experience better health, vigor, and growth and will be less 

susceptible to wildfires. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

100 Sierra National Forest 

Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area and Conclusion 

There is a total of 8,171 acres of early and mid seral coniferous habitat within the 12 

subwatershed cumulative effects boundary. These habitat types constitute 50% of the total 

available habitat within that boundary. Many of the ongoing management activities within the 

cumulative effects boundary will not contribute to significant cumulative impacts upon early 

and/or mid seral coniferous forest habitat. Of the cumulative effects actions elevated within the 

analysis area private land residential development, roadside hazard tree removal, on-going 

plantation maintenance, and past and future timber sale activity have the greatest potential to alter 

early and mid seral coniferous habitat as discussed under the cumulative effects section for 

Alternative 1. Additional effects through Alternative 2 proposed canopy cover changes of 0.5% 

of the total habitat in the cumulative effects boundary are insignificant, especially when one 

considers the vast amount of available early and mid seral coniferous habitat present within the 

cumulative effects boundary. 

Alternative 3 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Habitat and Conclusion 

The proposed treatments for the early and mid seral stage coniferous habitat within Alternative 3 

are nearly the same as for Alternative 2. Under Alternative 3, minimal changes in CWHR 

composition of early and mid seral coniferous habitat are proposed for a little over 1% of the 

3,566 acres of habitat within the project boundary. Seventeen (17) acres of PPN3D would be 

converted to PPN3M through proposed mechanical thinning work. One (1) acre of PPN4D would 

likely be converted to PPN4M through proposed prescribed burning. Three (3) acres of SMC3D 

would be converted to SMC3M through proposed mechanical thinning work, and 5 acres of 

SMC4D would be converted to SMC4M through proposed prescription burning. The remaining 

2,018 acres of early and mid seral coniferous habitat within the treatment analysis acres will not 

experience a change in CWHR habitat type, size, or density under the Alternative 3 proposal. 

Additional effects through Alternative 3 proposed canopy cover changes of 0.3% of the total 

habitat in the cumulative effects boundary are insignificant considering the vast amount of 

available habitat within the cumulative effects boundary. Due to the thinning prescriptions 

proposed, additional seral stage changes beyond those described will not change. Stands will 

merely reflect less density. Where stand density is at 60% or greater, it will not be brought below 

this level. It is expected that those stands treated will experience better health, vigor, and growth 

and will be less susceptible to wildfires. 

Alternative 4 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Habitat and Conclusion 

The proposed treatments for the early and mid seral stage coniferous habitat within Alternative 4 

are very limited in scope and will not change any CWRH habitat type, size, or density, therefore 

no direct effects to early and mid seral coniferous habitat would be expected to occur with 

implementation of Alternative 4. 

Indirect effects can be expected by failing to make an attempt at density management of the 

stands, the eventual changes through drought stress and subsequent insect and disease mortality 

acceleration would exacerbate the threat of stand replacing fire. Additionally, the high probability 

of a drying climate change throughout the Western United States would have the potential to 

further compound these effects (USDA Forest Service 2009a, 2009c, 2009d). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 101 

Summary of Mountain Quail Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale 

The Sierra NF LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale 

habitat and distribution population monitoring for the mountain quail; hence, the early and mid 

seral coniferous forest effects analysis for the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project must be 

informed by both habitat and distribution population monitoring data. The sections below 

summarize the habitat and distribution population status and trend data for the mountain quail. 

This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and population trends in the 

SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2008), which is hereby incorporated by 

reference. 

Habitat Status and Trend 

There are currently 546,000 acres of early seral and 2,766,000 acres of mid seral coniferous forest 

(ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir) habitat on National Forest System 

lands in the Sierra Nevada. Within the last decade, the trend for early seral is slightly decreasing 

(from 9% to 5% of the acres on National Forest System lands) and the trend for mid seral is 

slightly increasing (from 21% to 25% of the acres on National Forest System lands). 

Population Status and Trend 

The mountain quail has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by 

hunter survey, modeling, and breeding bird survey protocols, including California Department of 

Fish and Game hunter survey, modeling, and hunting regulations assessment (CDFG 2004a, 

CDFG 2004b) and 1968 to present – BBS routes throughout the Sierra Nevada (Sauer et al. 

2007). These data indicate that mountain quail continue to be present across the Sierra Nevada, 

and current data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the 

distribution of mountain quail populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable. 

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Mountain 

Quail Trend 

The 8,171 acres of early and mid seral coniferous habitat that exists within the cumulative effects 

boundary account for 1.5% of the 546,000 acres that exists at the bioregional scale. The change in 

canopy closure of 46 acres out of 809,000 acres of early and mid seral coniferous habitat in the 

Sierra Nevada bioregion will not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a change 

in the distribution of mountain quail across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

Snags in Green Forest Ecosystem Component (Hairy woodpecker) 

Habitat/Species Relationship 

The hairy woodpecker was selected as the MIS for the ecosystem component of snags in green 

forests. Medium (diameter breast height [dbh] between 15 to 30 inches) and large (diameter 

breast height greater than 30 inches) snags are most important. The hairy woodpecker uses stands 

of large, mature trees and snags of sparse to intermediate density; cover is also provided by tree 

cavities (CDFG 2005). Mature timber and dead snags or trees of moderate to large size are 

apparently more important than tree species (Siegel and DeSante 1999). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

102 Sierra National Forest 

Project-level Effects Analysis – Snags in Green Forest Ecosystem 

Component 

Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area 

Prior to 2004, the forest implemented standards and guidelines (S&Gs) from the Sierra NF LRMP 

(USDA-FS 1991) which called for maintaining an average of 1.5 snags per acre in sizes 15 to 24-

inch dbh and an average of 0.5 snags per acre in sizes 25-inch dbh or greater. All countable snags 

had to be 20 feet or greater height (S&G #64, p. 4-16). Additionally, a sufficient number of live 

trees had to be left in appropriate sizes to serve as replacement snags. The Sierra Nevada Forest 

Plan Amendment (SNFPA) (2004), modified the Sierra NF LRMP with the followings 

guidelines: (1) in westside mixed conifer and ponderosa pine types, Forests should maintain 4 of 

the largest snags per acre, (2) in red fir forest type, they should maintain 6 of the largest snags per 

acre, (3) in eastside pine and mixed conifer forest types, they should maintain 3 of the largest 

snags per acre, and (4) in westside hardwood ecosystems, they should maintain 4 of the largest 

snags (hardwood or conifer) per acre, or if standing live hardwood trees lack dead branches, they 

should maintain 6 of the largest snags per acre (S&G #11, p. 51). 

Current conditions within the project boundary meet and in many areas exceed the snag and down 

woody material retention guidelines laid forth in the 2004 SNFPA. The following standards and 

guidelines for Snags and Down Woody Material apply to this project (USDA-FS 2004, Pg. 51-

52). 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat 

There would be no direct effects to snags in green forest habitat under this alternative. There is a 

potential for indirect effects under the No Action Alternative as the continued immediate threat of 

wildfire would remain unabated. In failing to make an attempt at density management of the 

stands, the eventual changes through drought stress and subsequent insect and disease mortality 

acceleration would exacerbate the threat of stand replacing fire. Such a wildfire would convert 

current snags in green forest habitat to snags in burned forest habitat. Additionally, the high 

probability of a drying climate change throughout the Western United States would have the 

potential to further compound these effects (USDA Forest Service 2009a, 2009c, 2009d). 

Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area and Conclusion 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the 12 sub-watershed cumulative effects 

boundary are displayed in Table 3 of this document, referenced from the Sugar Pine Adaptive 

Management Project Environmental Impact Statement (USDA-FS 2009a). Under Alternative 1 

the Sugar Pine Project would not be implemented. The immediate effect of wildfires would 

convert current snags in green forest habitat to snags in burned forest habitat. 

There is a total of 12,015 acres of mid and late seral forest habitat that provides the green forest 

snag component within the cumulative effects boundary. These habitat types constitute 73% of 

the total available habitat in the cumulative effects boundary. Many of the ongoing management 

activities within the cumulative effects boundary do not contribute to significant cumulative 

impacts upon mid and/or late seral forest habitat. Of the cumulative effects actions elevated 

within the analysis area private land residential development, roadside hazard tree removal, ongoing plantation maintenance, and past and future timber sale activity have the greatest potential 

to alter snags within mid and late seral coniferous habitat. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 103 

It is possible that a small percentage of snags may be removed as residential construction 

continues within the cumulative effects boundary. It is reasonable to assume that all of the 

roadside hazard trees are snags in varying stages of decay. Roadsize hazard tree removal is slated 

for 41 miles of road within the cumulative effects boundary. However, only trees that are a public 

safety hazard (ROD Appendix A page 29) and up to a potential maximum distance of 300 feet on 

either side of the road are slated for removal (US Forest Service 2006b). This removal of public 

safety hazard trees along linear features is not expected to bring the available snag levels within 

the proposed project area below the current standards set forth in the ROD. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Habitat and Conclusion 

There would be minimal direct effects to snags under the Alternative 2 proposed action. No snags 

are proposed for removal by any of the Action alternatives in the Sugar Pine Adaptive 

Management Project, except where they constitute a safety concern. Current conditions within the 

project boundary and cumulative effects boundary meet and in many areas exceed the snag and 

down woody material retention guidelines laid forth in the 2004 SNFPA. It is reasonable to 

assume that a few stage 4 through 7 snags may be lost in prescribed fire treatment areas, however 

this treatment is also likely to produce stage 2 and 3 snags. It is not expected that removal of 

snags that pose a safety concern along roadways or in treatment units will alter the available snag 

levels below the current standards set forth in the ROD. 

Alternative 3 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Habitat and Conclusion 

The proposed treatments for forest snags within Alternative 3 are the same as for Alternative 2, 

therefore the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for Alternative 3 would be the same as those 

discussed under the Proposed Action. 

Alternative 4 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Habitat and Conclusion 

The proposed treatments for forest snags within Alternative 4 are the same as for Alternative 2, 

therefore the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for Alternative 4 would be the same as those 

discussed under the Proposed Action. 

Summary of Hairy Woodpecker Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale 

The Sierra NF LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale 

habitat and distribution population monitoring for the hairy woodpecker; hence, the snag effects 

analysis for the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project must be informed by both habitat and 

distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and 

distribution population status and trend data for the hairy woodpecker. This information is drawn 

from the detailed information on habitat and distribution population trends in the SNF 

Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2008), which is hereby incorporated by reference. 

Ecosystem Component Status and Trend 

The current (based on 2001-2004 inventory sources) average number of medium-sized and largesized snags (> 15-inch dbh, all decay classes) per acre across major coniferous and hardwood 

forest types (westside mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, white fir, productive hardwoods, red fir, 

eastside pine) in the Sierra Nevada ranges from 1.4 per acre in eastside pine to 8.3 per acre in 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

104 Sierra National Forest 

white fir. Detailed information by forest type, snag size, and snag decay class can be found in the 

SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2008). 

Data from the mid-to-late 1990s were compared with the current data to calculate the trend in 

total snags per acre by Regional forest type for the 10 Sierra Nevada national forests and indicate 

that, during this period, snags per acre increased within westside mixed conifer (+0.80), white fir 

(+1.98), and red fir (+0.68) and decreased within ponderosa pine (-0.17), productive hardwoods (-

0.17), and eastside pine (-0.16). 

Population Status and Trend 

The hairy woodpecker has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by 

avian point counts and breeding bird survey protocols, including 1997 to present – Lassen 

National Forest (Burnett and Humple 2003, Burnett et al. 2005); 2002 to present – Plumas and 

Lassen National Forests (Sierra Nevada Research Center 2007); 1992 to 2005 – Sierra Nevada 

Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) stations (Siegel and Kaschube 2007); 

and 1968 to present – BBS routes throughout the Sierra Nevada (Sauer et al. 2007). These data 

indicate that the hairy woodpecker continues to be present at these sample sites, and current data 

at the rangewide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of hairy 

woodpecker populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable. 

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Hairy 

Woodpecker Trend 

The 12,015 acres of mid and late seral forest habitat that provides the green forest snag 

component within the cumulative effects boundary account for less than 1% of the 3,835,000 

acres of mid and late seral coniferous forest habitat within the Sierra Nevada bioregion. 

Therefore, none of the alternatives would alter the bioregional trend in the snag component of the 

coniferous forest habitat, nor would they lead to a change in the distribution of the hairy 

woodpecker across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 105 

Hydrology/Water Quality _____________________ 

Affected Environment 

The project area has been affected by a history of past fires and historic logging. Currently the 

Sugar Pine Railroad is active today and serves as a destination for recreation. The current 

condition of creeks in the project area shows current uses and effects of past activity. 

The Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project is located in the Upper Lewis Creek Watershed 

and a portion of the Big Sandy Creek watershed. Upper Lewis Creek, Lewis Fork of the Fresno 

River is tributary to the Fresno River Watershed. Fresno River is tributary to the San Joaquin 

River, which supplies water to a four billion a year agricultural industry in the Central Valley. All 

of the discharge from Big Sandy Watershed, White Chief Branch and headwaters to Big Creek at 

one time flowed into Big Creek, which is tributary to south fork of the Merced River. Big Creek 

drainage has had up to 6000 acre-feet of water is diverted between December 1st and July 15th into 

the Lewis Fork of the Fresno River along a ditch located in section 30 just east of the project 

boundary. This diversion has occurred since the 1870s. Channel conditions have adjusted since 

the time of diversion to reach equilibrium. Table 21 provides a summary of the affected drainages 

and associated water bodies in the project area. Map 9, found in the Map Package in Appendix A 

displays the location of perennial streams and subwatersheds associated with the project. 

Table 21. Subwatershed Summaries 

Main Stream miles 

Stream 

System(s) 

Watershed 

(HUC 5) Subwatersheds

(HUC 8) Perennial Intermittent Ephemeral Total 

Lewis 

Creek 

Fresno River 

(1804000701) 

503.0008 

503.0009 

503.0010 

503.0011 

503.0055 

503.3001 

16.6 11.5 112.2 140.3 

Big Creek 

SF Merced 

(1804000803) 

501.5003 

501.5005 

501.5006 

501.5007 

501.5053 

501.5054 

17.1 13.5 90.5 121.1 

Summary of Existing Conditions 

Although there is evidence of past logging practices, channels appear to have recovered. Stream 

Condition Inventories and Channel Stability Analysis were performed in most of the watersheds 

associated with the project. The locations of these inventories were selected based on their 

potential to respond to disturbance. They are by definition “response reaches” and represent the 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

106 Sierra National Forest 

most delicate reach along the drainage surveyed. These areas provide the best locations to 

monitor as these areas would be the first to change. The current condition for most of the stream 

reaches is good or fair for channel stability using modified Pfankuch, after Rosgen (2004). The 

one exception is upper Lewis Creek, which rated a poor. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct effects associated with not treating fuels in the project area would result in a lost 

opportunity to reduce potential for catastrophic fire. This lost opportunity has the potential to 

affect not only the communities at risk; it also affects the riparian habitat and water quality in the 

project area. As described in the affected environment, riparian areas have large amounts of 

organic material throughout the drainages. This material is not lying on the forest floor; it is 

intermingled with standing material. In the event of a wildfire, riparian habitat, channel 

characteristics and riparian vegetation would be greatly affected. 

Direct Effects 

Direct effects of no actions would be continued increase of fuels and potential for catastrophic 

wildfire. 

Indirect Effects 

Indirect Effects of no action would be basin wide increases of fuels and potential for catastrophic 

wildfire. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative Effects of no action would be displayed under the Pre project condition of the 

Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) analysis described under Best Management Practices 

(BMP) #7-8. Essentially the only watershed considered at or near CWE prior to field 

investigations was Lewis-Red Rock (503.0055). Filed investigations indicated that this drainage 

is predominately bedrock controlled and has little potential to be affected by the project. 

Additionally SCI investigations indicate Channel Stability using modified Pfankuch (Rosgen, 

2001) is good. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 107 Table 22. Activities Proposed under Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 

Subwatershed 

501.5003 

501.5005 

501.5006 

501.5007 

501.5053 

501.5054 

503.0008 

503.0009 

503.001 

503.0011 

503.0055 

Commercial or pre-commercial thinning or tractor piling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Precommercial Thin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mastication 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Underburn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Treatments 466 2229 638 668 1817 1480 945 2010 1549 645 2564 138Subwatershed Acres 466 2229 638 668 1817 1480 945 2010 1549 645 2564 138
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

108 Sierra National Forest 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would reduce fire ladder conditions through removing understory trees 

(thinning); pile slash for burning; burn slash piles; masticate and/and or precommercially thin 

stands; plant trees; reduce fuel loading through controlled burning; construct handline around 

jackpot burn areas; and construct and reconstruct road. Proposed treatments by subwatershed are 

displayed in Table 23. 

Limited or no treatment would occur in SMZs. Direct treatments would be excluded from SMZs; 

in general, all vegetation and fuel treatments conducted in RCAs would focus on improving forest 

health, enhancing or maintaining hydrologic function and maintaining or enhancing the key 

attributes of riparian habitats. Attributes comprise cool, moist soil conditions; high water quality; 

retention of large snags and down logs in sufficient quantities to provide habitat and woody 

debris recruitment in stream channels; and retention of woody material to provide stability to 

riparian and aquatic habitats. Well-functioning channels have good riparian vegetation, good 

sediment transport, and stable streambanks. These characteristics work together to maintain 

channel function and stability. 

A wide range of activity-specific BMPs are designed to minimize detrimental soil disturbance, 

protect water quality, maintain physical stability, and hydrologic connectivity of riparian and 

aquatic habitats. There is little potential for the Proposed Action to adversely affect the 

geomorphic, hydrologic, or riparian characteristics and aquatic habitats in affected watersheds 

because of the low-impact characteristics of the proposed stand treatments, the limitations that 

would be imposed on operations within RCAs and SMZs, and the use of activity-specific BMPs. 

The greatest potential for the Proposed Action to affect the hydrologic connectivity of streams 

and aquatic habitat exists at stream crossings. To minimize the potential for project-related effects 

on hydrologic connectivity, existing crossings would be used whenever possible. In the event that 

it is necessary to construct a temporary crossing, the methods used for construction would be 

selected to avoid or minimize detrimental soil and vegetation disturbance and to maintain 

hydrologic connectivity between upstream and downstream features. All temporary crossings 

would be removed following the completion of project-related activities and would be treated as 

necessary to restore pre-project conditions. Implementation of the activity-specific BMPs would 

further ensure that hydrologic connectivity in streams and special aquatic features is not adversely 

affected by the Proposed Action. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 109 Table 23. Activities Proposed within Project Area Subwatersheds under Alternative 2 (Acres Generated b

Subwatershed 

501.5003 

501.5005 

501.5006 

501.5007 

501.5053 

501.5054 

503.0008 

503.0009 

503.0010 

503.0011 

503.0055 

503.3001 

Commercial/pre-commercial thinning or tractor piling 0 5 194 132 124 11 297 323 627 33 162 Mastication 19 8 79 0 34 18 110 294 3 139 80 14 Underburn 0 9 15 0 21 22 15 113 22 0 0 No Treatments 447 2207 352 536 1638 1429 524 1280 897 473 2322 1367 Subwatershed Acres 466 2229 638 668 1817 1480 945 2010 1549 645 2564 1381 % Subwatershed treated 4% 1% 45% 20% 10% 4% 45% 35% 42% 27% 9% 1% 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

110 Sierra National Forest 

Direct Effects 

Direct effects are those occurring at the same time and place as the triggering action. The 

Proposed Action could directly affect aquatic resources, primarily as a result of vegetation 

removal, road construction, slash piling, and prescribed fire immediately following treatment; 

such activities could lead to soil disturbance and its associated effects on aquatic habitats (e.g., 

accelerated erosion and sedimentation). Any soil displacement, compaction, or change in ground 

cover would cause a direct effect on watershed condition and aquatic habitat. Most treatment 

units have avoided crossing stream channels. The exception is 4th order ephemeral draws. Fuels 

treatments have been laid out to utilize designated and/or existing crossings. Figure 1, located on 

page 15, displays SMZs assigned to streams in the Sugar Pine project. Streamcourses are to be 

protected under C6.5 of the Timber Sale Contract. Any additional streams identified during 

operations will receive protection appropriate for the stream and the treatment. 

Subwatershed 503.0008 

There are approximately 3.8 miles of NFTS road currently in need of maintenance or 

reconstruction to reduce sediment. Lower gradient reaches are sensitive and have the potential to 

be affected by units T4 and M8. The main channel draining the 503.0008 subwatershed is a Class 

I perennial creek that begins in unit RX3 and runs adjacent to M7, T4, and through M8. There is a 

100 foot SMZ assigned to this section of the drainage. Road 6S90 intersects the headwaters of the 

creek. There are no small tributaries to the main drainage of this watershed affected by road 5S18 

as drainages were not noticed above this road. Other tributaries to the main stem channel in the 

watershed have SMZs that range from 25 to 75 feet. 

Subwatershed 503.0010 

Upper Lewis Creek forms the west fork to Lewis Fork Creek. This channel has low to moderate 

gradients below road 5S17 and steeper gradients upstream of the road. Above the road the 

channel exhibits a marshy character suggestive of past logging practices when streamside zones 

were not protected as they are today. This thick, very wet accumulation of organic and 

sedimentary debris has been downcut 2+ feet. The channel flows in this downcut reach. The 

downcut reach has a very wide flood plain. The riparian area should be avoided by management 

activity because it is easily damaged due to its wet character. 

The only units that propose to have new road construction are units T-7 and T16 (Section 26). 

There are two possible routes that could be constructed: an east-west route that would connect FS 

road 6S07 to State Highway 41; and a roughly north-south road connecting FS road 5S17 to State 

Highway 41. The possible east-west route crosses a Class II stream with an SMZ of 75 feet; the 

possible north-south route crosses a Class I stream with an SMZ of at least 100 feet. The location 

of these potential crossings would be done in close coordination with aquatics and earth science 

to alleviate any concerns relative to riparian dependent species and follow applicable Standards 

and Guides (100, 101) in accordance with RCO#2. Moreover, any effects from the crossings 

would be mitigated by applicable BMPs for road and building site construction (in USDA-FS 

2000a p. 53-81). 

Tributary drainages in subwatershed 503.0010 are Class I to Class IV drainages. The drainage in 

unit T8 paralleling road 5S79, sec. 35/36, was closely evaluated. At the creek crossing along this 

road a culvert is non functional and water is concentrating along the roadbed. This is causing 

rilling down the road and should be fixed during road reconstruction. This area is recovering from 

past logging and is currently stable, but very delicate. Crossing this channel has the potential to 

affect the stability of the channel. Unit T-11 is proposed adjacent to a stream channel that is 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 111 

currently in poor condition, within a subwatershed (503.0010) that is considered sensitive to 

disturbance. Project design criteria have been developed to protect the channel from further 

degradation. Thinning trees is not expected to have much effect on annual yield or increase peak 

flows. 

Indirect Effects 

Indirect effects are those that occur at a later time or at a distance from the triggering action. 

Indirect effects are expected to be minor. Conservation measures incorporated into the project 

would be implemented to control erosion and sedimentation. The implementation of BMPs would 

avoid or minimize potential increases in sediment loads to streams during project implementation 

such that prescribed fires are not expected to affect aquatic habitats. Over the longer term, 

potential adverse effects on water and soils from implementing the Proposed Action are expected 

to be minor, and substantially less than if an uncontrolled wildfire were to occur. 

Cumulative Effects 

Based on field investigations and level of protection provided by BMPs, specifically SMZ width 

and associated treatment prescribed in RCAs in addition to wildlife considerations, it is not 

expected that any CWE would occur. 

The only watershed considered being at or near CWE prior to field investigations was Lewis-Red 

Rock (503.0055). Field investigations indicated that this drainage is predominately bedrock 

controlled and has little potential to be affected by the project. 

Alternative 3 

Under Alternative 3, the main focus would continue to be on the development of Strategically 

Placed Landscape Area Treatments (SPLATs) and creating defensible fuel profiles near key 

transportation corridors and in the defensive zone of the wildland urban intermix (WUI), similar 

to Alternative 2 (proposed action). Alternative 3 would differ from the proposed action in that 

fisher den sites would be buffered and a Limited Operating Period (LOP) implemented. 

Treatment within the dens site would include ladder and surface fuels (within the lower and midcanopy levels) needed to achieve fuels objectives within the WUI zones. If a new den site(s) were 

located during implementation, a 700-acre buffer and LOP would be established. Treatments 

outside the buffer would remain the same as Alternative 2. Table 24 shows a comparison of 

acreage between Alternative 2 and 3. The mastication and Rx burn methodologies would not 

change within the buffer, but the thinning treatment would differ as described above. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

112 Sierra National Forest Table 24. Activities Proposed within Project Area Subwatersheds under Alternative 3 

HUC8 Subwatershed 

501.5003 

501.5005 

501.5006 

501.5007 

501.5053 

501.5054 

503.0008 

503.0009 

503.0010 

503.0011 

503.0055 

503.3001 

Commercial/pre-commercial thinning or tractor piling 0 5 194 132 124 11 119 181 627 33 99 0 Lower canopy treatment/precommercial thinning or tractor piling 0 0 0 0 0 0 178 142 0 0 63 0 Mastication 19 8 79 0 34 18 110 294 3 138 80 14 Underburn 0 9 13 0 21 22 15 113 22 0 0 No Treatments 447 2207 352 536 1639 1429 523 1280 897 474 2322 1367 Subwatershed Acres 466 2229 638 668 1817 1480 945 2010 1549 645 2564 1381 % Subwatershed treated 4% 1% 45% 20% 10% 3% 45% 36% 42% 27% 9% 1% 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 113 

Direct Effects 

Direct effects are those occurring at the same time and place as the triggering action. The direct 

effects would be similar to those described under Alternative 2, except in subwatersheds 

503.0008, 503.0009, 503.0055 in that there would be less impact because the thinning 

methodology would only concentrate on ladder and surface fuels (within the lower and midcanopy levels). 

Indirect Effects 

Indirect effects are those that occur at a later time or at a distance from the triggering action. Like 

Alternative 2, indirect effects are expected to be minor. Conservation measures incorporated into 

the project would be implemented to control erosion and sedimentation. The implementation of 

BMPs would avoid or minimize potential increases in sediment loads to streams during project 

implementation such that prescribed fires are not expected to affect aquatic habitats. Over the 

longer term, potential adverse effects on water and soils from implementing the Alternative 3 are 

expected to be minor, and substantially less than if an uncontrolled wildfire were to occur. 

Cumulative Effects 

Based on field investigations and level of protection provided by BMPs, specifically SMZ width 

and associated treatment prescribed in RCAs in addition to wildlife considerations, it is not 

expected that any CWE would occur. 

The only watershed considered being at or near CWE prior to field investigations was Lewis-Red 

Rock (503.0055). Alternative 3 has less ground disturbing activities and field investigations 

indicated that this drainage is predominately bedrock controlled and thus has little potential to be 

affected by the project. 

Alternative 4 

Under Alternative 4, the main focus would continue to be on the development of Strategically 

Placed Landscape Area Treatments (SPLATs) and creating defensible fuel profiles near key 

transportation corridors and in the defensive zone of the wildland urban intermix. Treatments in 

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

and limited mid-canopy levels) needed to achieve fire and fuels objectives, and no additional 

treatments (i.e., additional thinning in the mid-level canopy) would occur. 

Gross acres of proposed treatments by subwatershed are displayed in Table 25. The actual area 

treated is expected to be less (approximately 85%) similar to Alternatives 2 and 3. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

114 Sierra National Forest Table 25. Activities Proposed within Project Area Subwatersheds under Alternative 4 (Acres Generated B

HUC8 Subwatershed 

501.5003 

501.5005 

501.5006 

501.5007 

501.5053 

501.5054 

503.0008 

503.0009 

503.0010 

503.0011 

503.0055 

Biomass/mastication/pre-commercial thinning or tractor piling 0 5 194 132 124 11 297 323 627 33 162 Mastication 19 8 79 0 34 18 110 294 3 138 80 1Underburn 0 9 13 0 21 22 15 113 22 0 0 No Treatments 447 2207 352 536 1638 1429 523 1280 897 474 2322 13Subwatershed Acres 466 2229 638 668 1817 1480 945 2010 1549 645 2564 13% Subwatershed treated 4% 1% 45% 20% 10% 3% 45% 36% 42% 27% 9% 1
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 115 

Direct Effects 

Direct effects are those occurring at the same time and place as the triggering action. The direct 

effects would be less than those described under Alternative 2, in that there would be less impact 

because the thinning methodology would only concentrate on ladder and surface fuels within the 

lower and mid-canopy levels. 

Indirect Effects 

Indirect effects are those that occur at a later time or at a distance from the triggering action. Like 

Alternative 2, indirect effects are expected to be minor. Conservation measures incorporated into 

the project would be implemented to control erosion and sedimentation. The implementation of 

BMPs would avoid or minimize potential increases in sediment loads to streams during project 

implementation such that impacts to aquatic habitats are not expected. Over the longer term, 

potential adverse effects on water and soils from implementing Alternative 4 are expected to be 

minor, and substantially less than if an uncontrolled wildfire were to occur.

Cumulative Effects 

Based on field investigations and level of protection provided by BMPs, specifically SMZ width 

and associated treatment prescribed in RCAs in addition to wildlife considerations, it is not 

expected that any CWE would occur. 

The only watershed considered being at or near CWE prior to field investigations was Lewis-Red 

Rock (503.0055). Alternative 3 has less ground disturbing activities and field investigations 

indicated that this drainage is predominately bedrock controlled and thus has little potential to be 

affected by the project. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

116 Sierra National Forest 

Forest Vegetation/Silviculture _________________ 

Affected Environment 

The Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project area has a history of numerous past logging 

activities. Over the past 125 years several small lumber mills have been supplied with logs from 

conifer stands within and adjacent to the proposed project area. During the 1880s a lumber mill 

along California Creek within Nelder Grove processed giant sequoia trees from Nelder Grove. 

Other small mills in the vicinity of the project as well as larger mills in the Oakhurst area also 

processed trees from within the project boundaries. Between 1923 and 1927 heavy railroad 

clearcut logging was carried out by the Madera Sugar Pine Company. through much of the project 

area. Logs from railroad logged stands were transported to the mill at Sugar Pine over its 140 

miles of track. The mill operated for 32 years averaging a 40 million board foot cut each year. 

Seven locomotives and 100 log hauling cars were in use during its peak. 

During the railroad logging at the beginning of the last century, logs were yarded by a system of 

cable settings. Deep gouging occurred in a number of places where logs dug into the soil as they 

were yarded to landings. As logs approached landings, more soil was generally displaced. In 

many cases, this reduced soil depths to almost bare rock. Settings can often be distinguished by a 

lack of conifer reproduction and an abundance of brush still today. However, between cableways, 

existing reproduction was often protected from damage. Logging slash was not treated following 

harvest. Today, much of this early reproduction remains as stands of generally 90 to 110 year old 

6 to 24 inch dbh incense cedar, sugar pine, ponderosa/Jeffrey pine, and white fir. 

During the 1960s, a significant effort was made throughout California to reforest, previously 

forested areas that were understocked. Approximately 180 acres that were railroad logged within 

the proposed project boundaries were planted during this period. 

Exclusion of fire from the vast majority of the area since the fires of the early 1900s resulted in 

the development of multi-layered stands. The understory layers consist of fir and incense cedar 

beneath young growth stands of ponderosa/Jeffrey pine, sugar pine, incense cedar, and white fir 

with, in some cases, an additional layer of brush beneath or adjacent. In pine plantations, incense 

cedar and white fir and /or brush have seeded in, thus creating significant fuel ladders. 

Although pockets of older trees can be found scattered through the proposed project area, past 

railroad and other logging as well as stand replacing fires have resulted in little of the area being 

vegetated with trees older than 130 years. The natural stands proposed for thinning within the 

project area generally consist of approximately 90 to 110 year old trees that were young saplings 

during the railroad logging era. Due to the warmer and drier predominately west and south 

aspects within the project area, the majority of stands present are considered to be pine types. 

These stands, once heavy to more fire resistant ponderosa and sugar pine, have become very 

heavy to less fire resistant incense cedar and fir. Plot data indicates that in many areas incense 

cedar comprises 40 to 80 percent of the basal area sampled. Mixed conifer aggregations and 

stands occupy areas near cooler, damper draws and at the higher elevations within the project 

area. Pine, mixed conifer and white fir stand basal area stocking varies from 120 ft2 per acre in 

more open areas to oak pockets to densely stocked pockets of 350 to 400 ft2 per acre or more. 

Canopy cover varies substantially across the project area. Canopy cover ranges from quite dense 

(80 to 100%) in overstocked areas to clumpy dense patches in less uniformly stocked areas to 

more moderate (50 to 70%) to fairly light in other locations. A number of brushfields, resulting 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 117 

from previous fires and early 1900s logging, are broken up by clumps of live and black oak and 

are found throughout the project area. 

Climatic Changes 

Tree ring studies have established that compared to the previous two centuries weather during the 

20th Century was relatively moist without the decades-long droughts that occurred earlier (Ferrell 

1996). Beginning in the 1970s temperatures began to warm noticeably. This warming resulted in 

a greater fraction of the Sierra Nevada precipitation falling as rain rather than snow, earlier 

snowmelt and earlier streamflow peaks (Dettinger 2004). The combination of reduced stand vigor 

and excessive stocking combined with increasing temperatures and decreasing soil moisture 

availability is greatly increasing the threat of loss due to mortality from insect attack, diseases, 

competition, or fire. 

The wetter than normal 20th Century coupled with the exclusion of fire has set the stage for stands 

to become overcrowded with competing conifers, oaks and other vegetation. Wide swings in 

climatic conditions over the past 30 years have placed stress on many of these stands. Inter-tree 

competition, drought, rising temperatures, and insect attacks are beginning to take a toll on both 

plantation and wild stand trees. White pine blister rust has also been killing a number of sugar 

pine over the past 10 to 15 years. Dead and down fuel loadings have been on the rise. These 

conditions are not unique to the Sugar Pine area. More extreme examples can be found in the 

Lake Tahoe Basin, San Bernardino National Forest and in Arizona and New Mexico where entire 

stands of trees are dieing. In southern California the amount of ponderosa pine mortality 

associated with western pine beetle, D. brevicomis Le Conte, infestations reached unprecedented 

levels after years of extended drought (Fettig 2007). 

Recurrent droughts are characteristic of the Sierra Nevada climate. Summers are usually hot and 

dry, with the bulk of the precipitation occurring in winter, much of it as snow. But in addition to 

the dry summers, there have been droughts of 1 or more years in duration in every decade of this 

century. Increased mortality usually occurs first at the lower and middle elevations on both 

western and eastern slopes of the range and spreads to the upper elevations only if the drought is 

protracted. During droughts, lack of spring precipitation has a particularly large influence, not 

only by increasing the susceptibility of the trees, as indicated by their rates of growth and beetlecaused mortality, but also probably aiding dispersal of and host selection by the flying beetles. In 

the ponderosa pine type because of the relatively low elevation, water availability, not 

temperature, is the strongest factor limiting forest growth (Ferrell 1996). 

As stated previously, beginning in the 1970s temperatures began to warm noticeably. Seasonal 

snowmelt and streamflow is projected to occur a month earlier during the current century. By the 

end of the 21st Century, 30 percent less water is anticipated to arrive in reservoirs between April 

and July. Soil moistures will dry out earlier and by summer be more severely depleted. 

Substantial changes in extreme temperature episodes (fewer frosts, more heat waves) are 

anticipated (Dettinger 2004). Over the past 17 to 29 years noncatastrophic mortality rates were 

found to have doubled over a series of 76 western forest plots. Increasing mortality rates could 

result in substantial changes in forest structure, composition, and function. This doubling of 

background mortality could cause a >50% reduction in average tree age in a forest, and a 

potential reduction in average tree size (van Mantgem 2009). Current projections of warming 

climates provide a greater opportunity for fire ignitions due to longer fire seasons. A higher 

probability of fire starts coupled with the changes in forest fuel conditions that occurred over the 

past century lead many to predict that large, generally more intense fires will become more likely 

than occurred historically (Skinner and Stephens 2004). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

118 Sierra National Forest 

Desired Condition 

The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision, 2004 (USDA-FS 2004) 

addressed the desired condition, management intent and management objectives for individual 

land allocations. These were brought forward in the Fresno River Landscape Analysis (July 

2005). 

The Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project boundary encompasses many different land 

allocations, some with specific desired conditions, i.e. spotted owl/goshawk/pacific fisher habitat 

and some with generalized desired conditions. In effect, all center on the need to restore both the 

structure and processes of old forest habitat ecosystems as a long-term strategy and with shortterm goals of reducing the adverse effect of wildfire and reducing stand susceptibility to 

insects/pathogens, competition and drought-related tree mortality. 

Density Management Measures 

Basal Area Stocking Levels 

Normal basal area stocking is considered to be that level at which mortality begins as additional 

growth takes place. Normal is generally described as basal area per acre and is the maximum 

amount of vegetation an acre can be adequately sustain over time. For a short period of time, 

basal areas in excess of normal can be maintained in some areas. A normal stand—or fully 

stocked stand—is a stand that, so far as any practical consideration is involved, utilizes its site 

completely. Maximum stocking is not implied; it practically never exists over a continuous area 

of more than a few acres (Meyer 1938). These normal stocking levels were calculated during the 

abnormally wet 20th Century and are most likely too dense to be maintained during the drier 

periods that are more likely the norm. Fairly recent studies have indicated that the exclusion of 

fire may have also resulted in normal basal area densities in excess of what would have been 

found during previous centuries. 

Four different yield tables are being used to determine normal stocking within the project area: 

 Yield of Even-aged Stands of Ponderosa Pine, Technical Bulletin No 630 (Meyer 1938). 

 Preliminary Yield Table for Second-growth Stands in the California Pine Region, 

Technical Bulletin 354, Mixed Conifer (Dunning and Reineke 1933). 

 Yield, Stand, and Volume Tables for White Fir in the California Pine Region, Bulletin 

407 (Schumacher 1926). 

 Growth Models for Ponderosa Pine: I. Yield of unthinned plantations in northern 

California, Research Paper, PSW-133 (Oliver and Powers 1978). 

As stands approach 80 to 90 percent of normal stocking, growth rates begin to decline 

significantly, stand vigor begins to suffer, and susceptibility to insect and disease attacks and 

drought stress increases. To reduce growth losses, maintain more viable stands, and retain canopy 

covers less susceptible to crown fires, this entry would thin stands to stocking levels that with 

growth will result in reaching 80 percent of normal in 15 to 20 years when the next thinning entry 

would need to take place. Utilizing basal area to describe desired stocking automatically takes 

into account varying diameters of trees within stands. For a given basal area, more trees per acre 

are retained in the residual stand in areas with smaller diameter trees than in areas of larger trees. 

The silvicultural prescriptions for ponderosa pine, mixed conifer and fir will be described 

utilizing basal area per acre. 

The desired condition for stocking levels and the measure used for comparison of alternatives is: 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 119 

 Average basal area in pine, mixed conifer, and white fir grouped by lightly and heavily 

stocked aggregations 

 Average potential basal area growth 

 Basal area following thinning - ponderosa pine - 135 ft2 per acre (50% normal) 

 Basal area following thinning - mixed conifer - 210 ft2 per acre (60% normal) 

 Basal area following thinning - white fir - 240 ft2 per acre (60% normal) 

Stand Density 

Another approach to stocking density management is Stand Density Index (SDI). This method 

compares stocking density to the maximum number of stems found by species which is 

substantially greater than that utilized for normal yield. Mortality studies completed in pine stands 

have been described using this density management approach rather than normal yield tables. 

Since SDI was used as a frame of reference for ponderosa pine in these studies, it will be used as 

well as basal area to describe the silvicultural prescriptions for pine stands. SDI studies have 

determined that the onset of competition between trees begins when stands reach 25 percent of 

SDI max. At 35 percent of SDI max the lower limit of full site occupancy and susceptibility to 

bark beetle attack begins, and at 60 percent SDI max is where the lower limit of self-thinning 

begins (normal stocking). Stands that approach SDI 365 usually suffer large losses from bark 

beetle epidemics—losses that equal or exceed periodic growth. The limiting SDI for ponderosa 

pine stands in northern California as defined by Dendroctonus bark beetles is 365 (45 percent of 

SDI max—approximately 200 ft2 basal area). Studies have shown that the vigor of trees in a stand 

is related to their ability to quickly respond to thinning and their susceptibility to various pests. A 

live crown ratio of at least 40 percent has been cited for a number of conifers as representing a 

generally acceptable level of individual tree vigor. For several coniferous species, a live crown 

ratio of 40 percent seems to correspond with an SDI of about 50 percent of the maximum SDI for 

the species. Catastrophic (extremely high) tree mortality from bark beetles can be prevented by 

reducing stand density below 150 ft2 per acre in basal area (33 percent of SDI max) (Long 1985). 

To ensure prompt response to thinning and minimize mortality, pine stands should be maintained 

between 30 and high of 50 percent of SDI max. 

For this proposed project, forested stands would meet stocking (as measured by percent of normal 

for the given site) and the associated density levels (as measured by basal area for a given site) 

that would maintain or improve growth rates, would increase resistance to mortality agents 

(insects/pathogens/fire) and would provide the potential to begin the perpetuation of both the 

structure and processes of old forest habitat ecosystems. This desired condition incorporates both 

short and long-term goals, but is focused on the need for continued maintenance of stands that are 

healthy and sustainable. 

The desired condition for Stand Density Index and the measure used for comparison of 

alternatives is: 

 SDI - ponderosa pine 30 percent of SDI max (135 ft2 per acre) 

Methodology for Analysis 

In determining the existing condition and analyzing the effects of the alternatives associated with 

the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project, many sources of information were utilized. These 

included aerial photography interpretation, field verification of stand conditions, cruise plot data 

validation, evaluation and summarization, California Wildlife Habitat Relationship site-specific 

vegetation type correction and verification, and experience in the implementation of similarly 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

120 Sierra National Forest 

designed past projects. Scientific and research documentation was utilized to evaluate the 

potential effects of all alternatives and in determining the measures to be evaluated for meeting 

the purpose and need with regards to forest health. 

The SNFPA 2004 describes the use of thinning from below as the primary silvicultural 

prescription to utilize in managing stand densities to provide resiliency and sustainability during 

drought conditions and climate variations. Stand density index and basal area (ft2 per acre) are 

used as common measures in determining the effects of management actions on coniferous 

stands. For retention of maximum growth and vigor, thinning entries should be timed to occur 

before growth rates in potential leave trees begin to slow. At this point, leave trees are still 

retaining substantial crown ratios and have the greatest potential for maximum growth. Thinning 

should be undertaken before crown ratios drop below 40 percent (Emmingham 1983) (Long

1985). As competition between trees increases, crown vigor decreases. A stand’s ability to 

respond to thinning progressively declines the longer it remains in competition. Some stands 

proposed for treatment are currently at this maximum potential response level while others are 

beginning to decline and should have already been treated. 

For this project stand density (number of stems per acre) as well as basal area (ft2 per acre) is used 

to determine which stands/aggregations are considered overcrowded and in need of thinning 

(treatment area designation), at what stocking level the stand/aggregation needs to be (desired 

condition), the silvicultural prescription for each alternative and the associated short (immediate) 

and long-term (length of effectiveness of treatment) effects of design criteria (specifically those 

associated with old forest habitat dependent species), and the effects the standards and guidelines 

and land allocations have on meeting the purpose and need for forest health. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct Effects 

With this alternative, no commercial, biomass or pre-commercial thinning would be 

accomplished. Understory incense cedar, white fir and brush cover would continue to increase in 

size and density. Fuel ladders and competition between trees would increase. Growth rates and 

vigor would continue to decline as stands, or portions of stands, continue to approach or exceed 

normal stocking. Understocked plantations would not be replanted. 

Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Wide swings in climatic conditions as has been experienced over the past thirty years would 

continue to place increased stress on these untreated stands. Trees in overstocked and/or brush 

choked plantations would continue to experience increased competition. Mixed conifer and fir 

aggregations and stands with stocking levels approaching or exceeding normal would become 

increasingly susceptible to mortality. Excessive stand/aggregation densities in ponderosa pine 

stands would result in the likelihood of heavy mortality. Drought and insect induced mortality 

would escalate. Insect infestation centers would likely move onto private property and 

organizational camps. Snags and jack-strawed down material would increase. Basal area tree 

growth of only 15 to 20 ft2 per acre would occur over a 15 to 20 year period (if excessive 

mortality does not occur) in more densely stocked aggregations. Forest health in the area would 

decline and elevate the risk of loss due to wildfire. Not only would the potential for loss of these 

stands to insect attack and drought increase, but their ability to respond to future thinning would 

continue to decline as crown vigor deteriorated as treatment was postponed. Experience has 

shown that even a course of no action is not without consequence (Fettig 2007). Doing nothing 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 121 

will result in forests that continue to deteriorate over time because wildfire today no longer 

operates in its historical fashion, that of frequent low-intensity surface fires (Fitzgerald 2005). 

Fuel continuity would not be broken up. Brushfields and over stocked precommercial size conifer 

pockets would not be treated. The threat of fire moving into or out of population centers within 

the Wildland Urban Intermix (WUI) would increase, not decrease. Nelder Grove would remain 

highly susceptible to significant damage from fire. The threat of loss of wildlife habitat 

designated as Protected Activity Centers (PACs), Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs) and fisher 

den site buffers would increase. Agee (2005) concludes in his report that the No Action 

Alternative is not a risk-free option, as dry climates regularly predispose forests to burn in a 

typical dry summer. He further states that the impacts of no action in dry forest ecosystems must 

recognize the likelihood of stand-replacing, intense fire where stand density has increased and 

dead fuel accumulated in excess of historical levels. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Under Alternative 2, the development of Strategically Placed Area Treatments (SPLATs) would 

occur. Additional areas would be treated to provide a defensible fuels profile near key 

transportation corridors and within the defense zone of the wildland urban intermix. In addition to 

those treatments needed to meet fire and fuels objectives, treatments would be undertaken to 

reduce stand densities (basal area and/or pre-commercially thin) to a level that maintains or 

improves the growth and vigor of remaining trees. Treatments included in this alternative are: 

thinning from below in conifer stands (either precommercially, biomassing or commercially), 

and/or masticating excess vegetation (conifers and brush) to reduce lower, mid-level 

(intermediates and co-dominants) canopy stand densities; masticating brush and shrub patches; 

prescribed burning, both understory and piles; manually reducing and/or prescribed burning 

noxious weed infestations; and site preparing, planting and subsequently hand releasing failed 

conifer plantations. 

As part of the proposed action, design criteria common to all alternatives have been incorporated 

and are part of the proposed action. As such, analysis of the direct, indirect and cumulative effects 

of the action alternative addresses not only the proposed action, but the effects of these design 

criteria as they relate to vegetation and silvicultural management in the project area. 

Direct Effects 

Commercial thinning needs to be undertaken in the approximately 90 to 110 year old young

growth stands and pine plantations to reduce competition and provide room for crown expansion 

by removing the more poorly growing trees, excess trees, and fuel ladders from these stands 

before competition results in much additional reduction in growth, or competition, insect, disease 

or fire related mortality increases. 

Studies have shown that active management through thinning is critical to maintaining healthy 

trees that are less susceptible to mountain pine beetle attack. A 1998 study assessed the effects of 

thinning from below (alone and in combination with prescribed burning) on tree growth, leaf 

physiology and several environmental factors in ponderosa pine on the Gus Pearson Natural Area 

in Arizona. Soil water content was greater in thinned treatments than in the unthinned control. 

Similar findings have been reported in northern Arizona and western Montana, and can be 

attributed to increased water availability resulting from decreased tree competition. Trees in 

thinned treatments had greater foliar nitrogen content, needle toughness and basal area increment. 

The results suggest that restoration treatments improved tree vigor, growth and decreased the 

likelihood of bark beetle attacks on individual trees. A similar study compared measures of tree 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

122 Sierra National Forest 

susceptibility to bark beetle attack in thinned ponderosa pine plots in northern Arizona. Phloem 

thickness significantly increased with decreasing stand density. Duration of resin flow and 24 hr 

resin flow were significantly higher in thinned plots. Increases in these variables suggest 

improved host vigor and reduced likelihood of bark beetle attack. An increase in predawn xylem 

water potential, net photosynthetic rate, foliar nitrogen concentration and bud and needle size 

resulting in increasing foliar growth and uptake of water and nutrients was reported in similar 

stands. It has been noted that phloem thickness and basal area increment were lower in 

unmanaged stands than in managed. Studies have shown that thinning significantly reduced the 

amount of ponderosa pine mortality caused by mountain pine beetle in northeastern California 

(Fettig 2007). The largest increase in photosynthetic rate and predawn water potential increases 

due to thinning was found to be during periods of drought (Feeney 1998). Several studies have 

shown that thinning from below not only reduces ladder fuels and the risk of torching, but by 

reducing stand density tree vigor is improved and risk to bark beetle attack reduced (Fitzgerald 

2005). By reducing competition through thinning, mistletoe infected residual trees will 

experience increased height growth thus slowing the upwards spread of mistletoe into tree crowns 

(Ferrell 1996). By increasing tree vigor, diseased trees will be better able to withstand the effects 

of drought or insect attack. 

This entry would commercially or biomass thin stands on slopes generally less than 35% outside 

of PACs, and Old Forest Linkages to stocking levels that, with current growth, would result in 

returning stands to 80 percent of normal basal area stocking 15 to 20 years following harvesting 

(Table 37 in Appendix D displays a sampled data comparison of existing to proposed action 

conditions for species composition, age, site, numbers and sizes of trees, basal area, crown 

closure, mean diameters and number of plots taken). Maintaining a stocking level that remains at 

80 percent or less of full (normal) stocking will ensure a healthy rate of growth while retaining a 

level of stocking that will be better able to survive the lower levels of yearly precipitation that 

were common prior to the past century. Black oaks will be retained in treated stands longer by 

reducing competition and overtopping by nearby conifers. Treated stands would also be less 

susceptible to climatic fluctuations and longer summer dry spells which appears to be becoming 

more and more prevalent. Reentry in 15 to 20 years was chosen for several reasons: (1) reduce 

the number of entries into the stand, (2) increase the volume removed to make the entry more 

economically viable, (3) open the stand sufficiently to permit harvest operations with a minimum 

of damage to the residual stand, (4) treat the stand to a level where for a period of at least 10 

years, fires except under the most extreme conditions, would remain as ground fires and not 

become crown fires as directed by the National Fire Plan, (5) retain canopy covers that meet or 

exceed those directed under the SNFPA 2004 while opening the canopy to maintain or improve 

growth and vigor over 15 to 20 years. 

To obtain some benefits from thinning, while retaining species specific canopy cover levels 

following harvest, thinning in wild pine stands is proposed to generally reduce stocking to leave 

basal areas of around 150 to180 ft2 per acre depending on age, site, and existing crown condition 

(55 to 60 percent of normal—32 to 40 percent SDI max). This entry will still result in the 

retention of basal areas substantially above the stand density index recommends for thinning (150 

ft2 should be in locations where leave trees have full crowns and 180 ft2 per acre should be in 

areas with poorer crown leave trees, higher growing sites, older trees and in HRCAs). Normal 

stocking for this site and age is 270 to 290 ft2 per acre. Portions of stands with larger diameter 

trees present will generally have fewer residual trees per acre than those with smaller diameter 

trees. Because this entry would retain a higher basal area than the desired condition, to maintain 

stand resiliency, the next thinning entry may need to take place at 10 to 15 years in these pine 

stands rather than the planned 15 to 20 as the more limited growing space becomes reoccupied. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 123 

Where diameter restrictions permit, young growth, approximately 90 to 110 year old, mixed 

conifer and white fir stands would be thinned to 55 to 65 percent of normal. Leave basal areas, 

depending on site index and age, would be around 210 ft2 per acre (MC) and 240 ft2 (WF). 

(Normal basal area stocking for 90 to 110 year old mixed conifer stands on similar sites ranges 

from 330 to 360 ft2 per acre. Normal for White Fir ranges from 420 to 445 ft2 per acre). Canopy 

covers that meet or exceed those directed under the Sierra Nevada Framework would be retained 

following treatment. To obtain maximum growth and reduce fuel ladders, 4 to 9 inch dbh trees 

not needed for stocking are planned to be removed with this entry within the treatment areas not 

designated as mastication or prescribed fire. Portions of a number of units include short, steep 

pitches to 50 percent. These can be harvested by directional felling and endlining logs to more 

gentle slopes where they can be skidded to landings. Except for mastication equipment, 

equipment use on these steeper slopes should be avoided. 

Thinning to these target basal areas in these approximately 90 to 110 year old young growth 

stands should result in basal area increases of 70 to 80 ft2 per acre over 15 to 20 years. If thinning 

did not occur, this increase in growth over the same time period would be 15 to 20 ft2 per acre 

within the more heavily stocked aggregations if mortality does not occur. 

Except where retained for wildlife purposes, suppressed, intermediate, damaged and diseased 

then finally co-dominant trees, in order of removal, would be harvested until the prescribed 

stocking level has been reached. This is known as thinning from below as directed in the 2004 

ROD and recommended in the North, et al, 2009 paper. The poorest quality trees are removed 

first, leaving the best trees in the stand. Thinning from below retains the majority of the crown 

cover and generally the largest trees. Many small, poor crowned trees are removed during the 

operation. Some poorer crowned co-dominant trees are removed, as needed, to create openings on 

one or more sides of other co-dominant and dominant trees. These openings provide room for 

crown expansion of the residual trees. Without room for expansion, remaining tree crowns will 

become less vigorous resulting in reduced photosynthesis and declining growth. Removal of only 

intermediate and suppressed trees results in “little more than the salvage of trees which will 

inevitably die (Smith 1962)”. Removal of some of the trees that compete for the limited water and 

soil nutrients will make more water and nutrients available for the remaining trees. Thinning also 

opens the stand’s crown canopy, making more light available for the remaining trees. The 

increased water, nutrients, and light that result from thinning increase photosynthesis in the 

remaining trees. More food is produced making more carbohydrate available for new cell 

formation and growth. After competition begins and the stand develops all crown classes, 

removing only intermediate and suppressed trees may not significantly reduce the competition 

faced by the larger dominant and co-dominant trees. Suppressed trees, in particular do not 

compete significantly with larger trees. Intolerant species (pines) require nearly full sunlight to 

thrive and grow. A successful low thinning removes all suppressed, most intermediates, many codominants, and even some dominant trees (Emmingham 1983). 

The effects of fuel treatments on tree based carbon storage are currently being studied. Healthy 

forests play an important role in carbon sequesterization. Studies indicate that “in wildfire-prone 

forests, tree-based C stocks were best protected by fuel treatments that produced a low-density 

stand structure dominated by large fire resistant pines (Hurteau 2009). Average stand diameters 

increase significantly following thinning as smaller diameter trees are removed in favor of 

retaining larger trees. Concentrating removal on the smaller diameter trees also reduces fuel 

ladders and susceptibility to fire loss as average residual diameters and fire resistance increases. 

Biomass and follow-up treatments to remove submerchantable trees and brush will further reduce 

stress on the remaining stand. Where choices exist, more fire resistant pines would be favored 

over fir and incense cedar as leave trees. In most areas, stand composition following treatment 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

124 Sierra National Forest 

will consist of a greater percentage of more fire and drought resistant ponderosa and sugar pine as 

recommended in the North paper (2009). Although existing stand composition averages about 40 

percent pine and sugar pine, 39 percent incense cedar, 15 percent white fir, and 6 percent oaks, it 

is estimated that 75 percent of the trees to be removed will be incense cedar, 10 percent will be 

white fir and 15 percent will be ponderosa and sugar pine. Thirty (30) inch harvest tree diameter 

limitations dictated by the SNFPA 2004 ROD will, in many areas, result in basal area retention 

levels in excess of proposed residual basal areas. In some cases in pockets of larger trees, no trees 

will be harvested. In these types of thinnings, the smaller size of the product to be removed makes 

harvest operations much more expensive than those where larger trees are removed. 

Thinning to the proposed basal areas will result in increased diameter growth and crown 

expansion on the remaining trees as the residual trees respond to reduced competition. Since 

increased diameter growth will occur over fewer stems per acre, substantial increases in diameter 

will result. Repeated thinning will result in larger diameter, taller, healthier crowned trees over 

much shorter time frames than in unthinned stands. Shade intolerant pines and oaks will be 

retained in a more vigorous condition as a result of more available sunlight due to reduced 

competition. As the diameters of the residual trees become larger, they will become better able to 

survive a fire should one occur. Thinning is an effective technique for creating stands that more 

closely represent those present prior to railroad and other extensive logging and the exclusion of 

fires during the 20th Century. 

Biomass, hand and mastication thinning and release of natural stands/aggregations of conifers and 

plantation trees generally less than 10 inches dbh would be undertaken as part of this proposal. 

These thinned aggregations would occupy large and small openings surrounded by larger trees as 

described in the North paper (2009). Depending on tree size these stands would be thinned to 

around 150 to 200 leave trees per acre. Hand thinning slash concentrations would generally be 

tractor piled and piles burned. Slash concentrations on steeper slopes would generally be hand 

piled and burned. Areas of only light slash (10 to 20 tons per acre) would be lop and scattered to 

18 inches. Stand hetrogenity would be maintained through retention of these precommercially 

thinned clumps as well as untreated clumps on steeper slopes, the more dense clumps of larger 

diameter trees, SMZs, archaeological sites, and the two to three untreated larger oaks per acre. 

Some underburning is proposed as a fuels reduction and understory management treatment within 

the proposed project boundaries. Underburning should only be done in portions of those stands 

with larger, more fire resistant residual trees and fairly light slash concentrations. Where scattered 

heavy slash concentrations are present, some piling of slash may need to be done prior to 

underburning. Due to the location of much of the proposed underburning, it is anticipated that late 

fall and early winter (after wetting rains) as well as early spring underburning may be possible. 

Late spring burning should not be attempted due to the high susceptibility of new growth to heat 

damage. In most cases, areas that have been masticated should not be underburned. Brush seed 

requires heat scarification to germinate; underburning will only help germinate brush seed present 

in the soil. Since white leaf manzanita is a non-sprouting species, in those areas where large white 

leaf manzanita has been masticated below the lowest live limb, reestablishment of manzanita 

brushfields would mostly occur through germination of manzanita seed. The masticated mulch 

layer covering the ground will reduce soil temperatures which will assist in keeping brush seed 

dormant and reduce the likelihood of brushfield reestablishment. The fuels officer and 

silviculturist should field coordinate all areas to be underburned prior to undertaking 

underburning. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 125 

Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Within HRCAs (Home Range Core Areas) and Old Forest Linkages the aim as stated in the 

SNFPA 2004 is to retain 60 percent or greater canopy cover, where available. (The intent of the 

Sugar Pine project is to retain canopy cover of 60 percent or greater in CWHR 4 and 5 size 

classes where it presently exists.) Within those portions of Spotted Owl and Goshawk PACs 

(Protected Activity Centers) where thinning is proposed, the aim is to retain 70 percent or greater 

canopy cover, where available. 

In addition to the denser canopy cover proposed for PACs and Old Forest Linkages, groups or 

patches of five or more larger trees, generally 30 inches and larger, are planned to be retained 

through the project area. These small groups will have residual basal areas of 240 ft2 or more for 

mixed conifer and 210 ft2 or more for pine and in many instances may reach 300 to 400 ft2 per 

acre. Approximately 2 to 3 black oaks 20 inches dbh and larger per acre would also have a 35 

foot buffer, measured from the bole, around them where no fuels treatment would occur. 

Retention of these higher basal areas to provide a more dense canopy cover will result in not fully 

meeting the silvicultural objectives for maintaining or improving forest health. The impact will 

not be as great in mixed conifer and fir stands as it will be in pine. Retaining 60 percent or greater 

basal area in pine stands leaves them at a level where stand density index studies have shown 

them to be susceptible to insect attack. Pine stands left at 70 percent or greater will remain at SDI 

max levels of 50 percent or greater (SDI 400 or more) and will be highly susceptible to insect 

attack. Oliver 1995, stated that a SDI 365 (200 ft2 per acre), defines the threshold for a zone of 

imminent bark beetle mortality where pine stands suffer large losses from bark beetle epidemics. 

These losses can equal or exceed periodic growth. Subsequent growth of these stands will add 

further to the problem. Sufficient thinning will occur in some of the proposed scattered clumps to 

provide a short term benefit to stand vigor while in other clumps little, if any, thinning will occur 

resulting in a continued decline in clump vigor. Pine clumps left at these higher basal area 

retention levels will continue to be at a very high risk of loss due to insect, disease, competition, 

and/or drought induced mortality. A 2004 report found that plots infested by mountain pine beetle 

had significantly higher total basal area, ponderosa pine basal area, stem density and stand density 

index (Fettig 2007). Heavily stocked pine clumps attacked by insects have the potential to serve 

as infection centers for increased mortality in the surrounding pine stands as insect populations 

build and move into adjacent stands. To maintain more vigorous, drought and insect resistant 

stands, a shorter reentry period will be needed. The reentry time frame within HRCA, PAC, and 

Old Forest Linkage pine stands and these more heavily stocked clumps will likely be reduced by 

5 or more years. 

Since the vast majority of the crown covers and ground cover will remain in place following 

thinning operations, properly conducted thinning has only a minor short term affect on the 

environment. Leave trees will continue to contribute needles as well as small branches to the 

forest floor. Little soil movement and little, if any, increased runoff should occur as a result of 

this entry. Standard Streamside Management Zones will be maintained with any thinned trees 

being endlined out of the SMZs. Therefore, stream course stability will not be adversely affected. 

Long term affects will be to maintain or increase growth and vigor of treated stands, accelerate 

development of old forest characteristics in plantations, and improve the protection of human 

communities from wildland fires as well as minimize the spread of fires that might originate in 

urban areas, and reduce the threat of wildfire burning into and significantly damaging Nelder 

Grove. Over the past fourteen years, the district has planned and completed several projects, 

treating several thousand acres, similar to the proposed action. Canopy cover retention following 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

126 Sierra National Forest 

harvest has met or exceeded expectations. Residual crowns have rapidly filled in openings created 

by harvest treatments. 

In addition to the benefits obtained through density management several other benefits have been 

noted in treated stands. Several studies have shown that in addition to increasing residual tree 

vigor, increasing temperatures and windspeeds are common in recently thinned stands. This may 

accelerate development of certain bark beetle species and force them to overwinter in stages that 

are more susceptible to freezing or cause turbulences that disrupt pheromone plumes used for 

recruiting conspecifics during initial phases of host tree colonization (Fettig 2008). Moderate 

thinnings may result in less potential extreme fire behavior compared to unmanaged stands. 

Greater fuel depths, mid–flame wind speeds and lower fuel moistures in heavily treated stands 

(>60 percent basal area reduction) might increase potential fire behavior compared to unmanaged 

stands. Thinning followed by sufficient treatment of surface fuels usually outweighs changes in 

fire weather factors (wind speed and fuel moisture) resulting in an overall reduction in expected 

fire behavior (Jenkins, et al 2008). Thinning followed by tractor piling and burning or whole tree 

yarding have been shown to be effective in reducing fire severity under severe fire weather 

conditions. Thinning from below where the largest trees are retained within the stand contributed 

to increased fire resistance (Stephens 2009). Thinning makes fire suppression more efficient. 

Once heavy fuels are removed, the residence time (duration) of the fire is reduced, often resulting 

in a non-lethal surface fire (Fitzgerald 2005). The thinning proposed within the Sugar Pine project 

is designed to reduce existing basal area by generally 30 percent or less. Biomass and post sale 

treatments are designed to remove fuel ladders as well as slash concentrations. This relatively 

light level of thinning should both realize the benefits of thinning stands to reduce the adverse 

effect of bark beetles while reducing expected potential fire behavior.

Alternative 3 

This alternative is the same as Alternative 2 except that within the Fisher den buffer only fuel 

ladder removal and precommerical thinning will be undertaken. 

Direct Effects 

Except for the Fisher den buffer, the effects of thinning will be the same as described under 

Alternative 2. Within the Fisher den buffer (mostly involving treatment area T-4) very little to no 

density management will occur. Fuel ladder removal will be concentrated on suppressed and 

some intermediates. Few, if any, co-dominant trees would be removed. Table 40, Appendix D 

displays a sampled data comparison of existing to proposed action conditions for treatment area 

T-4, the predominant area affected by the Fisher den buffer. Except for some intermediate trees 

greater than 10 inches dbh with green crowns growing to within 10 feet of the ground, few trees 

greater than 10 inches dbh would be removed. It is estimated that within this buffer area only 

about 74 trees per acre would be removed instead of the proposed 159. One-hundred and fortytwo (142) trees would remain instead of 57. A large percentage of these additional trees would be 

fire prone incense cedar. The average stand diameter within the buffer would increase only 

slightly. Of the existing 320 ft2 of basal area sampled, 310 ft2 would remain in the stand following 

treatment. This compares to 190 ft2 that would be remaining under Alternative 2 (The prescribed 

leave basal area for this pine stand is 150 to 180 ft2 per acre—normal stocking is 270 to 290 ft2

per acre). 

As stated previously, Smith (1962) stated that removal of only intermediate and suppressed trees 

results in “little more than the salvage of trees which will inevitably die”. Emmingham (1983) 

stated that a successful thinning from below requires the removal of many codominants as well as 

most intermediates and suppressed trees. Fuel ladder removal alone would not remove sufficient 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 127 

competition to meet density management objectives. Failure to remove some of the co-dominants 

and intermediates growing into the bottom portion of the co-dominant layer of the stand will not 

create openings in the canopy to provide room for crown expansion of the residual trees. Shade 

intolerant oaks and pines will not be able to benefit from increased light and rates of 

photosynthesis provided by openings created in the canopy cover. 

Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Except for the Fisher den buffer, the indirect and cumulative effects of thinning will be the same 

as described under Alternative 2. The indirect and cumulative effects for density management for 

the Fisher den buffer will be the same as in the No Action Alternative. Post treatment stocking 

levels within the buffer would be too dense to withstand the stresses of drought and climatic 

variances within the Fisher den buffer. 

Alternative 4 

This alternative proposes to only remove fuel ladders and pre-commercially thin throughout the 

treatment areas. 

Direct Effects 

Very little to no density management would be accomplished with this alternative. Fuel ladder 

removal would be concentrated on suppressed and some intermediates. Few, if any, co-dominant 

trees would be removed. (Table 37 in Appendix D displays a sampled data comparison of existing 

to proposed action conditions.) Except for some intermediate trees greater than 10 inches dbh 

with green crowns growing to within 10 feet of the ground, few trees greater than 10 inches dbh 

would be removed. Ninety (90) to 100 per cent of the existing basal area 5 inches dbh and larger 

would remain. Two to three times as many trees 5 inches dbh and larger would remain compared 

to Alternative 2. The percentage of fire prone incense cedar and fir would remain close to 

existing. The average stand diameter would increase only slightly. Shade intolerant pine and oaks 

would become less vigorous and continue to drop out of the stands. Post treatment stocking levels 

would be too dense to withstand the stresses of drought and climatic variances. 

As stated previously, Smith (1962) stated that removal of only intermediate and suppressed trees 

results in “little more than the salvage of trees which will inevitably die”. Emmingham (1983) 

stated that a successful thinning from below requires the removal of many co-dominants as well 

as most intermediates and suppressed trees. Fuel ladder removal alone does not remove sufficient 

competition to meet density management objectives. Failure to remove some of the co-dominants 

and intermediates growing into the bottom portion of the co-dominant layer of the stand will not 

create openings in the canopy to provide room for crown expansion of the residual trees. Shade 

intolerant oaks and pines will not be able to benefit from increased light and rates of 

photosynthesis provided by openings created in the canopy cover. This alternative does not meet 

the purpose and need for density management emphasized in the SNFPA, 2004 decision and 

being examined as a part of this project. 

Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

The indirect and cumulative effects for density management for this alternative will be the same 

as in the No Action Alternative. Post treatment stocking levels within the buffer would be too 

dense to withstand the stresses of drought and climatic variances. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

128 Sierra National Forest 

Fire/Fuels __________________________________ 

Introduction 

Presettlement fire strongly influenced the structure, composition and dynamics of most Sierra 

Nevada ecosystems. Many species and most communities show clear evidence of adaptation to 

recurrent fire, further demonstrating that fire has long been a regular and frequent occurrence. 

This is particularly true in the chaparral and mixed conifer communities, where many plant 

species take advantage of or depend on fire for their reproduction or as a means of competing 

with other biota. In many areas frequent surface fires are thought to have minimized fuel 

accumulation, keeping understories relatively free of trees and other vegetation that could form 

fuel ladders to carry fire into the main canopy (USDA-FS 1996). 

Forest structure and species composition in many western U.S. coniferous forests have been 

altered through fire exclusion, past and on-going harvesting practices, and livestock grazing. The 

effects of these activities have been most pronounced in seasonally dry, low and mid-elevation, 

coniferous forests that once experienced frequent, low to moderate intensity fire regimes. 

Increased stand density, decreased overall tree size, and increased surface fuel loads are well 

documented for many forests of this type (Stephens, S. et al. 2009). Conifer stands generally have 

become denser, mainly in small and medium size classes of shade-tolerant and fire-sensitive tree 

species (USDA-FS 1996). These changes concern fire managers because the increased fuel loads 

and altered forest structure have made forest vulnerable to fire intensities and severities outside of 

the desired conditions and outside of historic fire regimes for these ecosystems. Changing 

climates in the next several decades may further complicate fire management by increasing 

temperatures and fire season length (Stephens, S. et. al. 2009). Fires now occur less frequently 

and cover much less area, but are likely to be large and severe when they do occur (USDA-FS 

1996). 

Fire represents both one of the greatest threats and one of the strongest allies in efforts to protect 

and sustain human and natural resources in the Sierra Nevada. Residents and visitors alike are 

well aware of the threats posed by summer wildfires. A growing density of homes and other 

structures coupled with the increased amount and continuity of fuels resulting from twentiethcentury fire suppression have heightened concern about threats to life and property, as well as the 

health and long-term sustainability of forests, watersheds, and other natural resources. Yet fire 

has been an integral part of the Sierra Nevada for millennia, influencing the characteristics of 

ecosystems and landscapes. Today, State, Federal and local agencies put enormous resources into 

efforts to reduce fire occurrence while at the same time advocating the need to use fire to promote 

healthy ecosystems. The challenge faced is how to restore some aspects of a more natural fire 

regime while at the same time minimizing the threat wildfire poses to human and natural 

resources and values (USDA-FS 1996). 

Affected Environment 

The Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project area encompasses five distinctive vegetation 

complexes. These include: (1) conifer plantations, (2) young (90 to 110 year old) mixed conifer 

stands, (3) mixed chaparral stands, (4) white and red fir conifer stands and/or (5) a combination of 

these. These vegetative complexes are results of various processes including wildland fires, 

effective fire suppression efforts, turn of the century timber harvesting and reforestation efforts. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 129 

Fire History 

This area has a history of large fire occurrence. On September 10, 1922 a fire starting in the area 

of Sugar Pine occurred when the Madera Sugar Pine Lumber Company sawmill caught on fire 

and burned towards the Westfall area. By the time containment was reached, a total of 540 acres 

had been consumed. In 1924, three fires burned around the Sugar Pine Community. One fire 

burned just south of present day Westfall Fire Station below Highway 41, this fire was 

approximately 160 acres in size. To the north and west of Sugar Pine a fire originating in the 

vicinity of Happy Camp along Highway 41 burned up to the private property of the Yosemite 

Mountain Ranch. This fire was contained at 800 acres. To the east of Sugar Pine along road 5S18 

(Dillon Orchard Road) a fire burned 106 acres before being contained. 

Tables 26, 27, and 28 show the Fire History Records (fires >100 Acres) within and outside of the 

Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project area (henceforth known as the Sugar Pine Project). 

Map 1 in Appendix A of this document shows the approximate perimeters of these fires and their 

proximity to the community of Sugar Pine and the project area. 

Table 26. Fire History within the Project Boundary 

Year Size/Acres General Location 

1922 540 Into Sugar Pine Community 

1924 800 North West of community/In Yosemite Mtn. Ranch 

1924 160 West of Community 

1926 106 East of Community 

Table 27. Fire History Outside of the Project Boundary (Generally South of Sugar 

Pine) 

Year Size 

1917 139 

1920 99 

1930 701 

1934 304 

1942 359 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

130 Sierra National Forest 

Table 28. Fire History within a 4-mile radius of Sugar Pine 

Year Size 

1911 162 

1917 2,236 

1917 1,159 

1924 10,310 

1928 21,194 

1934 304 

1942 359 

1958 803 

1957 647 

1959 11,076 

1961 43,330 

Logging 

Heavy railroad logging entries (1900 through 1931) in the Sugar Pine and Nelder Grove area 

coupled with fire exclusion since the 1920s have resulted in development of dense fuel ladders. 

These consist of understory layers of fir and incense cedar beneath young growth stands of 

ponderosa pine, and sugar pine. Also in many of the pine plantations, incense cedar and white fir 

and brush have seeded in beneath the canopy, creating significant fuel ladders. 

Fire Behavior in Current Fuel Loading 

The Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project (hence forth known as Sugar Pine Project) area 

has three dominant arrangements of fuels that influence fire behavior. These are: ground, surface 

and crown fuels. Ground and surface fuels can be described utilizing the Intermountain Fire 

Science Laboratory (IFSL) Fuel Models (Anderson 1982) and Scott and Burgan fuel models 

(2004) for estimating fire behavior. This is used to aid in describing the type and average amount 

of fuel given a particular vegetation type and the prediction of the type of fire behavior expected 

under certain weather and topographic conditions. Crown fuels are generally described in 

relationship to the density of crowns (canopy bulk density) and their height above the surface 

fuels (canopy base height). 

Surface Fuels 

Ground and surface fuels within the Sugar Pine Project area can be described by using the IFSL 

Fuel models, IFSL Fuel Model 6 (intermediate brush) best describes the surface and ground fuels 

in plantations, mixed conifer stands and mixed chaparral areas. 

In areas within plantations where bear clover has re-established itself with minimal amounts of 

dead natural fuel accumulations, an IFSL Fuel Model 2, Timber (grass and understory) is used. 

The ground and surface fuels within the mixed conifer stands that do not have brush as the main 

understory component fall into three IFSL Fuel Models 9, 10 and 12. The difference between 

these three fuel models comes from the increasing amounts of ground and surface fuels. IFSL 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 131 

Fuel Model 9 has the lightest amount of ground and surface fuels associated with it and is used to 

describe the conifer stands in Sugar Pine Project area that have not started to deteriorate from 

drought stress and/or over crowding and the trees have not begun to fall on their own. This fuel 

model would also describe where there are large areas where small saplings and suppressed trees 

have begun to fill in the understory of larger trees. Surface fuel loadings in the Sugar Pine Project 

area that are representative of IFSL Fuel Model 9 average between 3 and 10 tons per acre. 

IFSL Fuel Model 10 and 12 are used to describe those conifer stands where natural fuel and 

activity generated accumulations of ground and surface fuels are beginning to increase. These 

surface fuels are of larger size, mostly 3 or more inches in size and can increase the intensity of 

surface fires within the area. These fuels include not only the branches and needles of fallen trees, 

but also include the boles, increasing the tons per acres of natural fuels on the ground rapidly. 

Surface fuel loadings in the Sugar Pine Project area that are representative of IFSL Fuel Model 10 

average between 12 and 25 tons per acre. Surface fuel loadings that are representative of IFSL 

Fuel Model 12 average between 25 and 40 tons per acre. 

Crown Fuels 

The crown fuels in the Sugar Pine Project area can be described in two ways; (1) crown fuels that 

can lead to the propagation of a crown fire and (2) crown fuels available to sustain a crown fire. 

There are two elements that need to fall into place for a crown fire to start and for it to sustain 

itself, fuel ladders (vegetation that “stair-steps” up in height and can allow a fire to reach the 

crowns of trees) and canopy density (in simple terms, how close together individual tree crowns 

are, usually given as a percentage of space taken up by the tops of trees). 

In the Sugar Pine Project area, fuel ladders are heavy and continuous, consisting of natural 

regeneration of conifers (mainly white fir and incense cedar) and in some areas regeneration of 

conifers and brush. These fuel ladders start at the surface layer and have grown to the point of 

having a continuous “stair-step” of available fuels into the bases of the canopy trees. 

The canopy fuels in the Sugar Pine Project area are varied from open to heavily closed 

(approximately 100% canopy closure). Areas where there is a combination of heavy, continuous 

fuel ladders and canopy closure is closed (interlocking of crowns in the canopy) the potential for 

initiation and sustainability of a crown fire is the greatest. 

Wildland Urban Intermix (WUI) 

Communities (wildland urban intermix zones) within and surrounding the project area have been 

rapidly developing over the last several years. The community of Sugar Pine is encompassed by 

the project area with scattered residences and businesses along the Highway 41 corridor. To the 

north is the community of Fish Camp, with Teneya Lodge (popular visitor destination outside of 

Yosemite National Park) directly adjacent to the project area and Wawona in Yosemite National 

Park. South of the Sugar Pine Project area lies the community of Cedar Valley. Farther south lays 

the community of Oakhurst. To the east, lies the Nelder Grove Historical Area of giant sequoia. 

With the continuity of the fuels within the Sugar Pine project area, a wildland fire originating 

from along Highway 41 or Cedar Valley area, under the right conditions, has the potential to 

spread northward or eastward to the communities of Sugar Pine, Fish Camp, Yosemite National 

Park and/or Nelder Grove. 

Desired Condition 

The SNFPA ROD, 2004 establishes a desired condition for each land allocation. In particular, the 

desired condition for each land allocation incorporates how and what type of vegetation 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

132 Sierra National Forest 

complexes are desired for each. These are referenced in short and long term conditions and are 

influenced by the temporal and spatial influences of fire. With this in mind, the land allocations 

and their specific desired conditions used in this report include: 

Wildland Urban Interface 

Defense Zone (USDA-FS 2004; page 40) 

 Stands are fairly open and dominated primarily by larger, fire tolerant trees. 

 Surface and ladder fuel conditions are such that crown fire ignition is highly unlikely. 

 The openness and discontinuity of crown fuels, both horizontally and vertically, result in 

very low probability of sustained crown fire. 

Threat Zone (USDA-FS 2004; page 41) 

Under high fire weather conditions, wildland fire behavior in treated areas is characterized as 

follows: 

 Flame lengths at the head of the fire are less than four feet; 

 The rate of spread at the head of the fire is reduced to at least 50 percent of pre-treatment 

levels; 

 Hazards to firefighters are reduced by managing snag levels in locations likely to be used 

for control prescribed fire and fire suppression consistent with safe practices guidelines; 

 Production rates for fireline construction are doubled from pre-treatment levels; and 

 Tree density has been reduced to a level consistent with the site’s ability to sustain forest 

health during drought conditions. 

Fuels treatments outside of the WUI and within other land allocations are to establish and 

maintain a pattern of area treatments that is effective in modifying wildfire behavior (USDA-FS 

2004; pages 45-48). There are specific means and conditions by which treatments can be

conducted within some land allocations because of maintaining habitat needs as well as 

perpetuating such conditions (i.e. old forest emphasis areas). 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under Alternative1, current management plans would continue to guide activities in the project 

area. This includes all ongoing activities with existing decisions or permits that would not be 

changed if this alternative were selected including: underburning, plantation maintenance, cattle 

grazing, recreation, and recreation residences. 

Under Alternative 1 there would be no thinning; precommercial, commercial and/or biomass, 

accomplished. Fuel ladders and competition between trees would not be reduced and/or removed. 

Forest health in the area will continue to decline. No connection and augmentation of fuel 

treatments within and adjacent to the Wildland Urban Interface would be completed. No 

fuelbreak maintenance work would be completed. Aerial fire suppression would not support 

ground forces due to the inability of retardants to reach ground fuels because of closed canopy 

cover. 

Direct Effects 

Natural fuel accumulations would continue to increase as more trees begin to succumb to 

overcrowding, drought, insect and pathogens. This would increase the amount of ground and 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 133 

surface fuels within the area. This increase in ground and surface fuels would gradually begin to 

shift the potential fire behavior in the area, to a more severe stature if a wildfire were to start. This 

increase would be to a more severe surface fire as the type of fuels changed from branches and 

needles (0 to 1 inch material) to the larger size material (3 or more inches). This change is best 

represented by fuel model changes or conversions. Brush covered areas would gradually become 

older and more decadent, converting from an IFSL Fuel Model 6 into an IFSL Fuel Model 4. 

Mixed conifer areas that begin as IFSL Fuel Model 9 would convert to IFSL Fuel Model 10. As 

accumulated natural surface fuel loadings increased, a further conversion from IFSL Fuel Model 

10 to IFSL Fuel Model 12, similar to that of a moderate slash fuel loading could occur in some 

areas. IFSL Fuel Model 2 is used to represent the surface fuel conditions existing in some conifer 

plantation. Under Alternative 1, this would not change, but additional accumulations of larger 

diameter branch wood, twigs and perhaps boles of trees could increase the average tons/acre of 

surface fuels, increasing the fireline intensity and resistance to control. Firefighters with 

handtools or water from fire engines would become less effective. Crown fire potential would 

also remain high because none of the elements needed to propagate and sustain a crown fire 

would be removed (fuel ladders and canopy density). Because of the increased amount of surface 

fuels and the increased fire behavior associated with them, these potential crown fires would have 

the potential to propagate over a larger area. Tables 29 and 30 show the indicators for current 

existing conditions and those associated with the conversions in IFSL Fuel Models under 

Alternative 1. 

Table 29. Indicators for IFSL Fuel Models of Brush Covered Areas 

Indicator Existing Converted 

Fuel Model 6 4 

Average Rate of Spread (ch/hr) 24.8 91.6 

Average Flame Length (feet) 5.8 22.9 

Average Fireline Intensity (Btu/ft/s) 258 5131 

Crown Fire Potential (transition and type) Yes; Crowning Yes; Crowning 

Resistance to Control (low, mod., high) High High 

Average Fuel Loading (tons/acre) 6.0 13.0 

Average Mortality (%) N/A N/A 

It is assumed that mortality in the brush species would be from stand replacing (100%) or patchy 

dependent on the percent cover of the brush. For mortality to occur in brush there need only be 

enough fire to girdle the main stem. With the predicted fire behavior, as shown above, it is 

anticipated that in Fuel Model 6, as currently exist, there would be mortality, but not as great as in 

Fuel Model 4, because of the lower amount of dead woody material found on the brush. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

134 Sierra National Forest 

Table 30. Indicators for IFSL Fuel Models in Timber Covered Areas 

Indicator Existing Existing Converted Converted

Fuel Model 9 2 10 12 

Average Rate of Spread (ch/hr) 10.3 48.3 10.3 16.2 

Average Flame Length (feet) 3.5 7.8 6.0 9.6 

Average Fireline Intensity (Btu/ft/s) 84 500 282 781 

Crown Fire Potential (transition and type) Yes; 

Crowning 

Yes; 

Crowning 

Yes; 

Crowning 

Yes; 

Crowning 

Resistance to Control (low, mod., high) Moderate 

to High 

Low to 

Moderate 

High High 

Average Fuel Loading (tons/acre) 3.5 4.0 12.0 34.6 

Average Mortality in White Fir / 

Ponderosa Pine (%) 

35 / 22 97 / 94 79 / 65 99 / 97 

Tables 29 and 30 above tables give an indication of what type of fire behavior could be expected 

if a fire were to occur within these fuel beds as they currently exist and in the anticipated fuel 

beds into the future with no management action taken. Because of the variability in the three 

facets needed to predict fire behavior; fuel, weather and topography that exist within the Sugar 

Pine Project area, there would be variations in the conditions and results of wildfire. On northern 

aspects, conditions would be expected to be cooler than southern aspects, lending to slightly 

slower and slightly less intense fires. Lower fuel loadings could produce slower rates of spread 

and intensities than predicted above. There are conditions that could produce higher rates of 

spread and intensities than in the above tables as well. These would include increased slopes, 

wind conditions, greater surface fuel loadings (both small and large down-woody debris) and 

increased density of ladder fuels. 

Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, as listed in the project file for the Sugar Pine 

Project area, along with fire management policy of full suppression at the smallest size (97 

percent of all fires will be controlled at 10 acres or less from Sierra NF LRMP (USDA-FS 1991, 

1996) have contributed to the current existing condition for the Sugar Pine Project area and are 

used to depict the existing condition and the resultant fire behavior within the project area. 

Fire Suppression / Fire Use 

As surface fuels continue to accumulate naturally, with no additional management actions, 

suppression efforts will gradually become more difficult, whereby direct attack could no longer 

be used in suppressing a fire, but have to be changed to more indirect tactics, whereby more area 

has the potential to be affected by fire, in some cases high intensity and more severe fire. With the 

increases in fire behavior generated by these surface fuel changes, fire suppression forces would 

have higher resistance to control (the relative difficulty of constructing and holding a control line 

as affected by resistance to constructing line due to fuel loading and by fire behavior), and aerial 

retardants would be less effective due to closed continuous canopy. If fire were to start in or burn 

into the Sugar Pine Project area, ground and aerial initial attack operations as well as extended 

attack would become less effective and firefighter and public safety would be difficult to ensure. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 135 

Under Alternative 1, full suppression would continue to be the management direction for the 

Sugar Pine Project area. Because of the continued and potential increased threat to life and 

property, under Alternative 1, firefighting resources would focus strategies and tactics on 

reducing the impacts on communities, protecting infrastructure and private property as the highest 

priority followed by protection of natural resources. 

Under Alternative 1, there would be very limited to no potential to allow fire to play its natural 

role on the landscape. The risk of escape and the consequential effects associated with utilizing 

fire without some form of management activity to reduce current surface fuel loadings and ladder 

fuels would be too great. Although prescribed fire could be implemented under more controlled 

conditions than those conceivably present during the summer fire season, it would be a very 

narrow prescription window that could produce reasonable outcomes that would be beneficial 

versus detrimental. Just like wildfire, prescribed fire produces air quality concerns, risk of escape, 

potential negative impacts to resources (from control lines and fire itself), resource commitments 

and political and social impacts. 

Fire Effects 

Fire influences many portions of a fire dependent ecosystem by either its presence or even its 

absence. Forest stand structures, wildlife habitat, aquatic communities, watersheds, plant 

communities and soil conditions, to name a few can be influenced. Without frequent fire to clean 

the understory of stands, excessively dense stands lead to drought stress and bark beetle 

outbreaks, resulting in wide spread mortality of trees in many areas and the potential for extensive 

mortality. This leads to a large increase in the amount and continuity of both live and dead forest 

fuels, resulting in a substantial increase in the probability of large, severe wildfires 

(Weatherspoon, C.P. 1996). These are directly correlated to the conversions of IFSL Fuel Models 

discussed in the direct effects section. 

With increased rates of spread, flame lengths, and fireline intensities there is potential for greater 

fire effects to occur. Because of existing changes in tree species composition, from fire resistant 

to fire susceptible, tree mortalities would increase with small incremental changes in wildfire 

intensity. This, in combination with drought or insect/pathogen induced mortality in overstocked 

stands, could greatly increase the amount of surface fuel loading, thus increasing fire behavior 

and intensity of subsequent wildfires. Under Alternative 1, there would be no reduction in surface 

and ladder fuels, to raise mean canopy base heights and/or decrease canopy bulk densities as has 

been suggested in the desired condition for creating fire resilient stands. Vertical continuity of 

fuels from the forest floor to the crowns of overstory trees would be present and with sufficient 

radiant/convective heat could produce crown fire. Some studies and models, however, suggest a 

crown fire entering a stand is rarely sustained (i.e., sustained only under extreme weather 

conditions) (North, M., et. al. 2009). Calculated and predicted crown fire potential (see Tables 29 

and 30) show that conditions are present in the Sugar Pine Project area to produce the potential 

for crown fire. This could be in the form of torching single trees, groups of trees and/or active 

crown fire dependent on weather, fuels and topography of where the fire were to occur. 

Crown fires remove much or the entire tree canopy in a particular area, essentially resetting the 

successional and growth processes of stand and forests. These fires typically, but not always kill 

or temporarily reduce the abundance of understory shrubs and trees. Crown fires have the largest 

immediate and long-term ecological effects and the greatest potential to threaten human 

settlements near wildland areas (Graham, R., et. al. 2004). For wildlife species dependent on 

diverse forested landscapes (heterogeneity) and old forest characteristics for habitat, this 

successional “set-back” could pose negative consequences. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

136 Sierra National Forest 

Although crown fires would be considered of higher consequence of negative effects, surface and 

ground fires with higher intensities similar to those predicted and anticipated in this alternative, 

can also have negative impacts. While surface fires can reduce vegetation and woody, moss, 

lichens and litter strata, ground fires that consume large amounts of woody fuels and organic soil 

horizons can produce disproportionately large amounts of smoke. Ground fires reduce the 

accumulation of organic matter and carbon storage and contribute to smoke production during 

active fires and long after flaming combustion has ended. These fires can also damage and kill 

large trees by killing their roots and the lower stem cambium. Because ground fires are often of 

long duration, they may result in greater soil heating than surface or crown fires, with the 

potential for reducing organic matter, volatilizing nutrients, and creating a hydrophobic layer that 

contributes to erosion. Areas where the ground cover is removed and severely burned will likely 

see decreased infiltration of water, increased surface runoff and peak flows, and the formation of 

pedestals, rills and gullies (Graham, R., et. al. 2004). 

Depending on the setting (in particular topography and soil), perennial streams downstream from 

fires can be impacted by large volumes of sediment. Depending on the recovery of the hillslopes, 

these fire effects can be long lasting, and relatively little can be done to stop the problem. Large 

amounts of sediment can be delivered to reservoirs, reducing water storage capacity and 

potentially affecting fish and macroinvertebrate habitat (Graham, R., et. al. 2004). 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Under Alternative 2, the development of Strategically Placed Area Treatments (SPLATs) would 

occur. Additional areas would be treated to provide a defensible fuels profile near key 

transportation corridors and within the defense zone of the wildland urban intermix. In addition to 

those treatments needed to meet fire and fuels objectives, treatments would be created to reduce 

stand densities (basal area) to such a level as to improve the growth and vigor of remaining trees. 

Treatments included in this alternative are: thinning from below in conifer stands, either by precommercially, commercially, biomassing and/or mastication of vegetation (conifers) to reduce 

lower and mid- level canopy stand densities; mastication of brush and shrub patches; prescribed 

burning, both understory and piles; manual reduction and/or prescribed burning of noxious weed 

infestations; and prepare and plant failed conifer plantations. 

Creating Fire Resistant Forests 

Fire resistant forests combine fire resistant tree species suitable to a site in a spatial arrangement 

that discourages surface fires from moving to the crowns. Crowns are made more resistant to fire 

by reducing surface and ladder fuels as well as increasing the height of the base of the canopy. 

Canopy Base Height (CBH): 

 Is the lowest height above the ground at which there is sufficient canopy fuel to 

propagate fire (Van Wagner 1993); 

 Is the average crown base height for the stand; 

 Is the lowest 20th percentile of all crown base heights in the stand (Hoffman 2005, Fulé 

et al. 2001, 2002); 

 The height at which a minimum bulk density of fine fuel (30 lb/acre/ft, 0.011 kg/m3 ) is 

found (Beukema et al,1997); and 

 CBH is the lowest height above the ground at which there is sufficient canopy fuels to 

propagate fire vertically through the canopy (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 137 

Also decreasing the crown density and removing smaller trees while retaining larger more fire 

resistant trees reduces the risk of crown fire. 

Table 31. Principles of Fire Resistant Forests 

Recommendation Physical Effects Fire Advantage Concerns 

Reduce surface and 

ladder fuel 

Reduces potential 

flame length 

Fire control easier, 

less torching 

Surface disturbance less with 

fire than other techniques 

Increase canopy base 

height 

Requires longer flame 

length to ignite tree 

crowns 

Less torching Opens under story, may allow 

surface wind to increase 

Decrease crown density Makes independent 

crown fire less 

probable 

Reduces crown fire 

propagation 

Surface wind may increase, 

surface fuel may be drier 

Retain larger trees Thicker bark and 

taller crowns 

Increases 

survivability of 

trees 

Removing only smaller trees 

is economically less feasible 

Retain fire resistant tree 

species 

Promotes trees most 

likely to survive fires 

Reduces mortality 

from future fires 

Repeated treatments may be 

necessary to promote desired 

trees 

Source: Adapted from Agee 2002 by Graham et. al. 2004 

The table above is displayed in this report to assist in demonstrating the types of treatments 

proposed to achieve the purpose and need of the Sugar Pine Project, the physical effects, fire 

advantage and concerns associated with each recommended means to affect fire behavior. The 

following associates the predicted fire behavior results of each level of treatment proposed by this 

and all action alternatives. 

Direct Effects 

Under this alternative, thinning from below, through biomass, precommercial and/or commercial 

means would focus first on the smaller trees for removal gradually moving through the lower 

canopy levels with the potential to remove trees within the mid-level canopy to reach a 

silviculturally-prescribed basal area and stocking level. Through the treatments in Alternative 2, 

the recommendations in Table 31 are accomplished by reducing surface and ladder fuels, 

increasing canopy base height, decreasing crown density, retaining larger trees and retaining fire 

resistant tree species. 

Fuel Model Changes 

Under Alternative 2, existing fuel model would be converted to another fuel model, typically a 

fuel model with lower surface fuel loadings and reduced fire behavior. In areas currently 

represented by IFSL Fuel Model 6, mastication would be used to convert it to an IFSL Fuel 

Model Timber/Understory (TU) 1. Mastication in effect does not remove the fuel from the site, 

but changes the structure of the fuel from a vertical orientation to a horizontal orientation. Small 

chips, shredded material and/or crushed fuels (dependent on masticator head) are left on site. A 

fuel model that represents an increase in fuel loading in the 10 and 100-hour time lag categories is 

needed to show this. TU1 is used as the base fuel model with increases in 10 and 100-hour fuel 

loadings to approximately 2 tons per acre each and the removal of live woody fuel loading to 

approximate this conversion. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

138 Sierra National Forest 

In timbered stands represented as IFSL Fuel Model 9, there would be or no conversion to a 

different fuel model. In stands represented by IFSL Fuel Model 10, biomass and thinning from 

below would convert them to an IFSL Fuel Model 8 or 9, dependent on the overstory and surface 

fuels remaining. In some cases, a short-term conversion to an IFSL Fuel Model 12 may occur 

until post activity treatments were completed, then a conversion to an IFSL Fuel Model 8 or 9 

would result. 

The fuel model conversions shown are used to depict the conditions anticipated in the surface fuel 

bed changes as a result of the treatments proposed in this alternative. This alternative is also 

anticipated to raise canopy base heights, with the thinning or removal of ladder fuels from an 

average of 0 to 10 feet to an average of 20 feet. Canopy bulk density will also be decreased 

through the thinning of lower and mid-level canopies. It is estimated that, on average the canopy 

bulk density will be changed from 0.19 kg/m3 to 0.14 kg/m3 under Alternative 2. 

Surface and Ladder Fuels 

The removal and/or thinning of the lower canopy in effect removes the ladder fuels that can 

provide the means for surface fires to “climb” into the overstory canopy. In areas where there is a 

significant amount of ladder fuels present, biomass operations will be used to remove excess 

material. It is anticipated there would be small amounts of additional fuels added to the current 

surface fuel loading through this type of operation because the material would be taken in whole 

tree form to a landing for removal versus limbs/tops cut off and left within the stand (known as 

lop and scatter). In areas where brush species are the dominant vegetation cover, masticators will 

be used to in effect change the vertical continuity of the fuel. While mastication does not actually 

remove fuel from the area, it does change the structure from a vertically oriented fuel (ladder 

fuel) to a horizontal fuel potentially making fire suppression resistance to control lower and fire 

effects less in most cases. In areas where there are lower amounts of ladder fuels and/or smaller 

areas, mastication and/or hand cutting will be used to open or separate the lower canopy from the 

mid to upper level canopy. Typically, these areas have lower levels of surface fuels existing 

(smaller amount of trees/vegetation, less amounts of naturally accumulated or activity generated 

surface fuels). 

Dependent on the type of harvest system used for removal of excess commercial-sized material, it 

is anticipated there may be a short-term increase in surface fuel loading or no significant increase. 

Whole-tree yarding, used as a harvesting system, can minimize the amount of activity generated 

fuels (Stephens, S. 2009). If whole tree yarding is not used, additional post harvest treatments will 

be needed to reduce surface fuel loadings that are in excess of 20 tons/acre (USDA-FS 2004). 

These post activity treatments would include dozer and/or hand piling and burning and/or 

broadcast/jackpot burning. 

Fire Behavior / Fire Effects 

Table 32 shows the predicted results of fuel model conversions anticipated with this alternative. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 139 

Table 32. Indicators for IFSL Fuel Models of Brush and Timber Covered Areas 

Indicator Existing Existing Existing Converted Converted Converted 

Fuel Model 6 9 10 12 TU1 9 

Average Rate of 

Spread (ch/hr) 

24.8 10.3 10.3 11.0 7.5 5.8 

Average Flame 

Length (feet) 

5.8 3.5 6.0 8.1 3.0 2.7 

Average Fireline 

Intensity 

(Btu/ft/s) 

258 84 282 531 63 47 

Crown Fire 

Potential 

(transition and 

type) 

Yes; 

Crowning 

Yes; 

Crowing 

Yes; 

Crowning 

Yes; 

Torching 

No; Surface No; Surface 

Resistance to 

Control (low, 

mod., high) 

High Low to 

Moderate 

High High Low Low 

Average Fuel 

Loading 

(tons/acre) 

6.0 3.5 12.0 34.6 6.0 3.5 

Average 

Mortality in 

White Fir / 

Ponderosa Pine 

(%) 

N/A 35 / 22 79 / 65 96 / 93 N/A 15 / 8 

The above table gives an indication of what type of fire behavior could be expected if a fire were 

to occur within these fuel beds as they currently exist and in the anticipated fuel beds after 

treatments were to occur. Because of the variability in the three facets needed to predict fire 

behavior; fuel, weather and topography within the Sugar Pine Project area, there would be 

variations in the conditions and results of wildfire. On northern aspects, conditions would be 

expected to be cooler than southern aspects, lending to slower and less intense fires. Lower fuel 

loadings could produce slower rates of spread and intensities than predicted above. There are 

conditions that could produce higher rates of spread and intensities than in the above tables. 

These would include increased slopes, wind conditions, greater surface fuel loadings (both small 

and large down-woody debris) and increased density of ladder fuels. 

Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, as listed in the project file for the Sugar Pine 

Project area, along with fire management policy of full suppression at the smallest size (97 

percent of all fires will be controlled at 10 acres or less from Sierra NF LRMP (USDA-FS 1991, 

1996) have contributed to the current existing condition for the Sugar Pine Project area and are 

used to depict the existing condition and the resultant fire behavior within the project area. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

140 Sierra National Forest 

Fire Suppression and Fire Use 

Alternative 2 in effect reduces ladder fuels which in turn increases canopy base height. Canopy 

density (in the form of canopy bulk density) is decreased through the thinning of the mid-level 

canopy, but to a small extent through the reduction in fuel ladders. These, in combination, reduce 

rates of spread, flame length, fireline intensity, resistance to control and the potential for a fire to 

transition into crown fires. If full fire suppression continues as the management strategy for 

unplanned ignitions within the project area, fire suppression resources will have an increased 

capacity to control fires at initial attack with minimized risk to their safety (and the public) and 

increased ability to keep these fires small in size with the use of direct attack tactics versus 

indirect tactics. Fires would typically drop from the crowns to the forest floor. Aerial fire fighting 

resources would be better able to penetrate the canopy to aid ground resources with reduced 

canopy density, even moderate amounts as an indirect effect of treatments in Alternative 2. 

Design features used to minimize effects and/or retain habitat structures preferred by wildlife 

species such as; grouping of larger trees, oak retention with ladder fuels retained under them and 

Old Forest Linkages with limited treatments will have lower potential for loss since there will be 

treated areas between them and are not continuous. This would be similar to the variability in 

forest conditions produced by frequent fire (North 2009). 

In utilizing mechanical treatments, as in Alternative 2, stand structures are modified quickly and 

more precisely than with prescribed fire alone (North 2009). Under this alternative, treatments are 

effective in breaking up the horizontal and vertical continuity of live fuels in the lower canopy 

layers and/or in effect pre-treating the stands to more readily allow prescribed fire to be reintroduced. Silvicultural cuttings can only partially substitute for fire (Weatherspoon 1996). This 

alternative allows increased potential to utilize prescribed fire as either a maintenance treatment 

and/or in conjunction with mechanical treatments as a follow-up process to achieve forest 

resilience. Fire could mimic the natural ecosystem functions of frequent low-to-moderate severity 

fire. Under this alternative, prescribed fire, whether burning of piles and/or broadcast burns can 

be implemented with less risk of escape, with a broader range of acceptable conditions and in 

some cases less impacts to air quality (Weatherspoon 1996). 

Fire Effects 

With the removal of what is considered the suppressed, intermediate and some co-dominates 

within a stand, the vegetation considered ladder fuels would be removed. Conifer species such as 

Ponderosa Pine and Sugar Pine, which are considered more fire resistant, would be favored to 

remain in a stand over shade tolerant and fire sensitive species, such as incense cedar and white 

fir. Incense cedar and white fir make up the largest percentage of conifers found in the understory 

of stands in the Sugar Pine Project area (based on sampled plot data). These species also tend to 

have increased susceptibility to wildfire as well tend to have limbs that stay closer to the ground 

providing increased ability to take surface fires into the crowns in the form of single tree torching 

or group torching. With species composition favored towards the more fire resistant, shade 

intolerant species and fire behavior modified, effects to stands (mortality) would be decreased. 

As part of this alternative, treatments would be implemented to reduce surface fuels, where 

needed. In most cases, as been experienced in past projects similar to this alternative, these areas 

are not continuous over the entire treatment area. If a fire was to start in an area where these 

surface fuels have not been reduced, fire behavior would be increased (as represented by IFSL 

Fuel Model 12). The results of wildfire impacts on areas treated only with mechanical methods 

are mixed. Some burned with higher intensity, than those where mechanical treatments were 

followed by prescribed burning, though with lower severity than untreated control areas 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 141 

(Stephens, S. 2009). The timing and sequence of these “clean-up” treatments are dependent on 

several factors, such as adequate funding and completion of harvesting operations. Those 

treatment areas closest to WUI will be treated first and then will progress into other areas from 

there. As stated earlier the surface fuel load changes would be largely based on harvesting system 

used. If whole-tree yarding is used, post treatment areas where natural fuel accumulations are 

above 20 tons/acre would be the areas where secondary treatment would be used. These are areas 

expected to be less (acres) in need of surface fuel reduction. 

With reduction in fire behavior, the effects of fire on other ecosystem components would be 

reduced and perhaps enhanced. Many are resistant or often have favorable responses to low to 

moderate fire intensity and severity. The idea of preemptive work that restores historic fire 

regimes has not been widely discussed, considered, or used to address both the ecological and 

social issues surrounding fires and watershed resources. The same can be said for many of the 

wildlife species that live and depend on the forested ecosystem. At risk species, and the 

ecological functioning systems they depend on, cannot be sustained or recovered without the 

immediate and longer-term ecological functioning provided by fire. In Alternative 2, integrating 

fire and fuels management objectives and forest health restoration with at-risk species 

conservation and protection are made. This is needed to provide both the viability of human 

communities and at-risk species where both overlap (Sugihara, N., et.al. 2006). 

Climate Change and Fire Severity Relationships 

As stated earlier, weather (climate) has a large influence on fire behavior and is also the most 

difficult to predict. Associated with the purpose and need to reduce stand densities to levels where 

trees would be more resilient to drought conditions, reducing surface and ladder fuels to reduce 

wildfire intensity and spread, can also produce benefits in drought conditions. Research suggests 

global mean minimum temperatures may have already begun to rise. One effect of this change for 

western forests would be earlier spring melt of mountain snow packs. An analysis of western U.S. 

fire season length over the last 50 years suggests that during the last two decades, fires begin 

earlier in the spring and occur later in the fall possibly due to this trend in elevated nighttime 

minimum temperatures. Though there are variations in predictions and models, one point of 

consensus is that most agree the climate will become more extreme, suggesting oscillations 

between wet and drought conditions will be more common (North 2009). 

Managing forests under these conditions will be challenging. In the face of uncertainty, adaptive 

strategies should focus on three responses; resistance (forestall impacts and protect highly valued 

resources), resilience (improve the capacity of ecosystems to return to desired conditions after 

disturbance), and response (facilitate transition of ecosystems from current to new conditions) 

(North 2009). All of these are focuses that Alternative 2 is attempting to address through its 

purpose and need for changes in forest structure capable of surviving climate changes and 

reduction in fuels to adapt fire behavior that occurs under current climate and ignition conditions 

(North 2009). 

Alternative 3 

Under Alternative 3, all treatment areas would be carried forward from Alternative 2, but in areas 

where there are known Pacific fisher den sites, treatments within associated den site buffer would 

include only those treatments needed to achieve fire and fuels objectives (treatment of surface and 

ladder fuels). All other treatment areas would continue to treat for both fire/fuels and forest health 

(stand density) objectives. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

142 Sierra National Forest 

Direct Effects 

Under Alternative 3, there would be no significant change in the direct effects from those listed 

under Alternative 2. There is a potential for a decreased amounts additive surface fuel loading 

within the known fisher den site area resulting from less conifers being removed. As stated in 

Alternative 2, resultant increases or decreases in surface loadings from harvesting operations are 

dependent on the type of harvesting operations that are used. By increasing canopy base heights 

and reducing surface fuel loadings, fire and fuels objectives are met. 

Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative 3, there would be no significant change in the indirect and cumulative effects 

from those listed under Alternative 2. There is a potential for aerial firefighting resources to be 

less effective in the Pacific fisher den site area with no reduction in mid-level canopy densities. 

Increased crown densities in the den site area would make it difficult for retardant and/or water 

dropping from helicopters to penetrate to the ground. In assuring the reduction in ladder fuels to 

raise canopy base heights from 0 to 10 to 20 feet and reducing surface fuel loadings, fire intensity 

and spread are reduced to desired condition levels and meet the fire and fuels objectives stated in 

the purpose and need of the project. 

There is little to nothing is done to reduce forest stand densities within the Pacific Fisher den site 

area though with this alternative and could produce losses from drought induced mortality, insect 

and disease. Long term, these types of disturbances could induce increases in surface fuel 

loadings and/or increased snag levels producing conditions similar to those already existing in the 

project area with resultant fire behavior (intensity and spread rates) similar to those predicted in 

Alternative 1, with the exception of crown fire potential. It is assumed that with the reduction in 

ladder fuels, there would be increases in rates of spread, increase flame lengths, increased fireline 

intensity, and increased resistance to control, similar to that seen in IFSL Fuel Model 9 and/or 10 

in Alternative 1, but this would be as a surface fire with potential for crown fire reduced and/or 

eliminated. Fire intensities could cause the potential for single or group tree torching because of 

the increased number of fire susceptible trees such as white fir and incense cedar left in the stand, 

but this is expected to be less than in Alternative 1. 

Alternative 4 

Under Alternative 4, all treatment areas would be carried forward from Alternative 2, but 

treatments would include only those needed to achieve fire and fuels objectives (treatment of 

surface and ladder fuels). 

Direct Effects 

Under Alternative 4, there would be no significant change in the direct effects from those listed 

under Alternative 2. As in Alternative 3 direct effects, there is a potential for a decreased amounts 

additive surface fuel loading within all “T” treatment areas resulting from less conifers being 

removed. As stated in Alternative 2, resultant increases or decreases in surface loadings from 

harvesting operations are dependent on the type of harvesting operations that are used. By 

increasing canopy base heights and reducing surface fuel loadings, fire and fuels objectives are 

met. 

Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative 4, there would be no significant change in the indirect and cumulative effects 

from those listed under Alternative 2. There is a potential for aerial firefighting resources to be 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 143 

less effective in all “T” treatment areas with no reduction in mid-level canopy densities. Increased 

crown densities in the den site area would make it difficult for retardant and/or water dropping 

from helicopters to penetrate to the ground. In assuring the reduction in ladder fuels to raise 

canopy base heights from 0 to 10 to 20 feet and reducing surface fuel loadings, fire intensity and 

spread are reduced to desired condition levels and meet the fire and fuels objectives stated in the 

purpose and need of the project. 

There is little to nothing done to reduce forest stand densities within the Pacific fisher den site 

area. This alternative could produce losses from drought induced mortality, insect and disease. 

Long term, these types of disturbances could induce increases in surface fuel loadings and/or 

increased snag levels producing conditions similar to those already existing in the project area 

with resultant fire behavior (intensity and spread rates) similar to those predicted in Alternative 1, 

with the exception of crown fire potential. It is assumed that with the reduction in ladder fuels, 

there would be increases in rates of spread, increase flame lengths, increased fireline intensity, 

and increased resistance to control, similar to that seen in IFSL Fuel Model 9 and/or 10 in 

Alternative 1, but this would be as a surface fire with potential for crown fire reduced and/or 

eliminated. Fire intensities could cause the potential for single or group tree torching because of 

the increased number of fire susceptible trees such as white fir and incense cedar left in the stand, 

but this is expected to be less than in Alternative 1. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

144 Sierra National Forest 

Air Quality _________________________________ 

Introduction 

Although there are many sources that can and do influence air quality, such as stationary, areawide, mobile and natural sources, the two that will be discussed in this section are the two that 

can be influenced the greatest in the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project; area-wide 

(prescribed fire) and natural sources (wildfires) and their effects. 

Fire is an important part of California ecosystems, but it also produces combustion byproducts 

that are potentially harmful to human health and welfare. Carbon dioxide and water are the two 

products of complete combustion and generally make up 90 percent of the total emissions from 

wildfire. In incomplete combustion that occurs under wildfire conditions, smoke is composed of 

carbon dioxide, water vapor, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, hydrocarbons, and other 

organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, trace minerals, and several thousand other compounds. 

Particulate matter is the principle pollutant of concern to human health from wildfire smoke for 

the short-term exposures typically experienced by firefighters and the public. Studies indicate that 

90 percent of smoke particles emitted during wildland burning are particles that less than ten 

microns in size (PM10), and about 90 percent of these are less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). 

Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides from large wildfires contribute to increased ozone formation 

(which causes injury to plants) under certain conditions (Ahuja 2006). Emission factors are 

expressed in pounds of emissions per ton of fuel consumed. This in turns means the fuel loading 

and the combustion stage of a fire can be used to estimate the anticipated amount of emissions 

produced by the wildfire, whether it is a wildfire or a prescribed fire, but fuel loading estimation 

is one of the parameters that can introduce a major error in estimation of the emissions (Ahuja 

2006). 

There are two general strategies to managing wildfire smoke: (1) emission reduction and (2) 

emission redistribution. All pollutants except nitrous oxide are negatively correlated with 

combustion efficiency, so actions that reduce one pollutant result in the reduction of all. Optimal 

use of reduction techniques can reduce emissions by approximately 20 to 25 percent, assuming all 

other factors (vegetation types, acres, etc.) were held constant and land management goals were 

still met. Emission reduction techniques include reducing the area burned, reducing fuel loading, 

reducing fuel production, reducing fuel consumption, and scheduling burning before new fuel 

appears and increasing combustion efficiency (Ahuja 2006). 

Emission redistribution is regulated by local and State air pollution control boards/districts by the 

designation of “burn days” or “no burn days”. Burns are to be conducted on burn days. This is 

often the most effective way to prevent direct smoke impacts to the public or sensitive areas. 

These “burn days” are typically during periods of good atmospheric dispersion (dilution of 

emissions) and when prevailing winds will transport smoke away from sensitive areas 

(avoidance) so that air quality standards are not violated. Typical strategies applied to achieve 

redistribution/avoidance of emissions include burning when dispersion is good, sharing the air 

basins, burning more frequently, burning smaller units, especially in non-attainment areas, and 

avoiding sensitive areas (Ahuja 2006). 

Land managers and air quality regulators have and must continue to work together to better 

understand the effectiveness, options, difficulties, applicability, and trade-offs of emission 

reduction techniques. They are the key operators that can develop strategies leading to a reduction 

of smoke emissions (Ahuja 2006). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 145 

Affected Environment 

The Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project is within two air basins that are regulated by two 

air districts; San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Madera County) and Mountain 

Counties Air Pollution Control District (Mariposa County). Each are responsible for 

implementing and regulating sources that degrade air quality and are responsible for meeting 

State and Federal air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board has oversight 

authority to monitor performance of district programs. 

The physical features (topography) and climatology surrounding the Sugar Pine Adaptive 

Management Project area can lead to effects from wildfire and/or prescribed burning to occur 

within both the San Joaquin Valley air basin and the Mountain Counties’ air basin. Smoke 

sensitive areas in or near Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project area include: communities 

(Sugar Pine, Fish Camp, Oakhurst, etc.), infrastructure (schools, hospitals, etc.) and Class I 

airsheds (wilderness areas or in this case Yosemite National Park). Additional concerns are 

focused on the status of air basins in meeting Federal, State and local air quality standards. 

Air quality in the San Joaquin Valley (Valley) is among the poorest in the State. The Valley 

experiences about 35 to 40 days per year where air quality exceeds Federal health-based 

standards for ground-level ozone and more than 100 days per year over the State ozone standard. 

Levels of airborne particulates exceed the Federal standard less than five times annually. The 

California standard is set at a lower and more protective level. The San Joaquin Valley exceeds 

the California limit an average of 90 to 100 days per year (SJVUAPCD 2003). 

Currently the valley is Federally-classified as in severe non-attainment for the Federal groundlevel ozone and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) standard. 

Additionally, the Valley is classified as in severe non-attainment for the State’s PM10 standard. 

Attainment status for PM10 was requested from the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) on 

April 25, 2006 (www.valleyair.org, 2006). Although Mountain Counties’ air basin in Mariposa 

County is also considered in non-attainment for ozone 8-hour Federal standard (Ahuja 2006), San 

Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District regulations and rules associated with the use of fire 

are much more stringent. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under Alternative1, current management plans would continue to guide activities in the project 

area. This includes all ongoing activities with existing decisions or permits that would not be 

changed if this alternative were selected including underburning, plantation maintenance, cattle 

grazing, recreation, and recreation residences. 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

No direct effects to air quality would occur under this alternative since no treatments would be 

completed outside of that which is already permitted or authorized. 

Indirect and cumulative effects include the potential for unplanned ignitions and wildfires to 

occur in the area. The resultant smoke caused by these would have large amounts of emissions 

released and could potentially be of long duration. Values measured such as PM10 and visibility 

range used to determine the Health-Protective Value would be in the ranges assumed to be in the 

Unhealthy. Values associate with this rating are PM10 ranging from 176 to 300 μg/m3 and 

visibility of 1.24 to 2 miles (considered moderate smoke conditions). This would be considered 

the lower of the Health-Protective Values a wildfire would produce, if it occurred in the area. It is 

anticipated that for short periods of time the values may rise to the levels considered Very 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

146 Sierra National Forest 

Unhealthy or perhaps Hazardous. The Statewide Emission Inventory in 2002 reported emissions 

(tons/day, annual average) from wildfires (Ahjua 2006) and is demonstrated in Table 33. 

Table 33. Statewide Emission Inventory 2002 for Natural Sources-Wildfire 

Emissions Total 

Organic 

Gases 

Reactive 

Organic 

Gases 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

Nitrogen 

Oxides 

Sulfur 

Oxides 

PM10

Natural Sources: 

Wildfire 

6,522 3,046 17,474 3,441 302 2,418 

The high summer temperatures and light wind speeds that occur during the summer months, 

places a cap on valley air with no means for cleansing itself by dispersion or transport. Because of 

the poor air quality associated with the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin it does not take large 

amounts of additional emissions to degrade air quality into unhealthy ranges especially in the 

summer and fall months, where storm systems are less likely to occur and disperse smog and 

emissions. Emissions from a wildfire could potentially have long lasting impacts beyond the 

initial burning period because of this. Uncontrolled wildfires are clearly responsible for the most 

widespread, prolonged, and severe periods of air quality degradation (Sugihara, N. 2006). 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

In this alternative, treatments are proposed to reduce surface, ladder fuels and some aerial fuels. 

This is proposed to occur through the use of mechanical methods as well as management ignited 

fire in the form of prescribed fires such as pile burning, understory burning and/or broadcast 

burning. Prescribed burn plans and smoke management plans are required prior to 

implementation of any type of prescribed burning. These include prescriptions or weather 

parameters that would provide acceptable results, including reduction in smoke impacts. Smoke 

management plans are written and approved by the local air districts. Prescribed burning is would 

occur on air district designated burn days when conditions are such that dispersal and transport 

are optimized. The effects analyzed are those that would result from the prescribed burning 

proposed by this alternative. 

Direct Effects 

The direct effects from prescribed burning (production of emissions through smoke production) 

are generated by the number of acres to be burned and the surface fuel loading of the area being 

burned. In this alternative it is estimated that 35 to 40 percent of the area (approximately 250 to 

350 acres) being treated through pre-commercial, commercial or biomass operations will need to 

have some form of post activity treatment to reduce surface fuel loading. As part of this 

alternative, post activity treatment would include tractor piling followed by prescribed burning of 

the piles or hand piling and burning (dependent on steepness of slopes) and/or broadcast burning. 

Also part of the treatments in this alternative includes prescribed fire use as the initial treatment 

of an estimated 215 acres. The table below estimates the potential emissions from the average 

conditions anticipated in the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project area. Tons per acre are 

associated with the existing IFSL fuel models given in the Fire/Fuels Analysis. It is assumed that 

the areas that are at or above 15 to 20 tons per acre surface fuel loading, prior to any treatment, 

would require post activity treatments such as piling and burning. Those areas at or less than 10 

tons per acre would be considered appropriate for the application of broadcast and/or understory 

burning for maintenance of surface fuel loadings. Three hundred total acres is used for each fuel 

model to show the maximum emissions that would be anticipated if all of the acres were at that 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 147 

fuel loading. It is anticipated that there will be a combination of fuel loadings, both at the higher 

levels and lower levels, throughout the project area where prescribed fire will be used as a initial 

treatment or post activity treatment. 

Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Although prescribed burning would occur on air district designated burn days, there would be 

potential for short-term impacts, caused by smoke production, to sensitive areas. From past 

experience, it is anticipated that limits on acres per day burned, optimal transport wind 

direction/speed, higher mixing heights and quantity of other prescribed burns being conducted 

will be considered prior to air district approval to reduce these impacts. This could extend the 

number of days burning would occur, but would reduce the amount of emissions produced at any 

one time into smoke sensitive areas. Cumulative effects can be caused by outside influences not 

associated with the project itself. Because of the rural surroundings, many residences utilize wood 

burning as their main source of home heating. Hazard reduction burning is also permitted in rural 

communities in Madera and Mariposa counties. This can lead to cumulative impacts if prescribed 

burning is conducted on what is considered a marginal dispersal day when added to wood stove 

smoke and increased numbers of hazard reduction burns within the communities in or 

surrounding the project area. 

Alternative 3 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Alternative 3 would not alter the number of acres where ladder and surface fuels are to be 

reduced through treatments, but would alter the amount of post treatment surface fuels (lower 

tons/acre) in treatment area T4. It is anticipated this would not produce a significant difference in 

the estimated emissions produced from initial or post activity prescribed burning. Thus the direct, 

indirect and cumulative effects would remain the same as those under Alternative 2. 

Alternative 4 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Alternative 4 would not alter the number of acres where ladder and surface fuels are to be 

reduced through treatments, but would potentially lower the amount (tons per acre) of post 

treatment surface fuels. As in Alternative 2, prescribed burning would be utilized to reduce 

surface fuel loadings as either an initial treatment (understory/broadcast) or as a post activity 

treatment (pile burning). Dependent on the existing fuel loading, there is still a potential for 

surface fuel loadings to be as high as that found in an IFSL Fuel Model 12, but not in as many 

areas as with Alternative 2. It is anticipated that this would lower emissions produced, but not 

significantly since the same number of acres would need to be treated. Thus the direct, indirect 

and cumulative effects would remain the same as those under Alternative 2. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

148 Sierra National Forest Table 34. Total Estimated Tons of Emissions from Initial Treatment and Post Treatment Activities 

Emissions 

Fuel Type 

(choose one) 

Total Acres Tons 

per acre 

IFSL Fuel 

Model 

Total 

tons 

Tons 

PM10 

Tons 

PM2.5 

Tons 

Nox 

Tons 

SO2 

Tons 

VOC 

To

 0 - - - - - Pile_Slash 300.00 34 12 10200 39.78 37.23 26.52 0.05 32.13 3Pile_Slash 300.00 13 10 3900 15.21 14.24 10.14 0.02 12.29 1Pile_Slash 300.00 10 High 9 3000 11.70 10.95 7.80 0.02 9.45 Forest 300.00 4 TU1 1050 12.86 11.55 1.84 0.05 7.61 1Forest 215.00 13 10 2795 34.24 30.75 4.89 0.14 20.26 3NOTE: Pile slash would be pile burning emissions and Forest would be understory/broadcast burning. PM10=Particulate msize; PM2.5=Particulate matter 2.5 microns in size; NOx=Nitrogen Oxides; SO2=Sulfur Dioxides; VOC=Visual Organic C(precursors to smog); CO=Carbon Monoxide. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 149 

Transportation ______________________________ 

Affected Environment 

The transportation system (roads) within the project area provides needed access for public use of 

the National Forest and access to private lands. Most roads receive low traffic volume, but are 

considered important by their users for dispersed recreation experiences of many types. 

Maintenance level 1 and 2 roads are generally open to legal OHV use. These roads also provide 

needed access for Forest Service administrative uses including fire suppression, fuels reduction, 

recreation administration, timber harvest, reforestation, and assessment of biological resources. 

Reduced funding and road maintenance activities associated with timber harvest have limited 

opportunities to maintain the road system to proper standards. It is estimated that 80% of the road 

system within the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project area fails to meet current road 

maintenance standards. 

The existing transportation system for the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project consists of 

approximately 39.5 miles of National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) roads. Madera 

County maintains 1.5 miles of roadway. Mariposa County maintains 0.1 miles of roadway. The 

transportation system for the analysis area is nearly complete. Small areas may be identified 

during project planning where minor amounts of new permanent road and temporary road 

construction are needed. 

There are 33.4 miles of NFTS native and aggregate surfaced roads and approximately 6.1 miles 

of paved roadway. These native surfaced roads are not suited for wet weather use due to erosive 

soils and lack of armoring. 

Most system roads are in poor condition and are experiencing erosion problems due to lack of 

proper road maintenance, wet weather use, and erosive soils. Many of the local roads have 

received little to no maintenance over the years and will require heavy maintenance and/or 

reconstruction to eliminate resource damage and meet acceptable standards established in the 

Forest Service Handbook 7709.58. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Under the No Action alternative, no project activities would take place. Existing road 

maintenance and reconstruction needed to eliminate resource damage and support equipment 

access would not take place. There would be no road reconstruction activities on local roads and 

no new road construction would be needed. The transportation system for the area would 

continue to receive only minimal, if any maintenance with continued potential for loss of 

infrastructure investment from erosion, wet weather use and brush encroachment. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

The highest priority for Bass Lake Ranger District road management will continue to be safety 

for the traveling public and employees and improvement and restoration of roads with resource or 

access needs. Road maintenance and reconstruction will be required for identified roads that do 

not meet acceptable standards for the proposed service level and transportation system. This work 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

150 Sierra National Forest 

may include installation of culverts, rolling dips, water bars; and aggregate surfacing where soil 

erosion is evident; riprap at outlets of culverts, dips and water bars when needed; and minor 

clearing and widening to a 12-foot road width for equipment access. NFTS roads used for this 

project will be kept open for public use during sale and post sale activities. Existing landings, skid 

trails, and temporary roads will be used for timber access, when available. 

The Sugar Pine Adaptive Management project is proposing to perform road maintenance and/or 

road reconstruction activities on all or portions of roads 5S06, 5S17, 5S17X, 5S18, 5S22Y, 

5S22YA, 5S79, 5S79A, 6S07, 6S10, 6S47Y, 6S90 and 6S90D. These roads will require a final 

field review prior to project activities to determine complete road reconstruction and/or road 

maintenance needs. 

The logging systems plan has identified approximately 0.2 miles of new road construction and 

approximately 0.5 miles of temporary road construction for unit access. After project completion, 

the new road will remain open to allow access to Yosemite Trails Pack Station facilities; 

however, all temporary roads will be closed. These roads will require a final field review prior to 

project activities to determine complete road construction design needs. 

There are 26 recorded archeological and historical sites within the Sugar Pine Adaptive 

Management Project area. A preliminary map review of the location of recorded sites and 

specified roads shows four road/site conflicts. These road/site conflicts are of minimal concern 

because of the limited impact of the continued use of the roads, the limited significance of the 

sites, or the conflicts are easily mitigated. 

There is one section of existing forest road 6S90 that was built on previously constructed Madera 

Sugar Pine Railroad grade. Road 6S90 is scheduled for reconstruction including widening three 

curves to allow chip van truck access. This will not further affect the historical integrity of the 

grade. 

There are four sites where proposed maintenance or reconstruction of the roads running through 

them may cause an impact that could be mitigated. The roads that have the most serious road/site 

conflicts are 5S18, 5S22Y, 5S22YA, and 5S79 which are scheduled for reconstruction. 

Planned new road construction, temporary road construction, road reconstruction and road 

maintenance activities for the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project will be reviewed by the 

District Archeologist to develop mitigation requirements for archeological or road site conflicts 

prior to work activities. 

This relatively low traffic volume road system has received less maintenance in recent years. 

These roads, mostly maintenance level 2, comprise most of the miles of the road system. Many of 

them are brushing in and washing out. The results are negative effects on access and 

environmental resources and loss of the infrastructure investment. 

The greatest surface erosion problems occur in highly erodible terrain where existing drainages 

structures have become non functional due to lack of adequate road maintenance activities and/or 

wet weather use. Road 6S90 was identified as a native surfaced road located in High Erosion risk 

soils including the Holland family. Road maintenance and or reconstruction treatments would be 

considered to reduce the possible adverse effects to water quality and wildlife habitat. 

Existing road densities, in general, are acceptable from a wildlife perspective. However, any 

system roads or unclassified roads not needed should be decommissioned to enhance wildlife 

habitat and reduce road densities to a more desired level. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 151 

Alternative 3 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

The effects of this alternative would be similar to Alternative 2, since there would be no change 

in types of activities occurring and utilizing the project area transportation system. 

Alternative 4 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

The effects of this alternative would be similar to Alternative 2, since there would be no change 

in types of activities occurring and utilizing the project area transportation system. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

152 Sierra National Forest 

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ____ 

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment 

and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared 

by the Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and 

technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create 

and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill 

the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans 

(NEPA Section 101). 

Maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity is accomplished through restoration 

treatments that reduce basal area and number of stems (stand density) in over crowed stands. 

Stands that exist presently are no longer sustainable or resilient to changing environmental 

conditions that can and are occurring now and into the future. Drought induced stress, insect or 

disease attacks and wildfire all can have detrimental effects on the forest of today. Short-term 

activities described in the action alternatives are intended to lead to the enhancement of long-term 

productivity by beginning to restore forest conditions that resilient to disturbances. 

Actions described in Chapter 1 lead to enhancement of long-term productivity, especially: 

 The need to increase the proportion of large trees across a landscape, 

 The need to increase the proportion of fire resistant species such as pines, 

 The need to reduce wildfire intensity and spread across the landscape, and 

 The need to reduce stand density. 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects__________________ 

No unavoidable adverse effects would occur in the project area. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of 

Resources _________________________________ 

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of 

a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a 

period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept 

clear for use as a power line rights-of-way or road. 

Approximately 0.7 miles of new and temporary road construction is proposed for the Sugar Pine 

Project. Road construction results in removal of surface soils and subsoil and complete loss of 

soil productivity within the road prism. 

The 0.7 miles of road is approximately 1.2 acres of ground with total loss of soil productivity. 

The direct effect of this new road construction is irreversible and irretrievable. Erosion on newly 

constructed roads is usually higher immediately after the road is constructed. There is potential 

that accelerated erosion could occur off the road prism and reduce soil productivity off site and 

after the road is constructed. Applicable soil and water conservation Best Management Practices 

(BMP) will be implemented, including erosion control measures, such as water bars, straw 

mulching of fills and fertilization of soils to re-vegetate the bare soils. Road reconstruction and 

road maintenance operate within the road prism and have little effect to the soil resource. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 153 

However, there can be a positive effect to the soil resource out site of the road prism from road 

reconstruction by restoring proper drainage features of the road. Restoration of drainage features 

will result in less surface erosion and soil loss that leads to loss in soil productivity. 

Legal and Regulatory Compliance _____________ 

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft 

environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with ...other environmental 

review laws and executive orders.” The proposed action and alternatives must comply with the 

following regulation. 

Principle Environmental Laws 

The following laws contain requirements for protection of the environment that apply to the 

proposed action and alternatives. 

Endangered Species Act 

The Forest Service is directed to comply with this Act and does so through Biological 

Assessments and Evaluations that are used to analyze the effects of the proposed alternatives. 

These assessments and evaluations make determinations on Federally-listed endangered, 

threatened, candidate and proposed species and their habitat. The analysis was conducted in part 

to determine whether formal consultation or conference is required with the United States 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), pursuant to this act. 

The Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project, through the inclusion of design criteria 

established for all action alternatives for species covered under this Act as well as the completion 

of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for Botanical, Aquatic and Terrestrial species, is in 

compliance with this act. 

Clean Water Act 

The Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project would comply with this Act by adoption of Best 

Management Practices and other design criteria established for all action alternatives as detailed 

in Chapter 2. 

Clean Air Act 

The Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project would comply with this Act by implementation of 

Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) for prescribed burning as required under section 190 

of this Act, as amended in 1990. 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

The USDA Forest Service is directed to identify, evaluate, treat, protect, and manage historic 

properties by several laws. However, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

(16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) (NHPA) provides comprehensive direction to Federal agencies about their 

historic preservation responsibilities. 

Section 106 of the NHPA and the ACHP implementing regulations, Protection of Historic 

Properties (36 CFR Part 800), require that Federal agencies take into account the effect of their 

undertakings on historic properties, and that agencies provide the ACHP with an opportunity to 

comment on those undertakings. Programmatic agreements (36 CFR 800.14(b)) provide

alternative procedures for complying with 36 CFR 800. Pacific Southwest Region 5, USDA 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

154 Sierra National Forest 

Forest Service has such an agreement: Programmatic Agreement among the U.S.D.A. Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region, California State historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation Regarding The Identification, Evaluation and Treatment of 

Historic Properties Managed by the National Forest of the Sierra Nevada, California (Sierran 

PA). This agreement provides specific standards for conducting cultural resources inventory, 

evaluation, and management, including Forest Heritage Program requirements, identification 

standards, standard procedures for protecting cultural resources, reporting and public 

participation. 

Cultural resource design criteria are established for all action alternatives and are based on 

stipulations within the Sierran PA. All alternatives would be in compliance with historic 

preservation law, policy and regulation, as this project meets the stipulations of the Sierran PA. 

National Forest Management Act 

The National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1604) and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield 

Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528–531) gives direction to National Forests to develop National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plans that (A) insure consideration of the economic and 

environmental aspects of various systems of renewable resource management, including the 

related systems of silviculture and protection of forest resources, to provide for outdoor recreation 

(including wilderness), range, timber, watershed, wildlife, and fish; (B) provide for diversity of 

plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in 

order to meet overall multiple-use objectives, and for steps to be taken to preserve the diversity of 

tree species. As set forth by these Acts, the Sierra National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan, as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) in 2004, 

set specific standards and guidelines which are to be followed during project level planning and 

implementation. 

By the inclusion of design criteria as part of all action alternatives to minimize or eliminate 

significant environmental effects from proposed management actions as well as the inclusion of 

standards and guidelines from the Sierra National Forest LRMP and SNFPA ROD 2004 used to 

design this project, this project would comply with this act. 

Soil Productivity 

Soil resource management is achieved by maintaining soil productivity using Regional Soil 

Quality Standard and Guidelines and management direction provided in the LRMP (UDA-FS 

1991). The Geology/Soils section, starting on page 39 in Chapter 3, analyzes the existing soil 

productivity and effects of alternatives on soil productivity. 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

The bioregional scale monitoring strategy for the Sierra NF MIS is found in the Sierra Nevada 

Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment (SNF MIS Amendment) Record of Decision 

(ROD) of 2007. Bioregional scale habitat monitoring is identified for all twelve of the terrestrial 

MIS. In addition, bioregional scale population monitoring, in the form of distribution population 

monitoring, is identified for all of the terrestrial MIS except for the greater sage-grouse. For 

aquatic macroinvertebrates, the bioregional scale monitoring identified is Index of Biological 

Integrity and Habitat. The current bioregional status and trend of populations and/or habitat for 

each of the MIS is discussed in the Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator 

Species (SNF Bioregional MIS) Report (USDA Forest Service 2008). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 155 

Other Standards and Guidelines, especially those dealing with Water 

Quality 

Best Management Practices will be applied to all action alternatives and are listed in Appendix 

B of this document. Design criteria listed in Chapter 2 incorporate additional protection measures 

to minimize and/or eliminate impacts to water quality. 

Executive Orders 

The following executive orders provide direction to Federal agencies that apply to the proposed 

action and alternatives: 

Indian Sacred Sites, Executive Order 13007 of May 24, 1996, applies to the proposed action 

alternatives because of historic and prehistoric uses known in the area. This is specifically 

addressed in Chapter 3 under Heritage Resources and Tribal Relations. All project alternatives 

comply with this order. 

Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, Executive Order 11593 of May 

13, 1971, directs Federal agencies to inventory cultural resources under their jurisdiction, to 

nominate to the National Register of Historic Places all Federally owned properties that meet the 

criteria, to use due caution until the inventory and nomination processes are completed, and to 

assure that Federal plans and programs contribute to preservation and enhancement of nonFederally owned properties. 

Cultural resource design criteria are established for all action alternatives and are based on 

stipulations within the Sierran PA. All alternatives would be in compliance with historic 

preservation law, policy and regulation, as this project meets the stipulations of the Sierran PA. 

Invasive Species, Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999, applies to the proposed action 

alternatives. A risk of introducing invasive species does exist. Measures need to be in place to 

prevent the spread of these species. The proposed action alternatives comply by providing 

measures to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species. 

Recreational Fisheries, Executive Order 12962 of June 6, 1995, applies to the proposed action 

alternatives. Action alternatives comply with this order by implementing Best Management 

Practices and other design criteria and correcting existing resource problems. These design 

criteria are detailed in Chapter 2 and the list of specific Best Management Practices associated 

with this project are included in Appendix B of this document. 

Migratory Birds, Executive Order 13186 of January 10, 2001. Under the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA), the Forest Service is directed to “provide for diversity of plant and 

animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to 

meet overall multiple-use objectives (P.L. 94-588, Sec 6 (g) (3) (B)).” The January 2000 USDA 

Forest Service (FS) Landbird Conservation Strategic Plan, followed by Executive Order 13186 in 

2001, in addition to the Partners in Flight (PIF) specific habitat Conservation Plans for birds and 

the January 2004 PIF North American Landbird Conservation Plan all reference goals and 

objectives for integrating bird conservation into forest management and planning. 

In late 2008, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the USDA Forest Service 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds was 

signed. The intent of the MOU is to strengthen migratory bird conservation through enhanced 

collaboration and cooperation between the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service 

as well as other Federal, State, tribal and local governments. Within the National Forests, 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

156 Sierra National Forest 

conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a diversity of habitat conditions at 

multiple spatial scales and ensuring that bird conservation is addressed when planning for 

land management activities. 

The Sierra National Forest is proposing to manage lands on the Bass Lake Ranger District that are 

located in the Fresno River and South Fork Merced fifth field watersheds. Proposed management 

is intended to implement direction contained within the Sierra National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (LRMP, USFS 1991) as amended by the 2004 SNFPA ROD. Opportunities to 

promote conservation of migratory birds and their habitats in the project area were considered 

during development and design of the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management project (MOU Section 

C: items 1 and 11 and Section D: items 1 and 3). 

Within this project area special considerations have been given to maintaining higher levels of 

biodiversity through actions such as delineating Old Forest Linkages (OFLs) surrounding 

perennial streams (see EIS and BE/BA for a description of OFLs). Higher levels of biodiversity 

have also been planned for by marking retention groups of large diameter trees. Two-hundred and 

eighty (280) such tree groups were identified in the main project area, and an additional 74 were 

identified in the hydrology study area. These tree groups are composed of a cluster of 3 or more 

trees, 30-inch dbh or greater, with touching crowns, and will benefit those species which utilize 

dense groupings of large trees. Another project design measure which will maintain biodiversity 

is the identification of retention areas around large oaks within treatment units. Two to three large 

oaks per acre were identified and marked with paint. These oaks will retain a zone of no activity 

measuring 35 feet, or dripline circumference around the oak (whichever is greater). The 

delineation of OFLs, retention of large tree groups, and oak no treatment zones will ensure a 

heterogeneous post treatment landscape resulting in the continued accessibility of both hiding 

cover and prey availability within these areas of biodiversity. 

Likely impacts to habitats and select migratory bird populations resulting from the Sugar Pine 

Adaptive Management project have been assessed in detail within the project MIS report and 

impacts to select TES birds and their habitats have been analyzed in the project BA and/or BE. 

The project will not adversely impact migratory landbird species or their associated habitats. 

Potential impacts to migratory species would be minimized through the adherence of LRMP 

Standards and Guidelines for snags/down woody debris, riparian reserve buffers, limited ground 

disturbance, and maintenance of canopy closure. The project is designed to improve habitat 

conditions through the acceleration of late-successional habitat characteristics, while still 

maintaining current functional habitat. Specific project design criteria include: canopy closure 

will be maintained at 60 to 70% or greater where available; ground disturbance will be limited to 

those guidelines with the LRMP as amended; vegetation species diversity and composition will 

be maintained; no management will occur in designated riparian reserves; and retention of snags 

and downed logs would be retained at 80 to 100% of the average numbers found within mature

and old growth stands within the Forest. Any snag felled for safety reasons will be left on site as 

downed woody debris. Additional cull logs will be left on site from the logging operation as well. 

All riparian reserves within the project have been identified and buffers established. In addition, 

no operations will occur during the wet weather season. 

Floodplain Management, Executive Order 11988 of May 24, 1977, does not apply because of 

exclusions and buffers that are in place through design criteria for the action alternatives and are 

found in detail in Chapter 2. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 157 

Protection of Wetlands, Executive Order 11990 of May 24, 1977, does not apply because of 

exclusions and buffers that are in place through design criteria for the action alternatives and are 

found in detail in Chapter 2. 

Environmental Justice, Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994, applies to the proposed 

action alternatives. Compliance has been attempted by making this document understandable and 

accessible. 

Use of Off-Road Vehicles, Executive Order 11644, February 8, 1972, does not apply to this 

proposal. No off road use is being proposed nor existing use changed in this document.

Special Area Designations 

The selected alternative will need to comply with laws, regulations and policies that pertain to the 

following special areas. 

Research Natural Areas 

No research natural areas are located in the project area. This project would comply with 

applicable laws, regulations and policies for research natural areas. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas 

No Inventoried Roadless Areas are located in the project area. This project would comply with 

applicable laws, regulations and policies for Inventoried Roadless Areas. 

Wilderness Areas 

No Congressionally-designated wilderness areas are located in the project area. This project 

would comply with applicable laws, regulations and policies for wilderness areas. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

No Congressionally-designated wild and scenic rivers occur in the project planning area. 

Municipal Watersheds (FSM 2540) 

No municipal watersheds occur in the project planning area. 

Other Required Disclosures 

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft 

environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with...other environmental 

review laws and executive orders.” 

Species surveys, review of recent literature, and professional judgment have been incorporated 

into determinations of possible effects on species. Surveys provide information on species 

presence and habitat on a local scale. An element of uncertainty exists for effects on species with 

distributions beyond the project or Sierra NF boundaries. The Pacific fisher and Yosemite toad 

are Forest Service sensitive species that have also been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service as candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act. A candidate species is 

determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through a 12-month finding as warranted for 

listing. The listing process is precluded by other priorities. The Sierra NF requested and received 

technical advice from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to address uncertainty related to these 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

158 Sierra National Forest 

candidate species. Their advice is integrated extensively throughout the Terrestrial and Aquatic 

Species sections of Chapter 3 as well as in the design criteria for all action alternatives. 

Forest Plan (LRMP) Amendment 

The significance of change to a forest plan is different than the significance of environmental 

impacts of the proposed action, as defined by Council on Environmental Quality regulations 

found at 40 CFR 1500 to 1508. 

The following discussion is strictly about the significance of a change to a forest plan. The 1982 

Planning Rule at 36 CFR 219.10 (f) states, “Based on an analysis of the objectives, guidelines, 

and other contents of the forest plan, the Forest Supervisor shall determine whether a proposed 

amendment would result in a significant change in the plan.” According to FSM 1920, the 

following changes are used to determine whether the proposed amendment is significant or not 

significant. 

Multiple-use Goals and Objectives 

None of the alternatives change multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource 

management found in the original LRMP (Forest Plan), as amended by the SNFPA ROD 2004. 

Standards and Guidelines 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) for this specific project would change SNFPA ROD 2004 

Standard and Guideline #86 to allow stand density treatments as well as treatment of ladder and 

surface fuels for the one time of this decision. This would apply to only Alternative 2 (Proposed 

Action) in treatment areas proposed. 

Changes that have an important effect on an entire forest plan or affect land and resources 

throughout a large portion of a planning area are considered for forest plan amendments. This 

amendment applies only to the estimated 5,416 acres of this decision. 

According to FSH 1909.12, the following factors are used to determine whether the proposed 

amendment is significant or not significant. 

Timing 

This amendment would only be effective if Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) were selected by the 

deciding official. If Alternative 2 was selected in the record of decision (ROD), the amendment 

would only be effective through the life of the decision, expected to be about 10 years. 

Location and Size 

The amendment applies only to the 5,416 acres within the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management 

Project boundary and more specifically to the treatment areas where there are currently known 

Pacific Fisher den sites. 

Goals, Objectives and Outputs 

This amendment would not alter long-term relationships between levels of goods and services 

projected by the forest plan, as amended by the SNFPA ROD 2004. This amendment would not 

involve a demand for new goods and services not discussed in or contemplated by the forest plan 

as amended. The amendment would not alter the output because it does not adjust the capable, 

available and suitable land base. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 3 159 

Management Prescriptions 

This amendment does not change any management prescriptions in the LRMP (Forest Plan), as 

amended. 

Conclusion 

This amendment is not significant because it does not change any multiple-use goals or 

objectives, any management area boundaries, or management prescriptions. This amendment only 

affects a very small portion of the forest plan. 

Sierra National Forest – Chapter 4 161 

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Preparers and Contributors __________________ 

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes 

and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental document: 

ID Team Members 

Mark Lemon/Burt Stalter, District Fuels Officer; Fire/Fuels Analysis; ID Team Leader 

David Smith, District Silviculturist; Vegetation/Silvicultural Analysis; Core Team Member 

Kevin Williams, District Wildlife Biologist-Terrestrial; Biological Assessment/Biological 

Evaluation for Terrestrial Wildlife; Core Team Member 

Keith Ballard, District Timber Management Officer; Data Collection/Analysis; Core Team 

Member 

Denise Tolmie, Forest Fuels Officer; Writer/Editor; Core Team Member 

Phillip Strand, Fisheries Biologist; Aquatics-Riparian Analysis; ID Team Member

Keith A. Stone, Hydrologist; Hydrology Analysis; ID Team Member 

Joanna Clines, Forest Botanist; Botanical Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation/Noxious 

Weed/Invasive Species Analysis; ID Team Member 

Marie Mogge/Constance Popelish, District Archeologist; Archeology Analysis; ID Team 

Member 

Andy Hosford, District Engineer; Transportation Analysis; ID Team Member 

Alan Gallegos, Province Geologist; Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis/Soils Analysis; ID 

Team Member 

Karen Nooney, District Lands/Special Uses; Special Uses Analysis; ID Team Member 

Anae Otto, Wildlife Technician; Management Indicator Species Analysis; ID Team Member 

Federal, State, and Local Agencies 

Although no formal or informal consultation was required for this project, personnel 

communications with Federal, State and Local Agencies including, but not limited to; U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, California Department Fish and Game, The Resources Agency (CalFire), 

University of California Academics and other Memorandum of Understanding Signatory 

Agencies occurred throughout the planning stages of this project as part of the Sierra Nevada 

Adaptive Management Project. 

Tribes 

North Fork Mono Rancheria; Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians; Mariposa Indian 

Council; Mono Nation; California Indian Basketweavers Association. 

Others 

Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project-Integration Team; Science Team-Sierra Nevada 

Adaptive Management Project. 
Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination 

162 Sierra National Forest 

Distribution of the Environmental Impact 

Statement _________________________________ 

This draft environmental impact statement has been distributed to individuals who specifically 

requested a copy of the document. In addition, copies have been sent to the following Federal 

agencies, Federally-recognized tribes, State and local governments, and organizations: 

Advisory Panel on Historic Preservation, USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 

USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA-National Agricultural Library, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, South 

Pacific Division-US Army Engineer, Region 9-Environmental Protection Agency, US 

Department of the Interior, US Coast Guard, Western Pacific Region-Federal Aviation 

Administration, US Department of Energy, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, North Fork Mono Rancheria, 

Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians, Mariposa Indian Council, Mono Nation, 

Madera and Mariposa County Board of Supervisors, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District, local Chapter of Society of American Foresters, Eastern Madera Fire Safe 

Council, Mariposa Fire Safe Council, Coarsegold Resource Conservation District, Sierra 

Forest Legacy, National Chapter and Tehipite Chapter-Sierra Club, John Muir Project, 

California Indian Basketweavers Association, Sugar Pine Railroad, Yosemite Trails Pack 

Station and Tenaya Lodge. 
Sierra National Forest – Glossary 163 

Glossary

Adaptive Management: A type of natural resource management that implies making decisions 

as part of an on-going process. Monitoring the results of actions provides information that may 

indicate the need to change a course of action. Scientific findings and the needs of society may 

also indicate the need to adapt resource management to new information. 

Air Shed: A geographical area that shares the same air mass due to topography, meteorology, 

and climate. 

Analysis Area: A collection of land area, not necessarily contiguous, sufficiently similar in 

character that they can be treated as if they were identical. 

Aspect: A position facing a particular direction, usually expressed as a compass direction in 

degrees or cardinal directions. 

Bark Beetle: A member of the family Scolytidae (Coleoptera). Adults and larvae tunnel in the 

cambial region (either in the bark only or in the bark and xylem) of living, dying and recently 

dead or felled trees and utilize these areas for food and shelter. 

Basal Area: The area of the cross section of a tree trunk near its base, usually 41⁄2 feet above the 

ground. Basal area is a way to measure how much of a site is occupied by trees. The term basal 

area is often used to describe the collective basal area of trees per acre. 

Baseline: Starting point for analysis of environmental consequences. A baseline may be 

conditions at a point in time or collected over a specified period of years. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs): Practices determined to be the most effective and 

practicable means of controlling pollutants at levels compatible with environmental quality goals. 

BMPs were conceptualized in the 1972 FUS Federal Water Pollution Control Act. BMPs as 

defined in the USDA Forest Service Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. 

Biomass thin: Used in this document to describe the cutting of vegetation (conifers) that may or 

may not have a market value, but are removed from site after cutting. For this document this is 

considered a conifer approximately 4-10 inches in diameter. 

Breast Height (as referred to as dbh): A standard height from ground level, generally 4.5 feet 

for recording diameter, circumference or basal area of a tree. 

Broadcast Burn: A type of prescribed fire allowed to burn over a designated area within defined 

boundaries to achieve land management objectives. 

Buffer: A land area designated to block or absorb unwanted impacts to the area inside the buffer. 

Bulk Density: The weight per unit volume of a measured material. Bulk density of plants is 

measured at a specified moisture tension. 

California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CWHR): A wildlife information and 

predictive system for mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. This system is considered a state-ofthe-art information system for California’s wildlife. The system provides the most widely used 

habitat relationship models for California’s terrestrial vertebrate species. CWHR is operated and 

maintained by the California Department of Fish and Game, in cooperation with the California 

Interagency Wildlife Task Group (CIWTG). 

Canopy: Foliar cover in the forest stand consisting of one or several layers.

Chaparral: Dense growth of mostly small-leaved evergreen shrubs. Found in the foothills of 

California. 
Glossary 

164 Sierra National Forest 

Classified Roads: Roads wholly or partially within or adjacent to National Forest System lands 

that are determined to be needed for motor vehicle access including State roads, County roads, 

privately owned roads, National Forest Transportation System roads, and roads authorized by the 

Forest Service that are intended for long-term use. 

Clump: An isolated, generally dense, group of trees. 

Codominant: Tree species in a forest that are about equally numerous and exert the greatest 

influence. 

Cohort: A group of trees developing after a single disturbance, commonly consisting of trees of 

similar age. A considerable range of tree ages of seedling or sprout origin and trees that predate 

the disturbance can be included. 

Commercial thin: Used in this document to describe the cutting and removal from site of 

vegetation (conifers) that typically has a market value. For this document this is considered a 

conifer over approximately 10 inches in diameter. 

Corridor: Elements of the landscape that connect similar areas. Streamside vegetation may 

create a corridor of willows and hardwoods between meadows where wildlife feed. 

Cover: Any feature that conceals wildlife or fish. Cover may be dead or live vegetation, boulders, 

or undercut streambanks. Animals use cover to rest, feed, and escape from predators. 

Crown: The upper part of a tree that carries the main branch system and foliage.

Crown Closure: The point at which the vertical projections of a crown’s perimeter within a 

canopy touches. 

Crown Density: The amount and compactness of foliage for trees or shrubs. 

Cumulative Effects: Combined effects resulting from sequential actions on a given area. 

Den Tree: A tree that contains a weather tight cavity for wildlife. 

Defensible fuels profile(s), Defensible Fuel Profile Zone(s), DFPZ(s): A strategically located 

strip(s) of land where the vegetation has been modified to a less dense fuel type. These are 

typically located along ridgetops and roads and are areas where fire fighters would make a stand 

to contain a fire. The width is based on potential fire behavior based on available fuels, weather 

and wind, and topography. They are not designed to stop an oncoming wildfire by themselves, 

but rather to provide a safe location to facilitate fire suppression efforts and provide an anchor 

point for prescribed burning projects. The DFPZ strategy initially treats a lower proportion of the 

landscape; treatments are located to protect specific values and are typically placed in wildland 

urban intermix areas. After a network of DFPZs is established, area fuel treatments (SPLATs) can 

be placed to enhance DFPZ effectiveness and increase the likelihood tat the overall landscape 

strategy will reduce wildfire intensity and size. 

Diameter Class: Intervals into which a range of diameters of tree stems or logs may be divided 

for classification or use. 

Disturbance: A force that results in changes in the structure and composition through natural 

events such as wind, fire, flood, avalanche, or mortality caused by insect or disease outbreaks or 

human events (e.g. timber harvest). 

Duff: Organic material covering the forest floor (includes fresh litter from plants and older, well 

developed humus). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Glossary 165 

Ecosystem: An arrangement of living and non-living things and the forces that move among 

them. Living things include plants and animals. Non-living parts of ecosystems may be rocks and 

minerals. Weather and wildfire are two of the forces that act within the ecosystems. 

Elevation: Vertical distance of measure displayed in feet above sea level. 

Endangered Species: A plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. Endangered species are identified by the Secretary of the Interior 

in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

Endemic Species: Plants or animals that occur naturally in a certain region and whose 

distribution is relatively limited to a particular locality. 

Environmental Effects: Includes ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the 

components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, 

economic, social, or health whether direct (which are caused by action and occur at the same time 

and place), indirect (which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in 

distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable), or cumulative (results from the incremental impact 

of the action when added to other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions). 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A document prepared by a Federal agency in which 

anticipated environmental effects of a planned course of action or development are evaluated. 

Federal statute (Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) requires that such 

statements be prepared. An impact statement includes: (1) the environmental impact of the 

proposed action, (2) any adverse impacts which cannot be avoided by the action, (3) alternatives 

courses of actions, (4) relationships between local short-term use of the human environment and 

the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (5) a description of the 

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources which would occur if the action were 

accomplished. 

Ephemeral Stream: A stream or portion of a stream that flows only in direct response to 

precipitation, receiving little or no water from springs and no long continued supply from snow or 

other sources and whose channel is at all times above the water table.

Erosion: The wearing away of land surface by rain, running water, wind, ice, gravity, or other 

natural agents including gravitational creep and tillage. 

Feasibility: Capability and suitability for specific use. 

Fire Behavior: The over-arching means by which to describe how an ignited fire reacts to the 

influences of fuels, topography and weather when combined together. Typical terms used when 

describing fire behavior include rate of spread (how fast a fire travels over a given distance in a 

given period of time); flame height (as measured in feet from ground through middle of flame); 

intensity (BTUs given off from flaming front); fire type (surface vs. crown) to name a few. 

Computer based models are used to predict fire behavior for given environmental and fuel 

conditions. 

Flow: The movement of a stream of water or other mobile substances from place to place. The 

movement of water and the moving water itself. The volume of water passing a given point per 

unit of time. 

Forage: All browse and non-woody plants that are eaten by wildlife. 

Forb: A grouping or category of herbaceous plants which are not included in grass, shrub or tree 

groupings, generally smaller flowering plants. Forbs contain little or no woody material. 
Glossary 

166 Sierra National Forest 

Forest: An ecosystem characterized by a more or less dense and extensive tree cover, often 

consisting of stands of varying in characteristics such as species composition, structure, age class, 

and associated processes. Commonly includes meadows, streams, fish and wildlife.

Forest Health: The perceived condition of a forest derived from concerns about such factors as 

its age, structure, composition, function and vigor, presence of unusual levels of insects or 

disease, and resilience to disturbance. Individual and cultural viewpoints, land management 

objectives, spatial and temporal scales, the relative health of the stands that make up the forest, 

and the appearance of the forest at a point which influences the perception and interpretation of 

forest health. 

Forest Plan: Also referred to as a Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). A signed 

document that is the source of management direction for an individual National Forest that 

specifies activity and output levels for a period of 10-15 years. Management direction in the 

Forest Plan is based on issues identified at the time of Plan development. 

Forestry: The profession embracing the science, art and practice of creating, managing, using 

and conserving forests and associated resources for human benefit and in a sustainable manner to 

meet desired goals, needs and values. 

Forest Type: A category of forest usually defined by its vegetation, particularly its dominant 

vegetation as based on percentage cover of trees. 

Fragmentation: The process by which a landscape is broken into small islands of forest within a 

mosaic of other forms of land use or ownership. 

Frequency: 1. biometrics: the number of occurrences of a given type of event of the number of 

members of a population falling into a specified class; 2. ecology: the number of individuals in a 

community. 

Fuelbreak: A wide strip or block of land on which the native vegetation has been modified so 

that fires burning into it can be more readily suppressed. Usually strategically build in 

conjunction with a roadway (for access) and along ridgelines. Terms like shaded fuelbreak is used 

to differentiate the amount or type of vegetation that is removed to create the fuelbreak. 

Geographic Information System (GIS): A system of computer maps with corresponding sitespecific information that can be electronically combined to provide reports and maps. 

Habitat: The place where an animal, plant or population normally lives and develops. 

Habitat capability: The ability of a land area or plant community to support a given species of 

wildlife. 

Headcuts: Land erosion at the head of a stream, creek, or river. 

Headwater: The source of a stream. The upper tributaries of a drainage basin. 

Herb: A non-woody, vascular plant. 

Herbaceous: A class of vegetation dominated by no-woody plants known as herbs. 

Horizon (soil): A layer of soil approximately parallel to the land surface and differing from 

adjacent genetically related layers in physical, chemical and biological properties or 

characteristics such as color, structure, texture, consistency, kinds and number of organisms 

present, degree of acidity or alkalinity. 

Indigenous: Native to a specified area or region. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Glossary 167 

Indirect Effects: Effects that are caused by an action and occur at a later time, or at another 

location, yet are reasonably foreseeable in the future. 

Insect: A member of the class Insecta characterized by a body segmented into three distinct 

regions (head, thorax, abdomen), by a head with one pair of antennae, by a thorax with three 

segments each with a pair of legs, and usually one or two pairs of thoracic wings. 

Interdisciplinary Team (IDT): A group of specialists assembled to solve a problem or perform a 

task. 

Invasive Plants: Plant species that are introduced into an area in which they did not evolve and 

in which they usually have few or no natural enemies to limit their reproduction and spread. 

These species can cause environmental harm by significantly changing ecosystem composition, 

structure, or processes and can cause economic harm or harm to human health. 

Ladder fuels or fuel ladders: Arrangement of vegetation (trees, brush, etc.) that provides 

vertical continuity from the forest floor to the crowns of overstory trees. Example would be 

similar to steps on a ladder. 

Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP): See Forest Plan 

Landscape: A large land area composed of interacting ecosystems that are repeated due to 

factors such as geology, soils, climate and human impacts. Landscapes are often used for coarse 

grain analysis. 

Maintenance: The work of keeping something in proper condition or standard.

Masticate or Mastication: Means by which vegetation is mechanically “mowed” into small 

pieces and changed from a vertical to horizontal arrangement. 

Management Indicator Species (MIS): Animals or plants identified in Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plans (LRMPs or forest plans) developed under the 1982 Planning Rule, 

that are selected because their population changes are thought to indicate the effects of Forest 

Service management activities. 

Mechanical Methods: Utilization of machinery such as bulldozers and skidders for tractor 

logging; helicopter logging, skyline cable logging, mechanical harvesters and 

shredders/masticators. 

Merchantable: Having the size, quality and condition suitable for marketing under a given 

economic condition. 

Mitigation: Actions taken to avoid, minimize or rectify the impact of a land management 

activity. 

Model: A representation of reality used to describe, analyze or understand a particular concept. A 

model may be a relatively simple qualitative description of a system or organization or a highly 

abstract set of mathematical equations. A model has limits to its effectiveness and is used as one 

of several tools to analyze a problem. 

Mortality: Trees dying from natural causes, usually by size class in relation to sequential 

inventories or subsequent to incidents such as storms, wildfire or insect and disease epidemics. 

Mosaic: A pattern of vegetation in which two or more kinds of communities are interspersed in 

patches, such as clumps of shrubs with grassland between. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Congress passed in 1969 to encourage productive 

and enjoyable harmony between people and their environment. One of the major tenets of NEPA 
Glossary 

168 Sierra National Forest 

is its emphasis on public disclosure of possible environmental effects of any major action on 

public lands. Section 102 of NEPA requires a statement of possible environmental effects to be 

released to the public and other agencies for review and comment. 

Native Species: Indigenous species normally found as part of a particular ecosystem. 

Natural Fuel: Term used to describe vegetation, live or dead, in a given area that is not 

associated with being created by management activities. It is usually described in terms of natural 

fuel accumulations or build-up from naturally falling leaves, branches and/or logs from fallen 

snags. 

Notice of Intent (NOI): A notice printed in the Federal Register announcing that an 

Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. The NOI must describe the proposed action 

and possible alternatives, describe the proposed agency scoping process and provide a contact 

person for further information. 

Noxious Weeds (Plants): An undesirable, non-native plant that is difficult to control and is on 

either the California Department of Food and Agriculture Noxious Weed list or the California 

Invasive Plant Council Inventory of invasive plants in California. 

Old-growth (forest): Old forests often containing several canopy layers, variety in tree sizes and 

species; and standing and dead woody materials. 

Patch: An area of homogeneous vegetation, in structure and composition. 

Pathogen: A parasitic organism directly capable of causing disease. 

Perennial Stream: A stream that has running water on a year-round basis under normal climatic 

conditions. 

Pre-commercial thin: Used in this document to describe the cutting of vegetation (conifers) that

does not typically have a market value and not removed from site after cutting. For this document 

this is considered a conifer approximately 4-10 inches in diameter. 

Prescribed burning (fire): With a given range environmental condition (air temperature, fuel 

moisture, windspeed and direction, etc.) and approved plan, a fire that is management ignited to 

meet specific resource management objectives. This can include dozer/hand pile; understory and 

broadcast burning. 

Rate of Spread: The relative speed with which a fire increases in size usually expressed in chains 

(66 feet) per hour. 

Record of Decision (ROD): An official document in which a deciding official states the chosen 

activity (alternative) that will be implemented from a prepared EIS. 

Reforestation: The restocking of an area with forest trees, by either natural or artificial means, 

such as planting. 

Regeneration: The renewal of a tree crop by either natural or artificial means. The term is also 

used to refer to the young crop itself. 

Residual: A tree or snag remaining after an intermediate of partial cutting of a stand. 

Resilience: The ability of an ecosystem to maintain diversity, integrity and ecological processes 

following a disturbance. 

Resistance: The ability of a community to avoid alteration of its present state by a disturbance. 

The ability of plants to avoid, suppress, prevent, overcome, or tolerate insect or pathogen attack. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Glossary 169 

Responsible Official: The Federal employee who has the delegated authority to make and 

implement a decision on a proposed action. 

Riparian Area: The area along a watercourse or around a lake or pond. 

Riparian Ecosystem: The ecosystems around or next to water areas that support unique 

vegetation and animal communities as a result of the influence of water. 

Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs): These are land allocations that are managed to maintain 

or restore the structure and function of aquatic, riparian and meadow ecosystems. The intent of 

management direction for RCAs is to (1) preserve, enhance, and restore habitat for riparian-and 

aquatic-dependent species; (2) ensure that water quality is maintained or restored; (3) enhance 

habitat conservation for species associated with the transition zone between upslope and riparian 

areas; and (4) provide greater connectivity within the watershed. 

Risk: The relative probability of any of several alternative outcomes as determined or estimated 

by a decision maker when the outcome of an event or series of events is not known. 

Road Maintenance: The ongoing upkeep of a road necessary to retain or restore the road to the 

approved road management objectives. 

Road Reconstruction: Activities that result in road realignment or road improvement. 

Sample: A part of a population selected and examined as a representative of the whole. 

Sediment (sedimentation): Solid materials, both mineral and organic, in suspension or 

transported by water, gravity, ice or air; may be moved and deposited away from their original 

position and eventually will settle to the bottom. 

Sensitive Species: Plant or animal species which are susceptible to habitat changes or impacts 

from activities. The official designation is made by the USDA Forest Service at the Regional 

level and is not part of the designation of threatened or Endangered Species made by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service.

Shade tolerant: When used to describe a conifer, the trees prefers to grow in the shade. 

Silvicultural System: The cultivation of forest; the result is a forest of a distinct form. 

Silvicultural systems are classified according to harvest and regeneration methods and the type of 

forest that results. 

Silviculture: The art and science that promotes the growth of single trees and the forest as a 

biological unit. 

Simulation: An operations research technique that represents physical, natural, social and 

economic systems by models in order to study the factors affecting the system and to aid decision 

making. 

Site: The area in which a plant or a stand grows, considered in terms of its environment, 

particularly as this determines the type and quality of the vegetation the area can carry. 

Site Preparation: Removing unwanted vegetation, slash, roots and stones from a site before 

reforestation. Naturally occurring wildfire, as well as prescribed fire can prepare a site for natural 

regeneration. 

Skid Road (skid trail): A road access cut through the woods for skidding of logs. 

Skidder: A self-propelled machine (cable, clam-bunk or grapple) used for dragging trees or logs. 

Skidding: Hauling logs by sliding, not on wheels, from stump to a collection point. 
Glossary 

170 Sierra National Forest 

Slash: Residue left on the ground after timber cutting or left after a storm, fire or other event. 

Slash includes unused logs, uprooted stumps, broken or uprooted stems, branches, bark, etc. 

Snag: A standing dead tree. Snags are important as habitat for a variety of wildlife species and 

their prey. 

Soil Compaction: Reduction of soil volume. The weight of heavy equipment, for example, on 

soils can compact the soil and thereby change it in some ways, such as in its ability to absorb 

water. 

Species: The main category of taxonomic classification into which genera are subdivided, 

comprising a group of similar interbreeding, individuals sharing a common morphology, 

physiology and reproductive process. 

Stand: A group of trees that occupies a specific area and is similar in species, age, and condition. 

Stand density: A quantitative measure of stocking expressed either absolutely in terms of 

number of trees, basal area, or volume per unit area or relative to some standard condition. A 

measure of the degree of crowding of trees within stocked areas commonly expressed by various 

growing space ratios. 

Stand Structure: The physical and temporal distribution of plants in a stand. Silviculture the 

horizontal and vertical distribution of components of a forest stand including the height, diameter, 

crown layers and stems of trees, shrubs, herbaceous understory, snags and down woody material. 

Standards and Guidelines: Direction outlined in the Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan (LRMP) for specific aspects of project planning and analysis. 

Stocking: An indication of growing-space occupancy relative to a pre-established standard. 

Strategically Placed Landscape Area Treatments: Wildland fire modification strategy (created 

from research conducted by Dr. Mark Finney (1999)) by which a fire is forced to go around areas 

where fuels have been reduced or otherwise modified. The treated areas function as 

“speedbumps” on the landscape to slow the spread and reduce the intensity of oncoming fires and 

thereby reduce damage to both treated and untreated areas.

Streamside Management Zones (SMZs): Management Zones established to protect and 

maintain water quality, site productivity, channel stability, wildlife habitat, and riparian 

vegetation. 

Structure: Sizes, shapes and/or ages of the plants and animals in an area. 

Surface Fuels: Vegetation, either dead or live, that is on the surface, which includes dead 

branches, blowdown timber, leaves, and low vegetation, as contrasted with crown fuels. 

Thinning from below: A silvicultural technique by which cutting is done in an immature stand 

of trees to accelerate growth of the remaining trees or to improve the form of the remaining trees. 

From below describes the incremental cutting of trees based on its position in the stand. First 

starting with suppressed, then intermediates, then co-dominates to reach a desired or prescribed 

basal area for the stand. 

Threatened Species: Plant or animal species likely to become endangered throughout all or part 

of their range in the foreseeable future. Designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

Understory: The trees and woody shrubs growing beneath the overstory in a stand of trees. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Glossary 171 

Viability: The ability of a population of a plant or animal species to persist for some specified 

time into the future. Viable populations are populations that are regarded as having the estimated 

numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure that its continued existence is well 

distributed in a given area. 

Watershed: The entire region drained by a waterway (or into a lake or reservoir). More 

specifically, a watershed is an area of land above a given point on a stream that contributes water 

to the streamflow at the point. 

Weed: A valueless, troublesome or noxious plant often exotic, growing wild especially on 

growing profusely. A plant growing where it is not wanted. 

Wildfire: Any wildland fire that is not a prescribed fire. 

Wildland: Land other than that dedicated for other uses such as agriculture, urban, mining or 

parks. 

Wildland Urban Intermix (WUI): The line, area, or zone where structures and other human 

development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. 

Wildfire Intensity: Describes the buildup of heat within a fire, both in amount and in rate of 

transmission-a function of heat release. Usually described as low, moderate or high intensity fires. 

Wildlife: All non-domesticated animal life. 

Woodland: A forested area; a plant community in which, in contrast to a typical forest, the trees 

are often small, characteristically short-boled relative to their crown depth and forming an open 

canopy with the intervening area being occupied by lower vegetation, commonly grass. 

Sierra National Forest – Literature Cited 173 

Literature Cited

Agee, J. K.; Skinner, C. N.;2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest 

Ecology and Management; Volume 211: (pages 83-96). 

Ahuja, S. 2006. Fire and Air Resources, Chapter 21, Fire in California Ecoystems; Suighara, N. 

Pages 481-498. 

Alvarez, M. 2000. Leucanthemum vulgare - Chapter in: Carla C. Bossard, John M. Randall, Marc 

C. Hoshovsky, Editors 360 pages, 133 color photos, 76 line illustrations, 79 maps. 

University of California Press, 2000 

Amaranthus, M., H. Jubas, and D. Arthur. 1989. Stream shading, summer streamflow and 

maximum water temperature following intense wildfire in headwater streams. Proceedings 

of the Symposium on Fire and Watershed Management, October 26-28, 1988 Sacramento, 

California. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-109. Pp. 75-78. 

Anderson, H.E., 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. General 

Technical Report, INT-122. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 22p. 

Armour, C.L. 1988. Guidance for evaluating and recommending temperature regimes to protect 

fish. USFWS, National Ecology Research Center. Biological Report 88. Ft. Collins, CO 

Aubrey, K.B. and C. Raley. 1999. Ecological characteristics of fishers in southwestern Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia, WA. 7 pages. 

Bartelt, P.E. 1977. Management of the American Goshawk in the Black Hills National Forest. 

M.S. thesis. Univ. South Dakota, Vermillion, SD. 

Beche, Leah A., Scott L. Stephens and Vincent H. Resh. 2005. Effects of prescribed fire on a 

Sierra Nevada (California, USA) stream and its riparian zone. Forest Ecology and 

Management, 218(2005):37-59. 

Beebe, F.L. 1974. Goshawk. In: Field studies of the falconiformes of British Columbia. British 

Columbia Provincial Museum Occasional Paper Series No. 17; 54-62. 

Benavides-Solorio, Juan, and Lee H. MacDonald. 2001. Post-fire runoff and erosion from 

simulated rainfall on small plots, Colorado Front Range. Hydrological Processes, 15:2931-

2952. 

Berg, N, A. Carlson, and D. Azuma. 1998. Function and dynamics of woody debris in stream 

reaches in the central Sierra Nevada, California. Canadian Journal of Aquatic Science 

55:1807-1820 (1998) 

Berg, N.A., D. Azuma, and A. Carlson. 2002. Effects of wildfire on in-channel woody debris in 

the eastern Sierra Nevada, California. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report 

PSW-GTR-181. 

Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North America, American Fisheries Society 

Monograph 6. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 275 pp 

_____. 2002. Trout and salmon of North America. The Free Press, A division of Simon and 

Schuster Inc, 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020. 359 pp. 

Beschta, R.L., R.E. Bilby, G.W. Brown, L.B. Holtby, and T.D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream temperature 

and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions. In: Sal, E.O., Cundy, T.W. eds. 

Forestry and fisheries interactions. Contributions Number 57, Seattle, Washington: 

University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources. P 191-232. 
Literature Cited 

174 Sierra National Forest 

Bisson, P.A., Bilby, R.E., Bryant, M.D., C.A. Dolloff, G.B. Grette, R.A. House, M.L. Murphy, 

V.K. Koski, and J.R. Sedell. 1987. Large woody debris in forest streams in the Pacific 

Northwest: past, present, and future. In: Sal, E.O., Cundy, T.W. eds. Forestry and fisheries 

interactions. Contributions Number 57, Seattle, Washington: University of Washington, 

Institute of Forest Resources. P 143-190. 

Bisson, P.A., B.E. Rieman, C. Luce, P.F. Hessburg, D.C. Lee, J.L. Kershner, G.H. Reeves, and 

R.E. Greswell. 2003. Fire in aquatic ecosystems of the western USA: current knowledge 

and key questions. Forest Ecology and Management. Volume 178, Issues 1-2 213-229. 

Blakesley, J. A. 2003. Ecology of the California spotted owl: breeding dispersal and associations 

with forest stand characteristics in northeastern California. Unpublished Dissertation, 

Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 60 p. 

Bland, J.D. 1993. Forest grouse and mountain quail investigations: A final report for work 

completed during the summer of 1992. Unpubl. report, Wildl. Mgmt. Div., Calif. Dept. Fish 

and Game, 1416 Ninth St., Sacramento, CA. 

_____. 1997. Biogeography and conservation of blue grouse Dendragapus obscurus in 

California. Wildlife Biology 3(3/4):270. 

_____. 2002. Surveys of Mount Pinos Blue Grouse in Kern County, California, Spring 2002. 

Unpubl. report, Wildl. Mgmt. Div., Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, 1416 Ninth St., 

Sacramento, CA 95814. 

_____. 2006. Features of the Forest Canopy at Sierra Sooty Grouse Courtship Sites, Summer 

2006. CDFG Contract No. S0680003. 

Bloom, P.H., G.R. Stewart, and B.J. Walton. 1986. the status of the Northern Goshawk in 

California, 1981-1983. Calif. Dep. Fish and game.Wildl. Management Branch, Adm. Rep. 

85-1. 

Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. In: Influences of 

forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats, chapter 4. 

American Fisheries Society special publication 19. 721 pp. 

Bragg, D.C., J.L. Kershner, and D.W. Roberts. 2000. Modeling large woody debris recruitment 

for small streams of the central Rocky Mountains.. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-55. 

Bragg, D.C., and J.L. Kershner. 2002. Influence of bank afforestation and snag angle-of-fall on 

riparian large woody debris recruitment. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report 

PSW-181. 2002. 

_____. 2004. Sensitivity of a riparian large woody debris recruitment model to the number of 

contributing banks and tree fall patterns. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, Vol. 19, No. 

2, April 2004. 

Buck, S. 1983. Habitat utilization by fisher (Martes pennanti) near Big Bar, California. M.S. 

Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 85 p. 

Buck, S., C. Mullis, A. Mossman., I. Show, and C. Coolahan. 1994. Habitat use by fishers in 

adjoining heavily and lightly harvested forest. Pp 368-376, In Buskirk, S. W., A. S. 

Harestad, M. G. Raphael, and R. A. Powell, eds. Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and 

conservation. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY. 484 pp. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Literature Cited 175 

Bull Evelyn.L. and A.K. Blumton. 1999. Effect of Fuels Reduction on American Martens and 

Their Prey, PNW-RN-539, March 1999. 

Bull, Evelyn L.; Heater, Thad W. 2004. Habitat use of the American marten in northeastern 

Oregon. Publisher unknown. 

Burnett, R. D., and D. L. Humple. 2003. Songbird monitoring in the Lassen National Forest: 

Results from the 2002 field season with summaries of 6 years of data (1997-2002). PRBO 

Conservation Science Contribution Number 1069. 36pp. 

Burnett, R.D., D.L. Humple, T.Gardali, and M.Rogner. 2005. Avian monitoring in Lassen 

National Forest 2004 Annual Report. PRBO Conservation Science Contribution Number 

1242. 96pp. 

Buskirk, S.W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. Pp 283-

296, In Buskirk, S. W., A. S. Harestad, M. G. Raphael, and R. A. Powell, eds. Martens, 

sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY. 484 pp. 

Call, M. W. 1978. Nesting habits and survey techniques for common western raptors. U. S. Dep. 

Inter., Bur. Land Manage., Portland, OR. Tech. Note No. 316. 115pp. 

Campbell, L.A. 2003. Distribution and habitat associations of mesocarnivores in the central and 

southern Sierra Nevada. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Davis. 

Carroll, C., W.J. Zielinski, and R.F. Noss. 1999. Using presence-absence data to build and test 

spatial habitat models for the fisher in the Klamath Region, U.S.A. Conservation Biology 

13:1344-1359. 

Carroll, C. 2005. A reanalysis of regional fisher suitability including survey data from 

commercial forests in the redwood region. Unpublished manuscript submitted to USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, CA. 17pp. 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1998. An Assessment of Mule and Blacktailed Deer Habitats and Populations in California. Report to the Fish and Game 

Commission. February 1998. 57pp. 

_____ 2004a. Resident Game Bird Hunting Final Environmental Document. August 5, 2004. 

State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 182 pp + 

appendices. 

_____. 2004b. Report of the 2004 Game Take Hunter Survey. State of California, The Resources 

Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 20pp. 

_____2005. California Department of Fish and Game and California Interagency Wildlife Task 

Group. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) version 8.1. personal computer 

program. Sacramento, California. On-Line version. 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.asp. (Accessed: January 3, 2008). 

_____ 2006. Special Animals. 

_____ 2007. Fish planting allotment. 

_____ .2007a. Deer Hunting Final Environmental Document, April 10, 2007. State of California, 

The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 80pp + appendices. 

California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. (CWHR) 

2005. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships version 8.1 personal computer program. 

Sacramento, California. 
Literature Cited 

176 Sierra National Forest 

California Department of Forestry (CDF). 2005. California Practices Rules 2005. Accessed at : 

www.fire.ca.gov on 7/28/2006. 

California Partners in Flight (CPIF). 2002. Maps 

http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/mapdocs/conifer/2002/fospmap2002.html

http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/mapdocs/conifer/2002/bbwomap2002.html. 

_____. 2002a. Version 2.0. The oak woodland bird conservation plan: a strategy for protecting 

and managing oak woodland habitats and associated birds in California (S. Zack, lead 

author). Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. 

http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html. 

____. 2004. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/mapdocs/riparian/2004/ywarmap2004.htm

____. 2004a. Version 2.0. The Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Bird Conservation Plan: a Strategy 

for Protecting and Managing Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Habitats and Associated Birds in 

California (J. Lovio, lead author). PRBO Conservation Science, Stinson Beach, CA. 

http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2004. Water Quality Control Plan for the 

Tulare Lake Basin, second Edition. Available via: 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/available_documents/index.html#anchor6163

81

Chamberlin, T.W., R.D. Harr, and F.H. Everest. 1991. Timber harvesting, silviculture, and 

watershed processes. In: Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes 

and their habitats, chapter 6. American Fisheries Society special publication 19. 721 pp. 

Clark, Bob. 2001. Soils, water, and watersheds. Chapter V in: Fire Effects Guide. National 

Wildlife Coordinating Group, Fire Use Working Team. Available via: 

http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/RxFire/FEG.pdf

Coe, Drew B. 2006. Sediment production and delivery from forest roads in the Sierra Nevada, 

California. MS Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of Greater 

Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to 

manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):967-

985. 

Crocker-Bedford, D.C. and B. Chaney. 1988. Charachteristics of goshawk nesting stands. Pp. 

210-217 in R.L> Flinski, B.G. Pendleton, M.B. Moss, M.N. LeFranc, Jr., B.A. Milsap, and 

S.W. Hoffman (eds.), Proceedings of the Southwest raptor management symposium and 

workshop. Nat. Wildl. Fed. Sci. tech. Ser. No. 11. 

Dark, S.J. 1997. A landscape-scale analysis of mammalian carnivore distribution and habitat use 

by fisher. M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State Univ. 67 pp. 

Dettinger, M. D.; Et. Al. 2004. Recent Projections of 21st-Century Climate Change and 

Watershed Responses in the Sierra Nevada. Pacific Southwest Research Center; USDA 

Forest Service; General Technical Report; PSW-GTR-193. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Literature Cited 177 

Dixon, J.B. and Dixon, R.E. 1938. Nesting of the western goshawk in California. Condor 40: 3–

11. 

Doyle, F.I. and Smith, J.M.N. 1994. Population responses of northern goshawks to the 10-year 

cycling in.numbers of snowshoe hares. Studies in Avian Biology 16: 122–129.

Drew, R.E., J.G. Hallett, K.B. Aubry, K.W. Cullings, S.M. Koepf, and W.J. Zielinski. 2003. 

Conservation genetics of the fisher (Martes pennanti) based on mitochondrial DNA 

sequencing. Molecular Ecology 12:51-62. 

Duane, T.P. 1996. Human settlement, 1850-2040. Pp. 235-360. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem 

Project: Final report to Congress, Vol. II. Assessments and scientific basis for management 

options. Report No. 37. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of 

California, Davis, CA. 

Dunham, J.B., M.K. Young, R.E. Greswell, and R.E. Rieman. 2003. Effects of fire on fish 

populations: landscape perspectives on persistence of native fishes and nonnative fish 

invasions. Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 178 Issues 1-2 (2003) 183-196. 

Dwire, K.A., and J.B. Kauffman. 2003. Fire and riparian ecosystems in landscapes of the western 

USA. In: Forest Ecology and Management. Volume 178, Issues 1-2 (2003) 61-74 

Dwire, K.A., C.C. Rhoades, and M.K. Young.2006. In Press. Potential effects of fuel 

management activities on riparian areas. In: B. Elliot, J. Potyondy, and J. Kershner (eds). 

Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management: A Western Synopsis, Chapter 10. 

RMRS GTR 

Earle, R.D. 1978. The fisher-porcupine relationship in Upper Michigan. M.S. Thesis. Michigan 

Technical University, Houghton, MI. 

Emmingham, W.H.; Elwood, N.E. 1983 (Reprinted 2002). Thinning: An Important Timber 

Management Tool. Oregon State University, Washington State University and University 

of Idaho Extension System, Pacific Northwest Research Center; General Technical Report 

#184. 

Eng, R.L. and G.W. Guillion. 1962. The predation of goshawk on ruffled Grouse on the Cloquest 

Forst research Center. Minnesota. Wilson Bull. 74:227-242. 

Erman, N.A. 1996. Status of aquatic invertebrates. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final 

report to Congress, vol. II, chapter 35. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water

and Wildland Resources. 

Everest, F.H.; Beschta, R.L.; Scrivener, J.C.; Koski, K.V.; Sedell, J.R.; Cederholm, C.J. 1987. 

Fine sediment and salmonid production: a paradox. In: Salo, E.O.; Cundy, T.W., eds. 

Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. Contribution 57. Seattle, 

Washington: University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources. 98 142 

Feeney, S. R.; Et. Al.; 1998. Influence of thinning and burning restoration treatments on 

presettlement ponderosa pines at the Gus Pearson Natural Area. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research, Volume 28 (pages 1295-1306). 

FEMAT. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: ecological, economic, and social assessment. 

Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. Chapter V Aquatic 

Ecosystem Assessment. 
Literature Cited 

178 Sierra National Forest 

Ferrell, G.T.; 1996. The Influence of Insect Pests and Pathogens on Sierra Forests. Pacific 

Southwest Research Center; USDA Forest Service; Sierra Nevada Ecoystem Project. Vol 

II. 

Fettig, C. J.; Et. Al. 2007. The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention 

and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern 

United States. Forest Ecology and Management. 238: (pages 24-53). 

_____. 2008. Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest: bark beetle responses to differences in forest 

structure and the application of prescribed fire in interior ponderosa pine. Canadian Journal 

of Forest Research; 38(5)(pages 924-935). 

Fites-Kaufman, J., et.al., 2002. Prescribed Fire and Fuel Treatment Effectiveness and EffectsMonitoring Pilot, 2002 Detailed; Fire and Aviation Management, USFS-PSW, USFS 

Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team. 

Fitzgerald, S. A.; 2005. Fire ecology of ponderosa pine—fire resilient ponderosa pine 

ecosystems. Pacific Southwest Research Center; USDA Forest Service; General Technical 

Report; PSW-GTR-198. 

Fong, A. 1978. Stream survey for Bull Creek. 

Franklin, A.; Gutiérrez, R.; Nichols, J.; Seamans, M.; White, G.; Zimmerman, G.; Hines, J.; 

Munton, T.; LaHaye, W.; Blakesley, J.; Steger, G.; Noon, B. 2003. Population dynamics of 

the California spotted owl: A meta-analysis. Final Report to U.S. Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, Berkeley, CA. 

Franks, E. Gallegos, A. and Strand, P. 2004. Draft Fresno Watershed Analysis-Hydrologic 

Hierarchy. 

Frazier J.W., K.B. Roby, J.A. Boberg, K. Kenfield, J.B. Reiner, D.L. Azuma, J.L. Furnish, B.P. 

Staab8, S.L. Grant. 9/2005. Stream Condition Inventory Technical Guide. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region - Ecosystem Conservation Staff. Vallejo, CA. 111 pg. 

Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs, and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. In:

Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats, 

chapter 8. American Fisheries Society special publication 19. 721 pp. 

Gallegos, Alan J. 2007. Sugar Pine Soil Monitoring Study, Pre- and Post-Operation Monitoring 

Guide. Sierra National Forest. Clovis, CA. 4 pg. 

_____. Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis for the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project. 

Garrett, K. and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of Southern California: Status and Distribution. Los Angeles 

Audubon Society. 407 pp. 

Golightly, R.T., S.J. Dark, S.M. Wisely, and A. Seglund. 1997. Rest site use by Pacific fisher on 

Shasta-Trinity National forest , 1992-1996. Final report to USDA Forest Service, ShastaTrinity National Forest, Redding, CA. Unpublished. 

Gould, G. I., Jr. 1974. The status of the spotted owl in California. Calif. Dep. Fish and Game, 

Sacramento, Admin. Rep. No. 74-6. 36pp. 

_____. 1977. Distribution of the Spotted Owl in California. West. Birds 8:131-146. 

Graham, Russell T.; Rodriguez, Ronald L.; Paulin, Kathleen M.; Player, Rodney L.; Heap, Arlene 

P.; and Williams, Richard. 1999. The northern goshawk in Utah: Habitat assessment and 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Literature Cited 179 

management.recommendations. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-22. Ogden, UT: 

Rocky Mountain Research.Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 48 p. 

Graham, R., et.al., 2004. Science Basis for Changing Forest Structure to Modify Wildfire 

Behavior and Severity. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, RMRS-GTR-120, January 2004. 

Gregory, S.V., G.V. Lamberti, D.C. Erman, K.V. Koski, M.L. Murphy, and J.R. Sedell. 1987. 

Influence of forest practices on aquatic production. In: Streamside management. Forest and 

fishery interactions, edited by E.O. Salo, and T.W. Cundy, 233-55. Contribution No. 57. 

Seattle: University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources. 

Gregory, S.V., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, and K. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of 

riparian zones. BioScience, 41(8):540-551. 

Grenfell, W.E. and M. Fasenfest. 1979. Winter food habits of fishers, Martes pennanti, in 

northwestern California. Calif. Fish and Game 65:186-189. 

Greswell, R.W. 1999. Fire and aquatic ecosystems in forested biomes of North America. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:193-221. 

Grinnell, J., J.S. Dixon, and J.M. Linsdale. 1937. Fur-bearing mammals of California. Univ. of 

California Press, Berkeley. Vols. 1 and 2. 777 p. 

Grinnell, J., and A. H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pac. Coast 

Avifauna No. 27. 608pp. 

Gucinski, Hermann, Michael J. Furniss, Robert R. Ziemer, and Martha H. Brookes, eds. 2001. 

Forest roads: a synthesis of scientific information. PNW-GTR-509. Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Portland, OR. 103p. 

Gutierrez, R.J., A.B. Franklin, and W.S. Lahaye. 1995. Spotted Owl; Strix occidentalis. The Birds 

of North America, No. 179. 

Hall, P. 1984. Characterization of nesting habitat of goshawk (Accipiter gentiles) in Northestern 

California. MS thesis. Humboldt State Univ., Arcata, CA. 

Hargis, C.D.; McCarthy, C.; and Perloff, R.D. 1994. Home ranges and habitats of northern 

goshawks in.eastern California. Studies in Avian Biology 16: 66–74.

Harris, S.A. 2000. Digitalis purpurea – Chapter in: Carla C. Bossard, John M. Randall, Marc C. 

Hoshovsky, Editors 360 pages, 133 color photos, 76 line illustrations, 79 maps. University

of California Press, 2000. 

Hatchett, B., Michael P. Hogan, and Mark E. Grismer. 2006. Mechanical mastication thins Lake 

Tahoe forest with few adverse impacts. California Agriculture 60(2):77-82. 

Heath, S.K., and G. Ballard. 2003. Bird species composition, phenology, nesting substrate, and 

productivity for the Owens Valley alluvial fan, Eastern Sierra Nevada, California 1998-

2002. Great Basin Birds 6(1):18-35. 

Heglund, and M.L. Morrison (eds.), Predicting Species Occurrences: Issues of Accuracy and 

Scale. Island Press, Covelo, California. 

Heinemeyer, K.S., and J.L. Jones. 1994. Fisher biology and management: a literature review and 

adaptive management strategy. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service Northern Region. 108 

pp. 
Literature Cited 

180 Sierra National Forest 

Hennessy, S.P. 1978. Ecological relationships of accipiters in Northern Utah: with special 

emphasis on human disturbance. M.S. Thesis. Utah State Univ., Logan, UT. 

Hilton, S. and Lisle, T.E. 1993. Measuring the volume of a pool filled with fine sand. USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Research Station Research Note, PSW–RN-414-

WEB. 

Hitt, N.P. 2003. Immediate effects of wildfire on stream temperature. Journal of Freshwater 

Ecology 18:171-173. 

Hoffman, A.A., and M.W. Blows 1994. Species borders: ecological and evolutionary 

perspectives. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 9:223-227. 

Hughes, R.M. and D.P. Larsen. 1987. Ecoregions: an approach to surface water protection. 

Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 60:486-493. 

Hunsaker, C.T., B.B. Boroski, and G.N. Steger. 2002. Relations between canopy cover and the 

occurrence and productivity of California spotted owls. IN J.M. Scott, P.J. 

Hurteau, M.; North, M. 2009. Fuel treatment effects on tree-based forest carbon storage and 

emissions under modeled wildfire scenarios. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment; In 

press. 

Hutto, R.L. 1995. Composition of bird communities following stand-replacement fires in 

Northern Rocky Mountain (U.S.A.) conifer forests. Conservation Biology 9(5):1041-1058. 

Hutto, R.L., and S.M. Gallo. 2006. The effects of postfire salvage logging on cavity-nesting birds. 

The Condor 108:817-831. 

Janicki, Alex and Potter, Don, 2003. Effects of Grass Seeding on Post-Fire Erosion in a Sierra 

Nevada Pine-Hardwood Community. USDA Forest Service – Stanislaus National Forest, 

Open-File Report, Sonora, CA. 20 pgs. 

Jenkins, M. J.; Et.Al.; 2008. Bark beetles, fuels, fires, and implications for forest management in 

the Intermountain West. Forest Ecology and Management; Volume 254; (pages 16-34). 

Jennings, M.R. 1996. Status of amphibians. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project:Final report to 

Congress, vol. II, chapter 31. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and 

Wildland Resources.

Jones, J.A., and G.E. Grant. 1996. Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and 

large basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research, 32(4):959-974. 

Kaplan, Henry, T. Personal communication regarding intense rainfall in fall of 2002 along North 

Fork Kern River and affects within McNally Fire. 

Kattleman, R. 1996. Hydrology and water resources. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final 

report to Congress, vol. II, chapter 30. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water

and Wildland Resources. 

Kaye, T. N. and J. R. Cramer. 2005. Conservation Assessment for Cypripedium fasciculatum and 

Cypripedium montanum. Region 5 – USDA Forest Service. September 2005. 

Kennedy, P.L.; Ward, J.M.; Rinker, G.A.; Gessaman, J.A. 1994. Post-fledgling areas in northern 

goshawk home ranges. Studies in Avian Biology 16: 75–82. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Literature Cited 181 

Kilpatrick, H.J., and P.W. Rego. 1994. Influence of season, sex, and site availability on fisher 

(Martes pennanti) rest-site selection in the central hardwood forest. Canadian Journal of 

Zoology 72: 1416-1419. 

Klug, R.R. 1997. Occurrence of Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica) in the redwood zone of 

northern California and the habitat attributes associated with their detections. M.S. thesis. 

Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. 

Korte and MacDonald. 2005. Road Sediment Production and Delivery in the Southern Sierra 

Nevada, California. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2005, abstract #H51E0416. Available via: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFM.H51E0416K

Kostrzewa, A. 1991. Interspecific interference competition in three European raptor species. 

Ethology, Ecology, Evolution 3: 127–143. 

Kotliar, N.B., S.J. Hejl, R.L. Hutto, V.A. Saab, C.P. Melcher, and M.E. McFadzen. 2002. Effects 

of fire and post-fire salvage logging on avian communities in conifer-dominated forests of 

the western United States. Studies in Avian Biology No.25:49-64. 

Krohn, W.B., W.J. Zielinski, and R.B. Boone. 1997. Relations among fishers, snow, and martens 

in California: Results from small-scale spatial comparisons. Pp 211-232. In Proulx, G., 

H.N. Bryant, and P.M. Woodard, editors. Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques and 

management. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Alberta, Canada. 

Kuehn, D.W. 1989. Winter foods of fishers during a snowshoe hare decline. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 53:688-692. 

Lamberson, R.H., R.L. Truex, W.J. Zielinski, and D.C. Macfarlane. 2000. Preliminary analysis of 

fisher population viability in the southern Sierra Nevada. USDA Forest Service. Pacific 

Southwest Region. Unpublished manuscript. 20pp. 

Laymon, S.D. 1991. Diurnal foraging by Spotted Owls. Wilson Bull. 103: 138-140. Remsen, J. 

V., Jr. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California. Calif. Dep. Fish and Game, 

Sacramento. Wildl. Manage. Admin. Rep. No. 78-1. 54pp. 

Ledwith, T. 1996. The effects of buffer strip width on air temperature and relative humidity in a 

stream riparian zone. Network 6(5), The Watershed Management Council. Available at 

http://www.watershed.org/news/sum_96. 

Lentz, J.E. 1993. Breeding birds of four isolated mountains in southern California. Western birds 

24:201–234. 

Lewis, J.C. and D.W. Stinson. 1998. Washington State status report for the fisher. Wash. Dept. 

Fish and Wildl., Olympia. 64 pp. 

Lewis, J., S.R. Mori, E.T. Keppeler, and R.R. Ziemer. 2001. Impacts of logging on storm peak 

flows, flow volumes, and suspended sediment loads in Caspar Creek, California. In: M.S. 

Wigmosta and S.J. Burges, eds., Land use and watersheds: human influence on hydrology

and geomorphology in urban and forest areas. Water Science and Application Volume 2, 

p.85-125. American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C. 

Lisle, T.E., and S. Hilton. 1992. The volume of fine sediment in pools: an index of sediment 

supply in gravel-bed streams. Water Resources Bulletin, 28(2):371-383. 

_____. 1999. Fine bed material in pools of natural gravel bed channels. Water Resources 

Research, 35(4): 1291-1304. 
Literature Cited 

182 Sierra National Forest 

Long, J.; 1985. A Practical Approach to Density Management. Utah State University; The 

Forestry Chronicle (pages 23-27). 

MacDonald, L.H., and J.D. Stednick. 2003. Forests and water: a state-of-the art review for 

Colorado. CWRRI Completion Report No. 196. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 

CO. 

MacDonald, L.H., Drew Coe and Sandra Litschert. 2004. Assessing cumulative watershed effects 

in the Central Sierra Nevada: hillslope measurements and catchment-scale modeling. 

Proceedings, Sierra Nevada Science Symposium, Ocyober 7-10, 2002, Kings Beach, CA. 

PSW-GTR-193: 149-157. 

Mathews, K. 2003. The role of fish stocking in amphibian declines. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region Experiment Station, Science Perspectives, Fall 2003. 

Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, eds. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA. 166pp. 

Mazzoni, A. 2002. Habitat use by fishers (Martes pennanti) in the southern Sierra Nevada, 

California. M.S. Thesis. California State University, Fresno. 

McCarthy, C., W.D. Carrier, and W.F. Laudenslayer. 1989. Coordination timber management 

activities with raptor nesting habitat requirements. Pp. 229-235 in B. G. Pendleton (eds.) 

Proceedings of the Western raptor management symposium and workshop. Nat. Wildl. Fed. 

Sci. tech. Ser. No. 12. 

McDade, M.H., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, J.F. Franklin, and J. Van Sickle. 1990 Source 

distances for coarse woody debris entering small streams in western Oregon and 

Washington. Canadian Journal of Forestry. Vol. 20, 1990 p 326-330. 

McGowan, J.D. 1975. Distribution, density, and productivity of goshawks in interior Alaska.

Federal Aid Wildlife Restoration Project Report W-17-4, W17-5, W-17-6, Job 10.6A. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 

McKelvey, K.S. and Johnson, J.D. 1992. Historical perspectives on the forests of the Sierra 

Nevada and the Transverse Ranges in southern California: forest conditions at the turn of 

the century. Pp. 225–246. In J. Verner, K.S. McKelvey, B.R. Noon, R.J. Gutierrez, G.I. 

Gould and T.W. Beck, editors. The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its 

current status. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. 

Mech, L.D. S.H. Fritts, G.L. Radde, and W.J. Paul. 1988. Wolf distribution and road density in 

Minnesota. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:85-87. 

Meleason, M.A., S.V. Gregory, and J. Bolte. 2002. Simulation of stream wood source distance for 

small streams in the western Cascades, Oregon. USDA Forest Service, General Technical 

Report, PSW-GTR-181. 2002. 

Meehan, W.R and T.C. Bjornn. 1991. Salmonid distributions and life histories. In: Influences of 

forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats, Chapter 3. 

American Fisheries Society special publication 19. 721 pp. 

Melen, K., and A. Ager. 2002. A coarse wood dynamics model for the western cascades. USDA. 

Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-181. 2002. 

Meyer, W. H.; 1938 (slightly revised April 1961). Yield of Even-aged stands of Ponderosa Pine, 

Technical Bulletin No. 630, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Literature Cited 183 

Meyers, T.J. and Swanson, S., 1992. Variation of stream stability with stream type and livestock 

bank damage in Northern Nevada. Water Resources Bull. AWRA, 28(4): 743-754. 

Minshall, G.W. 2003. Responses of stream benthic macroinvertebrates to fire. In: Forest 

Ecologyand Management. Volume 178, Issues 1-2 (2003) 155-161. 

Montgomery, D.R., and J.M. Buffington. 1997. Channel-reach morphology in mountain drainage 

basins. Geological Society of America Bulletin. May 1997: Vol. 109, No. 5. p. 596-611. 

Moore, K, and C. J. Henny. 1983. Nest site characteristics of three coexisting Accipiter hawks in 

northeastern Oregon. J. Raptor Research 17:65-76. 

Moore, R.D., D.L. Spittlehouse, and A. Story. 2005. Riparian microclimate and stream 

temperature response to forest harvesting: a review. Journal of American Water Resources 

Association. August 2005. p. 813-834 

Moyle, P.B. 1976. Inland fishes of California. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of 

California Press. 405 pp. 

_____. 2002. Inland fish of California, revised and expanded. University of California Press, 

Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. 502 pp. 

Moyle, P.B. and J.J. Cech. 1988. Fishes and introduction to ichthyology. Prentice Hall, 

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632 559 pp. 

Moyle, P.B., and M. Marchetti. 1992. Temperature requirements of rainbow and brown trout. 

Davis, California. September 1992. 

Moyle, P.B., R.M. Yoshiyama, and R.A. Knapp. 1996. Status of fish and fisheries. In: Sierra 

Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, vol. II, chapter 33. Davis: University 

of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. 

Moyle, P.B., R. Kattleman, R. Zomer, and P.J. Randall. 1996a. Management of riparian areas 

inthe Sierra Nevada, In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, vol. 

III, chapter 1. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.

Naiman, R.J., E.V. Balian, K.K. Bartz, R.E. Bilby, and J.J. Latterell. Dead wood dynamics in 

stream ecosystems. USDA Technical Report PSW-GTR-181. p 23-48. 

NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 

Version 4.7. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. 

NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 

Version 6.2. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: January 2, 2008 ). 

Neary, D.G., P.F. Ffolliot, J.D. Landsberg. 2005a. Chapter 5: fire and streamflow regimes. IN: 

Wildland Fire in Ecosystems, Effects of Fire on Soil and Water. USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-volume 4. 

pp. 107-119. 

Neary, D.G., P.F. Ffolliott, and J.D. Landsberg. 2005. Fire and streamflow regimes. Chapter 5 in: 

Neary, D.G., K.C. Ryan, and L.F. DeBano, eds., Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire 

on soil and water. RMRS-GTR-42-vol 4. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Fort Collins, CO. 250p. 
Literature Cited 

184 Sierra National Forest 

Neary, D.G., J.D. Landsberg, A.R. Tiedemann, and P.F. Ffolliott. 2005b. Chapter 6: water 

quality. IN:Wildland Fire in Ecosystems, Effects of Fire on Soil and Water. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-

volume 4. pp. 119-134. 

Nilsen, E.T. 2000. Spartium junceum – Chapter in: Carla C. Bossard, John M. Randall, Marc C. 

Hoshovsky, Editors 360 pages, 133 color photos, 76 line illustrations, 79 maps. University

of California Press, 2000 

Norris, L.A., H.W. Lorz, and S.V. Gregory. 1991. Forest chemicals. In: Influences of forest and 

rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats, chapter 7. American Fisheries 

Society special publication 19. 721 pp. 

_____ 1993. The use of buffer zones to protect water quality: a review. Water Resources 

Management, 7:257-272. 

North, M.; Et Al.; 2009. An Ecosystem Management Strategy for Sierran Mixed-Conifer Forests. 

In press. 

Oliver, W.; 1995. Is Self-Thinning in Ponderosa Pine Ruled by Dendroctonus Bark Beetles? 

Pacific Southwest Research Center; USDA Forest Service; Forest Health Through 

Silviculture the proceedings of the 1995 National Silvicultural Workshop; (pages 213-218). 

Paragi, T.F., S.M. Arthur, and W.B. Krohn. 1996. Importance of tree cavities as natal dens for 

fishers. National Journal of American Foresters. 13:79-83. 

Parks, C.G., E.L. Bull, R.O. Tinnin, J.F. Shepherd, and A.K. Blumton. 1999. Wildlife use of 

dwarf mistletoe brooms in Douglas-fir in northeast Oregon. Western Journal of American 

Foresters. 14:100-105. 

PGE. 1983. Haas-Kings River Project. Application for New License. March 21, 1983. 

_____. 1983. Electrofishing surveys in the upper Kings River drainage 1982 and 1983. 

_____. 1984. Electrofishing surveys in the upper Kings River drainage 1984. 

_____. 1985. Haas-Kings River Project. Application for New License. February 19. 1985.

_____. 1988. North Fork Kings River electrofishing survey. Prepared by EA Engineering, 

Science, and Technology, Inc. December 1988. Report 026.11-88.5 

Pfankuch, Dale J. 1975. Stream reach inventory and channel stability evaluation. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, R1-75-002. Government Printing Office #696-

260/200, Washington, D.C.; 26 pg. 

Pianka, E.R. 1966. Latitudinal gradients in species diversity: a review of concepts. American 

Naturalist, 100(910):33-46. 

Powell RA. 1993. The fisher: life history, ecology and behavior. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: University 

of Minnesota Press. 

Powell, R.A. and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher. Pages 38-73, In Ruggerio, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. 

Buskirk, L.Jack Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski, eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest 

carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. 

Gen.Tech. Rep. RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 pp. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Literature Cited 185 

Powell, S.M., E.C. York, J.J. Scanlon, and T.K. Fuller. 1997. Fisher maternal den sites in central 

New England. Pp 265-278. In Proulx, G., H.N. Bryant, and P.M. Woodard, editors. Martes: 

taxonomy, ecology, techniques and management. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Alberta, 

Canada. 

Powers, Robert F., Scott D. Andrew, and others, 2008. The North American long-term soil 

productivity experiment: Findings from the first decade of research. Elsevier, Forest 

Ecology and Management 220 31-50 

Randall, J. 2000. Cirsium vulgare – Chapter in: Carla C. Bossard, John M. Randall, Marc C. 

Hoshovsky, Editors 360 pages, 133 color photos, 76 line illustrations, 79 maps. University

of California Press, 2000 

Reardon, J.R., K.C. Ryan, L.F. DeBano, and D.C. Neary. 2005 Chapter 8: wetland and riparian 

systems. IN: Wildland Fire in Ecosystems, Effects of Fire on Soil and Water. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-

volume 4. pp. 149-169. 

Reid, Leslie M. 2006 (March 21, last update). Channel erosion, mass wasting, and fuels

treatments. Chapter 6 in: Elliot, W.J., and L.J. Audin, eds. Draft Cumulative Watershed 

Effects of Fuels Management in the Western United States. Available online: 

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/engr/cwe/

Reid, Leslie, and Thomas Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water 

Resources Research 20(11):1753-1761. 

Resh, V.H. and D.G. Price. 1984. Sequential sampling: a cost-effective approach for monitoring 

benthic macroinvertebrates in environmental impact assessments. Environmental 

Management 8:75-80. 

Reynolds, J.B. 1983. Chapter 8:electrofishing. IN: Fisheries Techniques, L.A. Nielson, and D.L. 

Johnson, editors. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Pp. 147-164.

Reynolds, R. T. 1975. Distribution, density, and productivity of three species of Accipiter hawks 

in Oregon. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 39pp. 

Reynolds, R.T.; Graham, R.T.; Reiser, M.H.; Bassett, R.L.; Kennedy, P.L; Boyce, D.A., Jr; 

Goodwin, G.; Smith, R.; and Fisher, E.L. 1992. Management recommendations for the 

northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. General Technical Report RM-217. 

USDA Forest Service. 

Reynolds, R.T and E.C. Meslow. 1984. Partitioning of food and niche characteristics of

coexisting Accipiter during breeding. Auk 101: 761-779. 

Reynolds, R.T. and Wight, H.M. 1978. Distribution, density, and productivity of accipiter hawks 

breeding in Oregon. Wilson Bulletin 90: 182–196.

Reynolds, R.T.; Meslow, E.C.; and Wight, H.M. 1982. Nesting habitat of coexisting accipiter in 

Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 46: 124-138. 

Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. 

W. Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. M. Martell, 

A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, T. C. Will. 

2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. 
Literature Cited 

186 Sierra National Forest 

Rieman, B., and Clayton, J. 1997. Wildfire and native fish: issues of forest health and 

conservation of sensitive species. Fisheries 22(11), 6-15. 

Rieman, B., C. Luce, J.B. Dunham, and A. Rosenberger. 2005. Implications of changing fire 

regimes for aquatic systems. IN: Mixed severity fire regimes: ecology and management; 

symposium proceedings; Nov. 17-19, 2004 Pullman, WA. Washington State University 

Extension 2005, p. 187-191. 

Rinne, J.A., and G.R. Jacoby. 2005. Chapter 7: aquatic biota. IN: Wildland Fire in Ecosystems, 

Effects of Fire on Soil and Water. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-volume 4. pp. 135-143. 

Robichaud, P.R., J.L. Beyers, and D.G. Neary. 2000. Evaluating the effectiveness of postfire 

rehabilitation treatments. RMRS-GTR-63. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Fort Collins, CO. 85p. 

Robichaud, P.R., L.H. MacDonald, and R.B. Foltz. 2006 (March 21, last update). Fuel 

management and erosion. Chapter 5 in: Elliot, W.J., and L.J. Audin, eds. Draft Cumulative 

Watershed Effects of Fuels Management in the Western United States. Available online: 

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/engr/cwe/

Robinson, C.T., U. Uehlinger, and G.W. Minshall. 2005. Functional characteristics of wilderness 

streams twenty years following wildfire. West North American Naturalist 65(1), © 2005, 

pp 1-10. 

Robison, E.G., and R.L. Beschta. 1990. Identifying trees in riparian areas that can provide coarse 

woody debris to streams. Forest Science, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 790-801. 

Rosenberg, K.V.; Raphael, R.G. 1986. Effects of forest fragmentation on vertebrates in Douglasfir forests. In: J. Verner, M.L. Morrison, C.J. Ralph, eds. Wildlife 2000: Modeling habitat 

relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press: 263-

272. 

Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers, Published Elsevier, Catena 22 (1994) 

pages 169 – 199. 

_____. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Copyright 1996 by Wildland Hydrology, 1481 Stevens 

Lake Road, Pagosa Springs, CO. 

_____. 2001. A Stream Channel Stability Assessment Methodology, Proceedings of the Seventh 

Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Vol. 2, pp. II - 18-26, March 25-29, 2001, 

Reno, NV. 

Ruediger, R. and J. Ward. 1996. Abundance and function of large woody debris in central Sierra 

Nevada streams. In: FHR current, fish habitat relationships technical bulletin, No. 20, May 

1996. 

Sanders, H. 2006. Aquatic biological evaluation/biological assessment for the Kings River Project 

Saunders, L.B. 1982. Essential nesting habitat of the goshawk (Accipiter gentiles) on the Shastatrinity National Forest, McCloud District. M.S. thesis. California State University, Chico, 

CA. 

Sauter, S.T., J. McMillan, and J. Dunham. 2001. Salmonid behavior and water temperature, Issue 

paper 1. United States EPA. EPA-910-D-01-001 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Literature Cited 187 

Schnackenberg, E.S., and L.H. MacDonald. 1998. Detecting cumulative effects on headwater 

streams in the Riutt National Forest, Colorado. Journal of the American Water Resources 

Assoc., 34(5):1163-1177. 

Schnell, J.H. 1958. Nesting behavior and food habits of goshawks in the Sierra Nevada of

California. Condor 60: 377–403.

Scott, J. and Burgan, R., 2005. Standard Fire Behavior Models: A Comprehensive Set for use 

with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model. USDA Forest Service, General Technical 

Report, Rocky Mountain Research Station, RMRS-GTR-153, June 2005. 

Sedell, J.R., P.A. Bisson, F.J. Swanson, and S.V. Gregory. 1988. What we know about large trees 

that fall into streams and rivers. IN Maser, C., R.F. Tarrant, J.M. Trappe, and J.F. Franklin., 

tech. Eds. From the forest to the se: a story of fallen trees. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR229. 

Portland, OR 

Seglund, A.E. 1995. The use of resting sites by Pacific fisher. M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State 

University, Arcata, California. 

Sestrich, C.M. 2005. Changes in native and nonnative fish assemblages and habitat following 

wildfire in the Bitterroot River Basin, Montana. Master’s Thesis. Montana State University, 

Bozeman, Montana November 2005. 

Shakesby, R.A., and S.H. Doerr. 2006. Wildfire as a hydrological and geomorphological agent. 

Earth-Science Reviews, 74(2006):269-307. 

Shuster, W. C. 1980. Northern goshawk nest site requirements in the Colorado Rockies. West. 

Birds 11:89-96. 

Skinner, C.N. 2002. Influence of fire on the dynamics of dead woody material in the forests of 

California and southwestern Oregon. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report 

PSW-GTR-181. 

Siegel, R.B. and D.F. DeSante. 1999. Version 1.0. The draft avian conservation plan for the 

Sierra Nevada Bioregion: conservation priorities and strategies for safeguarding Sierra bird 

populations. Institute for Bird Populations report to California Partners in Flight. Available 

on-line: http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/sierra.html. 

Siegel, R.B. and D.R. Kaschube. 2007. Landbird Monitoring Results from the Monitoring Avian 

Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) Program in the Sierra Nevada. Final report in 

fulfillment of Forest Service Agreement No. 05-PA-11052007-141. The Institute for Bird 

Populations. February 13, 2007. 33pp. 

Sierra Nevada Research Center. 2007. Plumas Lassen Study 2006 Annual Report. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Sierra Nevada Research Center, Davis, 

California. 182pp. 

Skinner, C. N.; Stephens, S.L., 2004. Fire in the Sierra Nevada. Pacific Southwest Research 

Center, USDA Forest Service; General Technical Report; PSW-GTR-193. 

Smith, D.M.; 1962. The Practice of Silviculture. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New 

York. 7th Edition. 

Smucker, K.M., R.L. Hutto, B.M. Steele. 2005. Changes in bird abundance after wildfire: 

importance of fire severity and time since fire. Ecological applications 15(5):1535-1549. 
Literature Cited 

188 Sierra National Forest 

Spencer, W.D. 2008. Baseline Evaluation of Fisher Habitat and Population Status and Effects of 

Fires and Fuels Management on Fishers In the Southern Sierra Nevada, Final Report to 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. June 2008. 

Squires, J.R .and Reynolds, R.T. 1997. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). In: Poole, A.; Gill, 

F., eds. The birds of North America, No. 298. Philadelphia, PA: The Academy of Natural

Sciences, and Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists' Union. 

Squires, J.R. and Ruggerio, L.F. 1996. Nest-site preference of northern goshawks in south-central 

Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 60: 170–177. 

Stephens, S.L.; Et.Al.; 2009. Fire treatment effects on vegetation structure, fuels, and potential 

fire severity in western U.S. forests. Ecological Applications; 19(2); (pages 305-320). 

Stephenson, J.R. and Calcarone, G.M. 1999. Southern California mountains and foothills 

assessment: Habitat and species conservation issues. General Technical Report GTR-PSW175. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture.

Strand, Phillip, 2007. Stream survey forms. 

Strand, Phillip. 2007a. Personal communication regarding channel bank stability for 

subwatersheds 501.5053, 501.5054. 

Strand, Phillip. 2008. Personal communication regarding dissolved oxygen in streams within the 

project area. 

Strand, Phillip. 2009. Aquatics Report to the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Suihara, N.G.; J.W. van Wagtendonk; K.E. Shaffer; J. Fites-Kaufman; A.E. Thode, 2006. Fire in 

California’s Ecosystems. ©2006 by the Regents of the University of California. 

Swanston, F.J., G.W. Lienkaemper, and G.W. Sedell. 1976. History, physical effects, and 

management implications of large organic debris in western Oregon streams. General 

Technical Report PNW-56, Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Forest 

and Range Experiment Station. 15 pp. 

TenPas, Jeff, 2005. Framework Soil Monitoring Methods, 2005. Sierra National Forest, Clovis 

CA. 17 pages. 

Timossi, I. 1990. California’s statewide wildlife habitat relationships system. Calif. Dept. of fish 

and Game. Sacramento, CA. Computerized database. 

Titus, K. and Fuller, M.R. 1990. Recent trends in counts of migrant hawks from northeastern 

North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 54: 463-470. 

Troendle, C.A., L.H. MacDonald, and C.H. Luce. 2006 (May 22, last update). Fuels management 

and water yield. Chapter 7 in: Elliot, W.J., and L.J. Audin, eds. Draft Cumulative

Watershed Effects of Fuels Management in the Western United States. Available online: 

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/engr/cwe/

Truex, R.L., and W.J. Zielinski. 2005. Short-term effects of fire and fire surrogate treatments on 

fisher habitat in the Sierra Nevada. Final report to the Joint Fire Science Program, Project 

JFSP 01C-3-3-02. Unpublished. 25 pp. 

Truex, R.L. W.J. Zielinski, R.T. Golightly, R.H. Barrett, and S.M. Wisely. 1998. A meta-analysis 

of regional variation in fisher morphology, demography, and habitat ecology in California. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Literature Cited 189 

Draft report submitted to: California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management 

Division, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section. Sacramento, California, USA. 118 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA-FS). 1983; revised 2002. Water quality 

management for National Forest system lands in California (Best Management Practices). 

FSH 2509.22 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. 

_____. 1989. 2509.22 Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook, Sierra National Forest

Supplement No.1. 

_____. 1991. Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Sierra National Forest. Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region, Sierra National Forest. Clovis, CA. 

_____. 1995. Handbook 2509.18 – Soil Management Handbook, Region 5, Supplement No. 

2509.18-95-1. 10 pgs. 

_____. 1996. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project; Chapter 4, Fire and Fuels, pp. 62-71. 

_____. 2000. Landbird Strategic Plan, FS-648. Washington, D.C. 

_____. 2000a. Water Quality Management for National Forest System Lands in California, Best 

Management Practices. 

_____. 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

Record of Decision, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, January 2001. 

_____. 2001a. Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Sierra National Forest (Amended). 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sierra National Forest. Clovis, CA. 

_____.2002. Investigating Water Quality in the Pacific Southwest Region, Best Management 

Practices Evaluation Program (BMPEP) User’s Guide. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 128 pgs. 

_____.2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement, Record of Decision, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, R5-MB046 January 2004. 

_____. 2004a. Best Management Practices Evaluation Program, 1992-2002 Monitoring Results. 

Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 76p. 

_____. 2005. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Accomplishment Monitoring Report for 2004. USDA

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-026. 8pp. 

_____. 2005a. Stream condition inventory (SCI) technical guide, version 5, Pacific Southwest 

Region Forest Service, Ecosystem Conservation Staff. Vallejo, CA. 111 pp. 

_____.2006. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2005. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-000. 12pp. 

_____.2006a. Bass Lake Ranger District Road Hazard Environmental Assessment. 

_____.2007. Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Multi Species Inventory and Monitoring: A 

Foundation for Comprehensive Biological Status and Trend Monitoring in the Lake Tahoe 

Basin. Draft Report. 

_____.2007a. Record of Decision, Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species 

Amendment. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December, 2007. 18pp. 
Literature Cited 

190 Sierra National Forest 

_____.2007b. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2006. USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-149. 12pp. 

_____.2008. Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report: 

Life history and analysis of Management Indicator Species of the 10 Sierra Nevada 

National Forests: Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, and 

Tahoe National Forests and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Pacific Southwest 

Region, Vallejo, CA. January 2008. 

_____.2008a. Memorandum of Understanding between the US Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to promote the conservation of migratory 

birds. FS Agreement #08-MU-1113-2400-264. Washington, D.C. 

_____.2009. Open File Report, Clovis, CA. 150 pgs with maps. 

_____.2009a. Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

_____.2009b. Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project Biological Evaluation/Biological 

Assessment. 

_____.2009c. Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project Fire/Fuels Report. 

_____.2009d. Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project Silviculture Report. 

_____.2009e. Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project Migratory Bird Treaty Act Compliance 

Document. 

_____.2009f. Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project CWE Analysis 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI-BLM). 1995. Riparian area 

management, process for assessing proper functioning condition. TR 1737-9 1993. US Dept 

of the Interior, BLM, Service Center, P.O. Box 25047, Denver, CO 80225-0047. 51 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Birds of conservation 

concern 2002. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp. 

_____.2003. 12-month finding Status Review. 

_____.2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding for a Petition to 

List the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Fisher (Martes pennanti). Portland, 

Oregon. Federal Register 69:18769. 

_____.2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding for Petitions to 

List the Greater Sage-Grouse as Threatened or Endangered; Proposed Rule. Department of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register: January 12, 2005, 

Volume 70, Number 8, pages 2244-2282. 

_____.2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding for a Petition to 

List the California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) as Threatened or 

Endangered. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 50 CFR Part 17. Federal 

Register: May 24, 2006, Volume 71, Number 100, pages 29886-29908. 

_____. 2009 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of 

forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. Center for Streamside 

Studies in Forestry, Fisheries and Wildlife, College of Forest Resources/College of Ocean 

and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Literature Cited 191 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1997. The stream segment and stream network temperature 

models. US Geological Survey, Biological Resource Division, Midcontinent Ecological 

Science Center, River Systems Management Section, Fort Collins, CO and Colorado State 

University, College of Natural Resources. Version 1.0 

____. 2000. The stream segment and stream network temperature models. US Geological Survey, 

Biological Resource Division, Midcontinent Ecological Science Center, River Systems 

Management Section, Fort Collins, CO and Colorado State University, College of Natural 

Resources. Version 2.0 

van Mantgem, P. J.; Et. Al. 2009. Widespread Increase of Tree Mortality Rates in the Western 

United States. Science. Volume 323: (pages 521-524). 

Van Sickle, J., and S.V. Gregory. 1990. Modeling inputs of large woody debris to streams from 

fallings. Can. J. For. Res. 20: 1593-1601. 

Verner, J., K.S., McKelvey, B.R. Noon, R.J. Gutierrez, G.I. Gould, Jr., and T.W. Beck., tech. 

coord. 1992. The California Spotted Owl: a technical assessment of its current status. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133, US Forest Service, Albany, CA. 

Vredenburg, V.T. 2004. Reversing introduced species effects: Experimental removal of 

introduced fish leads to rapid recovery of a declining frog. PNAS, Vol. 101, No. 20. 

pp.7646-7650. 

Wallbrink, P.J., and Croke, J. 2002. A combined rainfall simulator and tracer approach to assess 

the role of Best Management Practices in minimizing sediment redistribution and loss in 

forests after harvesting. Forest Ecology and Management 170:217-232. 

Weatherspoon, C. P., 1996. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project; Chapter 44, Fire-Silviculture 

Relationships in Sierra Forests, pp. 1167-1175. 

Wemple, Beverly C., Julia A. Jones, and Gordon E. Grant. 1996. Channel network extension by 

logging roads in two basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin, 

32(6):1195-1207. 

Wisely, S.M., S.W. Buskirk, G.H. Russel, K.B. Aubry, and W.J. Zielinski. 2004. Genetic 

diversity and structure of the fisher (Martes pennanti) in a peninsular and peripheral 

metapopulation. J. Mammal. 85(4):640-648. 

Wondzell, Steven M. and John G. King. 2003. Post-fire erosional processes in the Pacific 

Northwest and Rocky Mountain regions. Forest Ecology and Management 178(2003):75-

87. 

Woodbridge, B. and Detrich, P.J. 1994. Territory occupancy and habitat patch size of northern 

goshawks in the southern Cascades of California. Studies in Avian Biology 16: 83–87.

Yeager, S. 2005. Habitat at fisher resting sites in the Klamath Province of Northern California. 

M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. 

Yoshiyama, R.M., E.R. Gerstung, F.W. Fisher, and P.B. Moyle. 1996. Historical and present 

distribution of Chinook salmon in the central valley drainage of California. In: Sierra 

Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, vol. III, chapter 7. Davis: University 

of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. 

Zachel, C.R. 1985. Food habits, hunting activity, and post-fledgling behavior of northern 

goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) in interior Alaska. Fairbanks: University of Alaska. M.S. 

thesis. 
Literature Cited 

192 Sierra National Forest 

Zeiner, David C., William F. Laudenslayer, Jr., Kenneth E. Mayer, and Marshall White, eds. 

1990. California's Wildlife. Volume II. Birds. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat 

Relationship System. Department of Fish and Game, The Resources Agency, Sacramento, 

California. 732 pages. 

Zielinski, W.J. 2004. The status and conservation of mesocarnivores in the Sierra Nevada. 185-

193. In: Murphy, D.D. and P.A. Stine, editors. Proceedings of the Sierra Nevada science 

symposium: science for management and conservation. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-193. 

Pacific Southwest research Station, USDA Forest Service; 287 p. 

Zielinski, W.J., and N.P. Duncan. 2004. Diets of sympatric populations of American martens 

(Martes americana) and fishers (Martes pennanti) in California. J. Mammal. 85(3):470-

477. 

Zielinski, W.J., N.P. Duncan, E.C. Farmer, R.L. Truex, A.P. Clevenger, and R.H. Barrett. 1999. 

Diet of fishers (Martes pennanti) at the southernmost extent of their range. Journal of 

Mammalogy 80: 961-971. 

Zielinski, W.J., Dr. K. Purcell, and R. Truex. 2006. pers. comm., 21 Sept 2006 

Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, C.V. Ogan, and K.Busse.1997. Detection surveys for fishers and 

American martens in California, 1989-1994: Summary and interpretations. Pages 372-392. 

In G. Proulx, H.N. Bryant, and P.M. Woodard, editors. Martes: taxonomy, ecology, 

techniques and management. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Alberta, Canada. 

Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, R. Schlexer, L.A. Campbell, and C. Carroll. 2005. Historical and 

contemporary distributions of carnivores in forests of the Sierra Nevada, California. J. 

Biogeog. 32:1385-1407. 

Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, G. Schmidt, R. Schlexer, K.N. Schmidt, and R.H. Barrett. 2004a. 

Resting habitat selection by fishers in California. J. Wildl. Manage. 68:475-492. 

______. 2004b. Home range characteristics of fishers in California. J. Mammal. 85:649-657. 

Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, J.R. Dunk, and T. Gaman. In Press. Using forest inventory data to 

assess fisher resting habitat suitability in California. Ecological Applications. 

Zielinski, W.J, T.E. Kucera, and R.H. Barrett. 1995. The current distribution of the fisher, Martes 

pennanti, in California. California Fish and Game 81:104-112. 

Zirrer, F. 1947. The goshawk. Passenger Pigeon 9: 79–94. 

Zwolinski, Malcom. 2000. The role of fire in management of watershed responses. In:USDA 

Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-13. 
Sierra National Forest – Index 193 

Index 

aquatic.... iii, 10, 17, 18, 19, 36, 37, 40, 66, 

67, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 81, 82, 85, 86, 

89, 113, 115, 116, 118, 120, 141, 160, 

173, 177, 178, 181, 183, 190, 202, 204, 

205, 206, 208, 209 

California spotted owl... v, 2, 4, 6, 97, 178, 

182, 186 

conifer ... i, v, vi, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 19, 

35, 36, 37, 49, 55, 57, 59, 63, 77, 84, 

100, 101, 102, 103, 106, 107, 109, 121, 

123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 130, 134, 136, 

137, 139, 142, 167, 168, 172, 173, 180, 

184, 185, 218, 220, 222, 223, 225 

crowns58, 83, 96, 127, 128, 131, 132, 136, 

137, 141, 142, 143, 146, 162, 171 

cultural resources . 30, 31, 32, 33, 159, 161 

desired conditions ... 1, 4, 15, 51, 123, 134, 

138, 147, 210 

disease i, v, 54, 56, 57, 64, 65, 73, 98, 101, 

102, 103, 106, 107, 123, 126, 130, 148, 

149, 158, 168, 170, 172, 221, 223 

ecosystem...... v, 1, 94, 107, 141, 146, 147, 

170, 171, 172, 173, 182, 183 

endangered .. 19, 35, 37, 38, 57, 62, 67, 68, 

72, 75, 86, 89, 159, 175 

fuels... i, v, vi, 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 

18, 20, 28, 33, 37, 38, 39, 42, 49, 51, 53, 

54, 57, 62, 64, 65, 71, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 

82, 85, 86, 88, 89, 91, 92, 98, 101, 104, 

111, 116, 118, 120, 126, 127, 129, 130, 

131, 134, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 

142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 

152, 153, 155, 164, 168, 169, 171, 174, 

175, 184, 189, 192, 201, 206, 208, 211, 

213, 219, 222, 226 

Management Indicator Species ii, iii, 6, 60, 

66, 67, 68, 71, 77, 92, 94, 95, 96, 160, 

165, 171, 194 

MIS .. iii, 68, 71, 75, 77, 78, 79, 82, 86, 89, 

92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 100, 102, 106, 

107, 109, 160, 162, 171, 194 

Pacific fisher v, 2, 6, 12, 20, 57, 64, 88, 91, 

147, 148, 149, 163, 182, 185, 191, 213, 

218 

plants. ii, 13, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 

150, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 

174, 175 

prescribed burning .. i, vi, 9, 16, 17, 40, 49, 

55, 58, 77, 99, 101, 104, 105, 126, 142, 

147, 151, 152, 153, 159, 168 

riparian .. 14, 16, 17, 18, 36, 37, 38, 39, 67, 

71, 72, 73, 75, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 88, 

91, 92, 96, 111, 113, 115, 162, 173, 174, 

177, 178, 180, 181, 183, 185, 187, 189, 

190, 201, 205, 208, 209, 210, 213, 223 

sensitive. 13, 14, 15, 19, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 

40, 43, 45, 57, 63, 67, 68, 75, 82, 86, 89, 

115, 116, 134, 146, 150, 151, 153, 163, 

190, 201, 202, 203, 205, 206, 208 

soil... 13, 14, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 

46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 81, 82, 83, 91, 

113, 115, 121, 122, 128, 130, 131, 141, 

142, 156, 160, 171, 174, 188, 189, 202, 

203, 204, 205, 207, 209, 210, 211 

SPLATs...... v, vi, 9, 50, 77, 116, 118, 126, 

142, 168 

stand density... vi, 3, 10, 11, 12, 20, 53, 75, 

83, 84, 86, 88, 91, 105, 124, 125, 126, 

127, 130, 134, 148, 158, 164 

thinning vi, 3, 9, 11, 13, 19, 20, 27, 40, 49, 

50, 51, 53, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 

71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 

87, 88, 90, 91, 98, 104, 105, 112, 113, 

114, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 

124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 

132, 138,Ŕ142, 143, 144, 146, 181, 213, 

220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225 

threatened.... 19, 35, 37, 38, 57, 62, 67, 68, 

75, 86, 89, 159, 173 

wildfires ... i, v, 2, 3, 9, 33, 50, 61, 98, 101, 

104, 105, 108, 134, 141, 150, 151, 152, 

210 

WUI... v, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 16, 20, 50, 53, 

116, 126, 137, 138, 147, 175, 219, 221, 

224 
Sierra National Forest – Index 194 
Sierra National Forest – Appendix A – Map Package 195 

Appendices

Appendix A – Map Package for Sugar Pine 

Adaptive Management Project_________________ 

Sierra National Forest – Appendix B – Best Management Practices 197 

Appendix B – Best Management Practices 

Associated with Sugar Pine Adaptive Management 

Project ____________________________________ 

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction 

Application to the Sugar Pine Project 

BMP 1-1 Timber Sale Planning 

Process: To incorporate water 

quality and hydrologic 

considerations into the timber 

sale planning process. 

Implemented through the Riparian Conservation Objectives/Forest 

Plan Consistency report, specification of operational BMPs, 

Environmental Analysis including interdisciplinary team office and 

field discussions, and incorporation of water quality protection 

measures in the Timber Sale Contract for the KRP EIS. 

BMP 1-4 Use of Sale Area 

Maps (SAM) and/or Project 

Maps for Designating Water 

Quality Protection Needs: To 

ensure recognition and protection 

of areas related to water quality 

protection delineated on a SAM 

or project map. 

The sale administrator and purchaser will review these areas on the 

ground prior to commencement of ground disturbing activities. 

Examples of water quality protection features that will be 

designated on the project map include: 

a. Location of streamcourses and riparian zones to be protected, 

including the width of the protection zone for each area. 

b. Wetlands (meadows, lakes, springs, etc.) and other sensitive 

areas (such as shallow soils) to be protected. 

c. Boundaries of harvest units, specified roads and roads where 

hauling activities are prohibited or restricted, areas of different 

skidding and/or yarding methods, including post-harvest fuels 

treatments, and water sources available for purchaser use. 

BMP 1-5 Limiting the 

Operating Period of Timber 

Sale Activities: To ensure that 

the purchasers conduct their 

operations, including erosion 

control work, road maintenance, 

and so forth, in a timely manner, 

within the time frame specified in 

the Timber Sale Contract. 

The purchaser contract operation period will be limited to contractspecified periods when adverse environmental effects are not likely. 

The Sale Administrator will close down operations due to rainy 

periods, high water, or other adverse operating conditions in order 

to protect resources. 

BMP 1-8 Streamside 

Management Zone 

Designation: To designate a 

zone along riparian areas, 

streams and wetlands that will 

minimize potential for adverse 

effects from adjacent 

management activities. 

Management activities within 

these zones are designed to 

improve riparian values. 

Streamside management zones (SMZs ) have been supplemented 

with RMAs and RCAs (USDA-FS 2004b) as described in Appendix 

E and the Aquatics design measures. 

Within SMZs, the constraints defined in Sierra Supplement No. 1 

(USDA Forest Service, 1989) apply. This includes no self-propelled 

ground based equipment, a minimum groundcover of 50%, and 

shade canopy may not be modified in a way that affects stream 

temperature. 

Modifications to these guidelines are possible where site-specific 

needs exist if the action is reviewed by a hydrologist or fisheries 

biologist. 
Appendices 

198 Sierra National Forest 

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction 

Application to the Sugar Pine Project 

BMP 1-9 Determining Tractor 

Loggable Ground: To minimize 

erosion and sedimentation 

resulting from ground 

disturbance of tractor logging 

systems. 

Limit ground skidding and machine piling with tractors to slopes 

less than 35%. Endlining can be used to remove logs from steeper 

slopes. Ground disturbance on areas of shallow soils, notably soils 

adjacent and abutting to rock outcrops, will be avoided. 

BMP 1-10 Tractor Skidding 

Design: By designing skidding 

patterns to best fit the terrain, the 

volume, velocity, concentration, 

and direction of runoff water can 

be controlled in a manner that 

will minimize erosion and 

sedimentation. 

The sale administrator and purchaser will designate all skid trails 

prior to ground disturbing activities. If uncertainty arises regarding 

potential resource impacts of skid trail location, consult with an 

earth science specialist (i.e., hydrologist, aquatic biologist, or soil 

scientist). 

BMP 1-11 Suspended Log 

Yarding in Timber harvesting:

To protect the soil mantle from 

excessive disturbance; to 

maintain the integrity of the SMZ 

or other sensitive watershed area; 

to control erosion on cable 

corridors. 

Helicopter yarding has been specified on steep slopes in this 

project. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Appendix B – Best Management Practices 199 

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction 

Application to the Sugar Pine Project 

BMP 1-12 Log Landing 

Location: To locate new 

landings in such a way as to 

avoid watershed impacts and 

associated water quality 

degradation 

The following criteria are to be used by the Sale Administrator 

when evaluating landings: 

a. The cleared or excavated size of landings will not exceed that 

needed for safe and efficient skidding and loading operations. 

Trees considered dangerous will be removed around landings to 

meet the safety requirements of OSHA. 

b. Selected landing locations will involve the least amount of 

excavation and fill possible. Landings must be located outside 

of SMZs. 

c. Locate landings near ridges away from headwater swales in 

areas that will allow skidding without crossing stream channels, 

violating SMZs, or causing direct deposit of soil and debris to a 

stream. 

d. Locate landings where the least number of skid roads will be 

required, and sidecast can be stabilized without entering 

drainages or affecting other sensitive areas. Keep the number of 

skid trails entering a landing to a minimum. 

e. Position landings such that the skid road approach will be nearly 

level as feasible, to promote safety and to protect soil from 

erosion. 

f. Avoid excessive fills associated with landings constructed on 

old landslide benches. 

g. Construct stable landing fills or improve existing landings by 

using appropriate compaction and drainage specifications. 

In some cases, using an existing landing located within an RCA or 

CAR is preferable to constructing a new landing outside of it. These 

situations will be reviewed on a site-by-site basis by an earth 

science specialist (aquatics, hydrology, geology, or soils). 

BMP 1-13 Erosion Prevention 

and Control Measures during 

Timber Sale Operations: To 

ensure that the purchasers’ 

operations will be conducted 

reasonably to minimize soil 

erosion. 

Timber purchaser responsibilities for erosion control will be set 

forth in the Timber Sale Contract. Equipment will not be operated 

when ground conditions are such that excessive damage will result. 

The kinds and intensity of control work required of the purchaser 

will be adjusted by the sale administrator to ground and weather 

conditions with emphasis on controlling overland runoff, erosion, 

and sedimentation. 

Erosion control work required by the contract will be kept current. 

At certain times of the year this means daily, if precipitation is 

likely or weekly when precipitation is predicted for the weekend. 

Erosion prevention measures must be applied no later than October 

1 and immediately upon completion of activity begun after 

November 1. 

If the purchaser fails to perform seasonal erosion control work prior 

to any seasonal period of precipitation or runoff, the Forest Service 

may temporarily assume responsibility, complete the work, and use 

any unencumbered deposits as payment for the work. 
Appendices 

200 Sierra National Forest 

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction 

Application to the Sugar Pine Project 

BMP 1-16 Log Landing 

Erosion Protection and 

Control: To reduce the impacts 

of erosion and subsequent 

sedimentation associated with log 

landings by use of mitigating 

measures. 

Landings will be properly cross-ditched, ripped (if soils are 

compacted), re-contoured (as necessary), and mulched after use and 

before the winter precipitation period, whichever comes first. 

Excess material not needed for erosion control can be piled and 

burned. Upon completion of the project, consult with the 

hydrologist or soil scientist to determine the need for additional soil 

protection measures. 

BMP 1-17 Erosion Control of 

Skid Trails: To protect water 

quality by minimizing erosion 

and sedimentation derived from 

skid trails. 

Erosion control measures will be installed on all skid trails, tractor 

roads, and temporary roads. Erosion control measures include, but 

are not limited to, cross ditches (water bars), organic mulch, and 

ripping. 

Cross ditches will be spaced according to the guidelines below, 

maintained in a functioning condition, and placed in locations 

where drainage would naturally occur (i.e., swales). The level of 

maintenance will be contingent upon existing or predicted weather 

patterns as determined by the Sale Administer (see BMP 1-13). 

Minimum Cross Drain Spacing 

% Slope Maximum Spacing 

0 - 15 125 feet 

15 - 35 45 feet 

BMP 1-18 Meadow Protection 

during Timber Harvesting: To 

avoid damage to the ground 

cover, soil, and hydrologic 

function of meadows. 

Mechanical equipment is not permitted in meadows unless 

specifically authorized by an aquatic biologist and hydrologist. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Appendix B – Best Management Practices 201 

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction 

Application to the Sugar Pine Project 

BMP 1-19 Streamcourse and 

Aquatic Protection: The 

objectives of this BMP are: 

1) To conduct management 

actions within these areas in a 

manner that maintains or 

improves riparian and aquatic 

values. 

2) To provide unobstructed 

passage of stormflows. 

3) To control sediment and other 

pollutants entering 

streamcourses. 

4) To restore the natural course 

of any stream as soon as 

practicable, where diversion of 

the stream has resulted from 

timber management activities. 

a. The location and method of crossings on Class IV and V 

streams must be agreed to by the sale administrator (SA) prior 

to construction. 

b. Stream crossings on Class I – III streams must be approved by 

the hydrologist and aquatic biologist. 

c. Damage to stream banks and channels will be repaired to the 

extent practicable. 

d. All sale-generated debris will be removed from streamcourses, 

unless otherwise agreed to by the SA, and in an agreed upon 

manner that will cause the least disturbance. 

e. Felled trees will not be pulled across perennial or intermittent 

stream channels without prior approval by the hydrologist or 

aquatic biologist. 

f. Methods for protecting water quality while utilizing tractor skid 

trail design in stream course areas where harvest is approved 

include: (1) end lining, (2) falling to the lead, and (3) utilizing 

specialized equipment with low ground pressure such as feller 

buncher harvester. 

g. Water bars or other erosion control structures will be located so 

as to disperse concentrated flows and filter out suspended 

sediments prior to entry into streamcourse. 

h. Material from temporary road construction and skid trail 

streamcourse crossings will be removed and streambanks 

restored to the extent practicable. 

i. Special slash treatment site preparation activities will be 

prescribed in sensitive areas to facilitate slash disposal without 

use of mechanized equipment. 

j. Project-related bare soil areas (e.g. skid trails, landings, 

temporary roads, etc.) will be covered with existing native 

vegetation mulch, organic debris, or certified weed free straw to 

at least 50%, well distributed cover, and cross-ditched per BMP 

1-17 requirements. 

BMP 1-20 Erosion Control 

Structure Maintenance: To 

ensure that constructed erosion 

control structures are stabilized 

and working 

During the period of the timber sale contract, the purchaser will 

provide maintenance of soil erosion control structures contracted by 

the purchaser until they become stabilized, but not more than one 

year after their construction. If the purchaser fails to do seasonal 

maintenance work, the Forest Service may assume the

responsibility and charge the purchaser accordingly. The Forest 

Service sale administrator is responsible for ensuring erosion 

control maintenance work is completed. 
Appendices 

202 Sierra National Forest 

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction 

Application to the Sugar Pine Project 

BMP 1-21 Acceptance of 

Timber Sale Erosion Control 

Measures before Sale Closure:

To ensure the adequacy of 

required erosion control work on 

timber sales. 

The sale administrator must inspect erosion control measures to 

ensure their adequacy prior to accepting closure on the unit and/or 

sale. 

The effectiveness of erosion control measures will be evaluated 

using BMPEP protocols (see Monitoring Plan) after the sale area 

has been through one or more wet seasons. This evaluation is to 

ensure that erosion control treatments are in good repair and 

functioning as designed before releasing the purchaser from 

contract responsibility. 

The purchaser is responsible for repairing erosion control 

treatments that fail to meet criteria in the Timber Sale Contract, as 

determined by the Sale Administer, for up to one year past closure 

of the sale. 

BMP 1-22 Slash Treatment in 

Sensitive Areas: To maintain or 

improve water quality by 

protecting sensitive areas from 

degradation which would likely 

result from using mechanized 

equipment for slash disposal. 

All burn piles made with mechanical equipment must be located 

outside of the SMZ. 

Hand piles will be kept at least 20 feet away from all streams, 

meadows, springs, seeps, and other sensitive aquatic areas. 

In Alternative 3, special mechanized fuels treatment has been 

specified in sub-watersheds with cumulative watershed effects 

concerns in order to minimize ground disturbance. 

BMP 2-1 General guidelines for 

the Location and Design of 

Roads: To locate and design 

roads with minimal resource 

damage. 

The following considerations are incorporated into the planning 

process of road location and design. These measures are 

preventative, apply to all transportation activities, and indirectly 

protect water quality: 

a. Transportation facilities will be developed and operated to best 

meet the resource management objectives with the least adverse 

effect on environmental values. 

b. The location, design, and construction of roads will include the 

use of the IDT. 

c. Sensitive areas such as wetlands, inner gorges, and unstable 

ground will be avoided to the extent practicable. 

d. Stream crossings will be designed to provide the most cost 

efficient drainage facility consistent with resource protection, 

facility needs, and legal obligations. 

BMP 2-2 Erosion Control Plan:

To mitigate and control erosion 

through effective planning prior 

to initiation of construction. 

Any new construction would be subject to erosion control measures 

as per an IDT approved plan that may include but not be limited to 

waterbar installation, sediment fencing, culvert installation and 

armoring, placement of straw waddles, approved straw cover and/or 

slash and any other method necessary to mitigate erosion and 

sediment routing in the project subwatershed(s). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Appendix B – Best Management Practices 203 

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction 

Application to the Sugar Pine Project 

BMP 2-3 Timing of 

Construction Activities: To 

minimize erosion by conducting 

operations during minimal runoff 

periods and when soils are dry 

and less prone to compaction. 

Ground-disturbing activities will occur when soils are dry. In some 

cases soils may never dry sufficiently. Ground-disturbing work that 

occurs off of existing roads will occur during the dry season and 

will reduce ground disturbance as much as possible.

BMP 2-5 Road Slope 

Stabilization Construction 

Practices: To reduce 

sedimentation by minimizing 

erosion from road slopes and 

slope failure along roads. 

An adequate soils and geologic investigation will be conducted 

when finalizing new road construction designs for: correct cut and 

fill steepness based on the angle of repose for the type of material; 

methods to handle surface runoff; and necessary compaction 

standards and surfacing needs. 

BMP 2-7 Control of Road 

Drainage: To minimize the 

erosive effects of water 

concentrated on roads, to 

disperse runoff from road 

surfaces, to lessen sediment yield 

from roaded areas, and to 

minimize erosion of the road 

prism. 

Newly constructed or reconstructed roads will be designed to 

reduce hydrologic connectivity and soil erosion wherever feasible. 

The sale administrator or other Forest Service representative will 

ensure that roads are adequately maintained during project 

implementation to ensure that road drainage features function as 

designed. 

BMP 2-8 Constraints Related 

to Pioneer Road Construction:

To minimize sediment 

production and mass wasting 

from pioneer road construction. 

a. Roads will be constructed within the planned roadway limits 

unless otherwise specified or approved by the ER or COR. 

b. Pioneer roads will be located to prevent undercutting of the 

designated final cut slope, avoid deposition of materials outside 

the designated roadway limits, and accommodate drainage with 

temporary culverts or log crossings. 

c. Erosion control work will be completed prior to the rainy season 

and in accordance with the contract. 

d. Crossing sites on live streams will be dewatered during 

construction with diversion devices (see BMP 2-15). 

BMP 2-9 Timely Erosion 

Control Measures on 

Incomplete Roads and Stream 

Crossing Projects: To minimize 

erosion and sedimentation from 

disturbed ground on incomplete 

projects. 

Erosion control must be completed before the rainy season (usually 

October in the KRP project area). Preventative measures for timely 

erosion control include: 

a. Removal of temporary culverts, culvert plugs, diversion dams, 

or elevated stream crossings. 

b. Installation of temporary culverts, side drains, flumes, cross 

drains, diversion ditches, energy dissipaters, dips, sediment 

basins, berms, debris racks, or other facilities needed to control 

erosion. 

c. Removal of debris, obstructions, and spoil material from 

channels and floodplains. 

d. Planting vegetation, mulching, and/or covering exposed 

surfaces with jute mates or other protective material. 
Appendices 

204 Sierra National Forest 

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction 

Application to the Sugar Pine Project 

BMP 2-10 Construction of 

Stable Embankments: To 

construct embankments with 

materials and methods which 

minimize the possibility of 

failure and subsequent water 

quality degradation. 

Roadways will be designed and constructed as stable and durable 

earthwork structures with adequate strength to support the 

treadway, shoulders, subgrade and road traffic loads. 

BMP 2-11 Control of Sidecast 

Material During Construction 

and Maintenance: To minimize 

sediment production originating 

from sidecast material during 

road construction or 

maintenance. 

Sidecasting is not permitted within SMZs. 

Waste areas must be located where excess material can be deposited 

and stabilized. 

BMP 2-12 Servicing and 

refueling equipment: To 

prevent pollutants such as fuels, 

lubricants, bitumens and other 

harmful materials from being 

discharged into or near rivers, 

streams and impoundments, or 

into natural or man-made 

channels. 

Storage of hazardous materials (including fuels) and servicing and 

refueling of equipment will be conducted at pre-designated 

locations outside of RCAs and CARs. If fueling and/or storage of 

hazardous materials are needed within RCAs or CARs, those sites 

must be reviewed and approved by the District Hydrologist or 

Aquatic Biologist. Additional protection measures, such as 

containment devices, may be necessary. 

BMP 2-13 Control of 

Construction and Maintenance 

Activities Adjacent to SMZs:

To protect water quality by 

controlling construction and 

maintenance actions within and 

adjacent to SMZs so that SMZ 

functions are not impaired. 

Construction and maintenance fills, sidecast, and end-hauled 

materials will be kept out of SMZs except at designated crossing 

sites to minimize the effect to the aquatic environment. 

BMP 2-14 Controlling InChannel Excavation: To 

minimize stream channel 

disturbances and related sediment 

production. 

There will be no in-channel or streambank excavation during any 

phase of project activities unless authorized by the district 

hydrologist or aquatic biologist. 

BMP 2-16 Stream Crossings on 

Temporary Roads and Skid 

Trails: 

Mechanical equipment crossing of perennial and intermittent 

(generally class I – III) streams is not permitted unless approved by 

the district hydrologist or aquatic biologist. Ephemeral streams 

(stream class IV and V) may be crossed at designated locations as 

agreed upon by the sale administrator and purchaser. Designate skid 

trails to avoid stream crossings and SMZs wherever possible. 

Designated crossings must be as perpendicular to the channel as 

possible and avoid sensitive soils and riparian vegetation damage. 

Stream banks must be repaired upon completion of the project. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Appendix B – Best Management Practices 205 

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction 

Application to the Sugar Pine Project 

BMP 2-19 Disposal of Right-ofWay and Roadside Debris: To 

ensure that organic debris 

generated during road 

construction is kept out of 

streams so that channels and 

downstream facilities are not 

obstructed. 

If slash generated by road work is disposed of within SMZs, it will 

be piled and burned or chipped. Material may also be removed from 

the SMZ for disposal. 

BMP 2-21 Water Source 

Development Consistent with 

Water Quality Protection: To 

supply water for roads and fire 

protection while maintaining 

existing water quality. 

Water drafting will not occur in streams when the base discharge is 

less than 1.5 cfs, and will not draft more than 50% of the ambient 

discharge over 1.5 cfs. New drafting sites shall be approved by the 

District Hydrologist or Fisheries/Aquatic Biologist and located to 

minimize sediment and maintain riparian resources, channel 

condition, meadow integrity, and aquatic species viability and 

habitat. Approaches will be as near perpendicular to the stream as 

possible and will be gravel surfaced or otherwise stabilized. 

If water-drafting is required, pumps with low entry velocity and 

suction strainers with screens less than 2 mm in size (1/8 in.) will 

be used. 

BMP 2-22 Maintenance of 

Roads: To maintain roads in a 

manner that provides for water 

quality protection by minimizing 

rutting, failures, sidecasting, and 

blockage of drainage facilities, 

all of which can cause erosion, 

sedimentation, and deteriorating 

watershed conditions. 

Roads needed for project activities will be brought to current 

engineering standards of alignment, drainage, and grade before use, 

and will be maintained through the life of the project. Roads will be 

inspected at least annually to determine what work, if any, is 

needed to keep ditches, culverts, and other drainage facilities 

functional and the road stable. 

BMP 2-23 Road Surface 

Treatment to Prevent Loss of 

Materials: 

Surface stabilization will be considered where grades exceed 12% 

or road is within riparian conservation areas. 

BMP 2-24 Traffic Control 

During Wet Periods: To reduce 

road surface disturbance and the 

rutting of roads, and to minimize 

sediment washing from disturbed 

road surfaces. 

On roads not designated for all weather or winter haul, heavy 

equipment operations will be limited until the period after the soil 

has dried in the top 12 inches in the spring. 

BMP 2-26 Obliteration or 

Decommissioning of Roads: To 

reduce sediment generated from 

temporary roads, unneeded 

system and non-system roads by 

obliterating or decommissioning 

them at the completion of the 

intended use. 

Temporary roads will be obliterated after serving their intended 

purpose for this project. This includes: (1) road effectively 

barricaded; (2) road effectively drained by measures such as recontouring or outsloping to return surface to near natural hydrologic 

function; (3) a well distributed mulch or organic cover provides at 

least 50% cover, or road surface is revegetated using local native 

species; (4) sideslopes are reshaped and stabilized to match the 

natural contour (as necessary); and (5) stream crossings are 

removed and natural channel geometry is restored. 

If non-local mulch is used (such as straw), it must be approved by 

the Forest Service as weed free. 
Appendices 

206 Sierra National Forest 

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction 

Application to the Sugar Pine Project 

BMP 5-8 Pesticide Application 

According to Label Directions 

and Applicable Legal 

Requirements: To avoid water 

contamination by complying with 

all label instructions and 

restrictions for use. 

This BMP requires glyphosate applicators to strictly adhere to 

pesticide label instructions. 

BMP 5-11 Cleaning and 

Disposal of Pesticide 

Containers and Equipment: To 

prevent water contamination 

resulting from cleaning or 

disposal of pesticide containers. 

The cleaning and disposal of glyphosate containers will be done in 

accordance with Federal, State, and local laws, regulations and 

directives. 

BMP 5-12 Streamside Wet 

Area Protection During 

Pesticide Spraying: To 

minimize the risk of pesticide 

inadvertently entering waters, or 

unintentionally altering the 

riparian area, SMZ, or wetland. 

When spraying glyphosate, an untreated strip of land and vegetation 

will be left alongside surface waters, wetlands, riparian areas, or 

SMZ. Strip widths established by the IDT are 5 feet for dry 

channels and 25 feet for flowing channels (see Herbicide Use 

design criteria). 

BMP 6-1 Fire and Fuel 

Management Activities: To 

reduce public and private losses 

and environmental impacts which 

result from wildfires and/or 

subsequent flooding and erosion 

by reducing or managing the 

frequency, intensity and extent of 

wildfire. 

The project action alternatives are designed to achieve the desired 

conditions of BMP 6-1. 

BMP 6-2 Consideration of 

Water Quality in Formulating 

Fire Prescriptions: To provide 

for water quality protection while 

achieving the management 

objectives through the use of 

prescribed fire. 

Prescribed burning is planned at the minimum intensity and severity 

necessary to achieve management objectives, and each Burn Plan 

will incorporate all relevant design measures from this EIS. 

BMP 6-3 Protection of Water 

Quality from Prescribed fire 

Effects: To maintain soil 

productivity, minimize erosion, 

and minimize ash, sediment, 

nutrients, and debris from 

entering water bodies. 

Fires will be allowed to back into riparian vegetation, but direct 

lighting within riparian vegetation will not occur. 

All fire lines within RCAs and CARs will be water barred per BMP 

1-17 spacing requirements. Fire lines within RCA (i.e., 150 ft., 

seasonal streams, and 300 ft. perennial streams, springs, and 

meadows) will be designed and constructed to reduce sediment 

entry into channels. Fire lines in RCAs will cross perpendicular to 

streams and follow the natural landscape contour as much as 

possible. Firelines within the SMZ will be hand cut. Waterbars will 

be placed on either side of each stream crossing to prevent or 

reduce sediment entry into streams. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Appendix B – Best Management Practices 207 

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction 

Application to the Sugar Pine Project 

BMP 6-5 Repair or 

Stabilization of Fire 

Suppression Related 

Watershed Damage: To 

stabilize all areas that have had 

their erosion potential 

significantly increased, or their 

drainage pattern altered by 

suppression related activities. 

In the event of a wildfire, protection of resources would be 

evaluated under the Burned Area Emergency Response, assessment 

and treatment Implementation protocol. 

BMP 6-6 Emergency 

Rehabilitation of Watersheds 

Following Wildfires: To 

minimize as far as practicable: 1.) 

loss of soil and onsite 

productivity; 2.) overland flow, 

channel obstruction and 

instability; 3.) threats to life and 

property both on-site and off-site 

In the event of a wildfire, protection of resources would be 

evaluated under the Burned Area Emergency Response, assessment 

and treatment Implementation protocol.. 

BMP 7-3 Protection of 

Wetlands: To avoid adverse 

water quality impacts associated 

with destruction, disturbance, or 

modification of wetlands. 

Ground disturbing activities will not occur in wetlands or meadows. 

BMP 7-4 Oil and Hazardous 

Substance Spill Contingency 

Plan and Spill Prevention 

Containment and 

Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan:

To prevent contamination of 

water from accidental spills. 

A spill contingency plan and spill prevention and countermeasure 

plan (SPCC) must be prepared if hazardous materials (including 

fuels and oils) stored on the Sierra National Forest exceed 1320 

gallons, or if a single container exceeds 660 gallons. 

The plan will at a minimum include: the types and amounts of 

hazardous materials located in the project area, pre-project 

identified locations for hazardous materials storage and 

fueling/maintenance activities (must be located outside of RCA and 

CAR unless prior approval by District Hydrologist or Aquatic 

Biologist is obtained), methods for containment of hazardous 

materials and contents of on-site emergency spill kit, and a 

contingency plan (including contact names with phone numbers) to 

implement in the event of a spill. 

The SPCC plan must be approved by the Forest Service prior to 

project implementation. 

Sierra National Forest – Appendix C – Interim Pacific Fisher Habitat Approach 209 

Appendix C – Sierra National Forest Interim 

Pacific Fisher Habitat Maintenance and 

Improvement Approach ______________________ 

Unpublished internal report, Sierra National Forest by Mark T. Smith, Kim Sorini-Wilson and 

Kevin Williams 

Purpose and Background 

The purpose of the Pacific fisher habitat maintenance and improvement approach is to create 

interim recommendations from forest staff sufficient to assure forest restoration through 

commercial and precommercial tree thinning, silvicultural activities such as mastication of small 

trees and brush, piling and burning of forest debris and prescribed fire have at most insignificant 

adverse effects on fisher habitat functionality and through most activities, enhance it. 

Based on advice from the Regional Ecosystem Conservation Staff, this interim approach will be 

recommendations until completion and issuance of a Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation 

Strategy, currently anticipated towards the end of 2009. This Conservation Strategy will be 

created as a geographically specific application of the West Coast Fisher Conservation Strategy, 

currently under development. Adjustments to this interim approach may occur at any time in 

response to new best available science or large scale wildfire that affects a significant area of 

fisher habitat. 

There are usually several objectives that are proposed for accomplishment by an individual 

project and lead to development of the purpose and need statement in a NEPA analysis. This 

interim approach is intended only to guide these analyses as they require recommendations on 

maintenance and improvement of fisher habitat functionality. 

Objectives 

1. Maintain and enhance fisher habitat functionality while applying a cautious but effective 

approach to forest restoration of which fuels management is a key component. 

2. Maintain high levels of canopy cover in areas that are most important to fisher habitat 

functionality, CWHR MC4D and MC5D and riparian areas associated with perennial streams. 

3. Provide for heterogeneity across the landscape by retaining shrub/understory patches and 

higher densities of 20 to 30-inch dbh trees when they are associated with clumps of larger 

trees (>30-inch dbh), and utilize opportunities to create small openings as they occur on the 

landscape and when not at the expense of the large tree clumps. 

4. Strive to increase the extent, value, and contiguity of fisher habitat throughout the Forest (and 

perhaps beyond, to the north) to maximize population persistence and enable population 

growth. 

Habitat Status 

Following is the habitat status from the executive summary of “Final Report: Baseline Evaluation 

of Fisher Habitat and Population Status in the Southern Sierra Nevada” (2007) by the 

Conservation Biology Institute which is available at www.consbio.org: 
Appendices 

210 Sierra National Forest 

Baseline Habitat Assessment - Our analyses corroborate existing published descriptions of 

the current state of fisher habitat in the southern Sierra Nevada, and provide some new 

insights and additional tools for assessing current as well as future conditions. Fisher habitat 

in the southern Sierra Nevada is restricted to a relatively narrow band of mid-elevation 

forests, mostly on the western slope of the range, particularly on mesic topographic positions 

(i.e., slopes experiencing relatively low annual exposure to solar radiation), and especially 

where older stands of mixed conifers, sequoia, or ponderosa pine tend to abut or intermix 

with montane hardwoods, especially black oak. The zone of predicted suitable habitat 

broadens in more northerly portions of the study area (Stanislaus NF), although this area is 

not currently occupied by fishers. 

Predicted coarse-scale fisher habitat is broken into somewhat discrete blocks or segments, 

with gaps generally corresponding to major river canyons. Some of these segments are 

occupied (south of the Merced River) whereas others (north of the Merced) are not. Among 

the occupied segments, the one comprising parts of the Kings River Administrative Study 

Area (between the Kings and San Joaquin Rivers) appears to be particularly vulnerable to 

disruption, as it is a relatively long and narrow stretch of variable but mostly moderate 

quality habitat according to our models. None of the FIA plots in that area have very high 

resting microhabitat value, although the sample size is small (~22). Highly suitable resting 

microhabitats are relatively rare even within areas of predicted suitable habitat at the coarse 

scale. 

Much of the predicted suitable habitat on Sequoia and Sierra NF (roughly 192,000 ha total) 

appears to be occupied by fishers, whereas large areas of predicted suitable habitat on the 

Stanislaus NF (about 84,000 ha) are not. 

Habitat monitoring relies on tracking changes in habitat quality using a combination of remotelysensed vegetation data and plot data collected in conjunction with the ongoing Forest Inventory 

and Analysis program. Habitat monitoring on the Sierra and Sequoia is being conducted in 

collaboration with the Pacific Southwest Research Station (R5 Status and Trend Monitoring). 

Population Status 

Following is the population status from the executive summary of “Final Report: Baseline 

Evaluation of Fisher Habitat and Population Status in the Southern Sierra Nevada”: 

Baseline Population Assessment - Equilibrium population estimates from the population 

dynamics model PATCH were relatively insensitive to assumptions about initial population 

size, dispersal distance, and most age-specific fecundity and survival rates, but were highly 

affected by territory size and survival rates for adult females. Based on the most biologically 

defensible ranges of parameter values, we estimate that currently occupied habitat areas in 

the southern Sierra Nevada can support about 71-147 adult females (the most critical sex-age 

class for sustaining a population). Assuming a 1:1 sex ratio (which probably overestimates 

the number of adult males) yields an estimate of 142-294 adults fishers. Accounting for 

subadult animals provides a rough estimate of 220-360 total fishers in the southern Sierra 

Nevada. Although this estimate accords reasonably well with other estimates of the Sierra 

Nevada fisher population, it has several important sources of uncertainty and should be 

viewed with caution. We suspect that several assumptions may tend to inflate this estimate 

(e.g., assumed 1:1 sex ratio, average territory sizes of 860-1,200 ha, optimistic age-specific 

fecundity and survival rates, and no accounting for increased mortality during dispersal). On 

the other hand, the under-representation of habitat value for Kern Plateau and SequoiaKings Canyon NP may tend to slightly underestimate the total population. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Appendix C – Interim Pacific Fisher Habitat Approach 211 

Extrapolating fisher density estimates supplied by Jordan (2007) over our modeled habitat 

area (using the 0.5 cutpoint in probability of occupancy for model LAND14 south of the 

Merced River) yielded population estimates of 57-86 adult females and 285-370 total fishers. 

Although this estimate accords fairly well with those from PATCH and other methods, it is a 

very uncertain calculation, because (1) we are extrapolating density from only a single 

sample location, which may not be representative of density over the entire area; (2) using a 

single probability cutpoint to define occupiable habitat is overly simplistic; and (3) the 

extrapolation area includes small and isolated areas of predicted habitat that are probably 

not occupied. 

Finally, the preliminary estimate supplied by R. Truex (personal communication) by applying 

sampling theory to the fisher monitoring data is 160-250 total fishers in the study area. This 

also matches fairly closely with our estimate using PATCH. 

PATCH results suggest that potential source habitat (where births exceed deaths) are fairly 

well distributed in association with the larger, more contiguous areas of predicted high-value 

habitat, with sink habitats (deaths exceed births) in more peripheral and isolated habitat 

areas (Figure ES-3). The Kings River study area, between the San Joaquin and Kings Rivers, 

appears to be a fairly narrow and tenuous set of territories relative to more contiguous 

blocks of high-value habitat north and south of there. This area should be managed to 

prevent loss or further fragmentation of habitat value and to increase the contiguity of dense, 

older forest stands. Overall, forest management should strive to increase the size and 

connectivity of source habitat areas. 

The FS Pacific Southwest Region (R5) Status and Trend Monitoring of fisher population involves 

two components: intensive sampling on Sierra and Sequoia National Forests (the portion of the 

Sierra Nevada currently occupied by fisher) designed to monitor population trend and additional 

sampling at ‘sentinel sites’ in the central and northern Sierra (the area assumed to be unoccupied 

by fisher) focused on documenting population expansion. 

Population monitoring data have been used to develop habitat models for fisher that will be used 

to explore relative effects of different land management approaches on fisher habitat in the 

southern Sierra. Population monitoring involves conducting presence/ absence surveys 

throughout the region to estimate the proportion of sites (primary sample units) annually occupied 

by fisher and marten, and detecting declines over the proposed 10 year monitoring period. 

Population monitoring program, sampling effort for both species (fisher and marten) has been 

greater in Sequoia and Sierra National Forests (672 sample units) than in the central and northern 

Sierra Nevada (244 sample units). Fishers have been detected at 103 locations during 181 

different sampling occasions. Continued monitoring will be critical not only to understand trends 

in the southern Sierra fisher population, but also to document fisher population expansion into the 

central and northern Sierra Nevada should it occur. By June 2008, the first formal analysis of 

fisher population status and trend should be complete (R5 Status and Trend Monitoring). 

The PSW Kings River Fisher Project and the parallel University of California Sierra Nevada 

Adaptive Management Project (UC SNAMP) fisher study are designed to monitor changes in the 

distribution of fishers in the Sierra Nevada and detect potential regional declines in fisher 

abundance. As a collaborative regional approach, these research projects will provide larger 

sample sizes, will facilitate a better understanding of the cause and effect relationship between 

fishers and their environment and will lead to management recommendations. 

On the High Sierra Ranger District, PSW reported capturing a total of 25 fishers 13 females and 

12 males from February 2007 to February 2008, all of which were fitted with radio collars. To 
Appendices 

212 Sierra National Forest 

date, there have been 6 confirmed mortalities, 5 due to predation. Four necropsies have been 

completed and coyote and bobcat have been confirmed as predators. Seven of ten adult females 

appeared to have reproduced in 2007. 

On the Bass Lake Ranger District, UC SNAMP reported nine individual fishers have been 

captured and radio collared since December 23, 2007. One of the nine radio collared fishers was 

struck and killed by a vehicle on Highway 41 adjacent to the Miami Motorcycle Area in late 

February, 2008. They are currently monitoring 8 radio collared fisher by regular aerial radio 

telemetry and ground-based telemetry. As of late February, 2008, automatic cameras have been 

used to survey 90 different 1 km2 grid cells, primarily within the Nelder Creek, Sugar Pine, and 

White Chief Branch watersheds. Fisher activity has been detected in 51 of the grids surveyed so 

far. 

Landscape Level Predicted Probability of Fisher 

Occupancy 

The following map from “Final Report: Baseline Evaluation of Fisher Habitat and Population 

Status in the Southern Sierra Nevada” (2007) by the Conservation Biology Institute shows the 

predicted probability of fisher occupancy by twenty percent classes (value: 0 to 0.2, 0.2 to 0.4, 

etc.). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Appendix C – Interim Pacific Fisher Habitat Maintenance and Improvement Approach 

Figure 3. Predicted probability of fisher occupancy by twenty percent classes 
Appendices 

214 Sierra National Forest New Information New information and clarification related to the Pacific fisher are contained in two documents: (1) “Final Report: Baseline Fisher Habitat and Population Status in the Southern Sierra Nevada” (2007) referred to above; (2) “Lessons Learned RegarMaintenance and Development” by Cheryl Carrothers and Diane Macfarlane (12/11/2007). A new paper titled An Ecosystem Management Strategy for Southern Sierra Mixed-Conifer Forests by North, M., P. Stine, Zielinski and S. Stephens addresses that: 

In recent years, there has been substantial debate over the appropriate management of Sierran forests and this debate “sound science” as a necessary foundation of any approach chosen. The intention of this paper is to propose a managbased on recent research findings and opportunities to implement new forest management practices in southern Sierraforests. Many relevant research projects have published findings in dozens of scientific outlets, yet these have rarely bepresented in a form that speaks directly to current land management challenges. Objectives of forest management also invariably cite a “healthy forest” as one of the primary purposes of whatever strchosen. It is difficult, however, to define forest health, and as a broad concept its implementation will vary depending oobjectives and ecological conditions that a given area is capable of supporting. A premise of silviculture is that forest mprescriptions can be tailored to fit a wide variety of land management objectives, once those objectives are defined. Thsummarize some of the key forest management objectives on National Forest lands in the southern Sierra and how they approached through particular silvicultural prescriptions. 

All the forgoing new information and clarification related to the Pacific fisher raises the question how it would modify the the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projects at Sugar Pine and Fish Camp and the implementation of the Reduction oAlternative in the Kings River Project FEIS. To address these questions, principles have been drawn from the three documeinformation and the following table created to indicate how each principle would be implemented and the monitoring of thaon these projects. There is a need to validate that the project design measures applied the principle and that project implemconsistent with what was designed. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Appendix C – Interim Pacific Fisher Habitat Maintenance and Improvement Approach Maintenance and Improvement Principles and Implementation Approaches Table 35. Landscape Level Habitat Maintenance and Improvement Principles and Implementation Approa

Principle Implementation Approach 

Recognize there is a band of fisher habitat running from the southeast to the northwest through the Sierra National Forest between about 4500 and 6500 foot elevation that varies in width and within which there is a high probability of detecting fisher. At some places (i.e. the Kings River Project) this band narrows enough that it becomes a focal area for increasing habitat functionality (quality, quantity and distribution) so that fisher movement is not restricted (CBI Final Report). 

Strive to increase the value, extent, and connectivity of fisher 

habitat between the Kings and San Joaquin Rivers. (CBI Final Report). Advance opportunities to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire breaking this band by focusing fuels management especially on the southwestern and somewhat on the northeastern landscape. Particularly in the southwest are the areas to sparingly reduce crown bulk density and increase tree crown separation in conjunction with reducing ground and ladder fuels to increase the effectiveness of fuel treatments. Advance projects in the WUI that are southwest of the band of fisher habitat and/or create stewardship contracting opportunities (i.e. Jose Central and West of Shaver on High Sierra, Initial Fireshed priorities on Bass Lake). 

Allow piling and burning of activity fuels and prescribed fire to be considered for inclusion in the purpose and need in any project in any area of the landscape outside of wilderness. Prescribed fire, should consider effects to large downed logs and snags. These important features should be retained wherever possible. However, the distribution of such features is spatially quite variable and need not be implemented uniformly across the landscape. When stands cannot be burned, reducing fuels to moderate fire behavior is still a key priority because wildfire is likely to burn the area eventually. (PSW EMS) 

Establish and maintain a pattern of area treatments that is effective in modifying fire behavior so that it interrupts fire spread and 

achieves conditions that reduce the size and severity of wildfire. 
Appendices 

216 Sierra National Forest 

Principle Implementation Approach 

The frequency distribution of tree diameters in Sierran mixed conifer forest subject to frequent low-intensity fire was highly variable but generally flat due to periodic episodes of fire induced mortality and subsequent recruitment. Treatment of stands would strive to significantly reduce the proportion of small trees and increase the proportion of large trees as compared to what is currently found in contemporary stands. A large proportion of the growing space would be allocated to the largest tree stratum. (PSW EMS) 

During the time this interim approach will remain in effect, flat 

frequency distributions of tree diameters for use as growing space allocation targets will be under development for the different forest types (i.e. mixed conifer, ponderosa pine). Until they are completed and ready for use, traditional uneven-aged or thinning from below growing space allocation targets will continued to be used. For the Kings River Project a modified version of the Jcurve, covering only diameters from 11 to 30-inch, that emphasizes reducing the proportion of small trees and increasing the proportion of large trees in a stand, as encouraged in PSW EMS, has been described and will be utilized. 

Marking rules are based on crown strata or age cohorts (a proxy for size/structure cohorts) and species rather than uniform diameter limits applied to all species. (PSW EMS) 

Also, during the time this interim approach, the MultiAge 

Stocking Assessment Model, referred to in PSW EMS, will be under development. Until it is ready for implementation, traditional approaches to writing markings rules (i.e. crown canopy and/or basal area targets) and a list of species to favor retaining will continue to be used. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Appendix C – Interim Pacific Fisher Habitat Maintenance and Improvement Approach 

Principle Implementation Approach 

Plan the timing and emphasis of restoration projects using the following decision tree: 

Predicted Probability

Of Fisher Occupancy

< 15 % 15 % >

WUI – Threat

Emphasize

maintenance &

improvement

of rest & den

habitat while

reducing firerisk as much

as possible

WUI – Defense

Emphasize

reducing fire

risk while

maintaining

rest & den

habitat as

much as

possible

Non – WUI

Emphasize

maintenance &

improvement

of rest & den

habitat while

developing the

forest as

described in

PSW-EMS

Focus

Projects

Consider Projects

focusing Objectives

as follows:

In habitat that appears to support high densities of fisher based on 

current research and/or are outside of the WUI - Defense (i.e. Bear-fen); postpone the commercial thinning portion of projects. Advance projects involved in the KREW and/or the WUI - Defense, especially if they have little or no current fisher population (i.e. KREW Bull, El-O-Win, KREW Prov). Recognize opportunities to improve fisher habitat functionality through restoration projects, especially in areas with a less than 40 % probability of detecting fisher, which can be accomplished by favoring development of large trees, diverse structure and retaining endemic levels of natural processes (insects, disease, wind damage, etc.). 
Appendices 

218 Sierra National Forest Table 36. Plant Aggregation Level Habitat Maintenance and Improvement Principles and Implementation 

Principle Implementation Approach Moni

In the mixed conifer type, hardwoods and pines, with much lower densities in current forest compared with historical distributions, would rarely be thinned. The emphasis of thinning would be focused on firs and incense cedar. This would restore a more balanced distribution of tree species that was typical of active-fire conditions (PSW EMS). In the ponderosa pine type, this principle only applies to retention of hardwoods. 

Silvicultural prescriptions will specify a list of tree species to favor retaining stand by stand. 

As part of the timbpackage, provide a species of the numbremain after thinninpresent by the initiafor review with inte

Trees within a stratum (i.e. canopy layers or age cohorts) would often be clumped, but different strata, for fuels reasons, would often be spatiallyseparated horizontally across a stand (PSW EMS). Minimize the application of silvicultural prescriptions that produce homogenous residual stands, with attention to maintaining heterogeneity at multiple scales. Heterogeneous habitats expressed at multiple scales are more desirable than homogenous stands/landscapes. Available resting/denning structure is generally considered to be limiting. In stands lacking vegetative and structural diversity in the understory, prey abundance and distribution may be limited. Creation of small openings, usually less than a quarter acre, may encourage the development of shrubs which typically contribute to the diversity of food sources. (Lessons Learned) 

Retain higher basal area than otherwise prescribed in areas where large trees (>30-inch dbh) are clumped with 20 to 29-inch trees interspersed. Increase the basal area target to 

approximately 80 percent of full stocking in these clumps. 

Where large trees have been depleted or do not exist manage the next largest size so that they will grow into 

large trees and provide structural components for fisher and owl resting and roosting structures. Retain some patches of understory shrub, hardwoods and small trees across the 

stand with a rough target of 10 to 15% of the area to be harvested. (Cedar Valley) 

Conduct a field revparties to visually eafter the commercithe project is compafter the cultural anhave been complete
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Appendix C – Interim Pacific Fisher Habitat Maintenance and Improvement Approach 

Principle Implementation Approach Moni

Trees providing suitable structure for wildlife include large trees, trees with broken tops, trees with cavities, trees with platforms, and other malformations that create structure for nests, dens, etc. are suitable nest, den and rest sites for wildlife. These structures typically occur in the oldest trees. Highly suitable resting microhabitats are relatively rare even within areas of predicted suitable habitat at the coarse scale. Management should strive to increase the distribution and abundance of forest stands that provide highvalue resting sites and hopefully denning sites (Zielinski et al. 2004a, 2006, Aubry and Raley 2006) especially within areas predicted to be high value at the coarse-scale. (CBI Final Report). 

A process for identifying and thus protecting treesproviding suitable structure for wildlife has been developed for the Kings River Project with the technical advice of the Fish and Wildlife Service. It will be adopted for application across the Forest (PSW EMS). (The process is essentially the same approach referred to in PSW EMS as being used by Green Diamond.) Natural process such as endemic levels of insect and disease activity, wind damage on a small scale and low 

intensity fire help in developing suitable tree structure for 

wildlife. So, the importance of these natural processes will be recognized and defective medium and large size trees 

will not be targeted for elimination in silvicultural prescriptions when they occur in clumps identified as described in the previous section or along riparian corridors 

as described in the following section. 

As part of the timbGPS the location ofor protection using developed for the KProvide a comparisconsidered versus tselected for protectinterested parties. 

Mesic conditions found along riparian corridors (600 feet in total width) associated with perennialstreams as well as north and northeast-facing slopes contribute to greater site quality for tree growth and structure development. Mesic sites also tend to have greater biodiversity and greater biomass per area, providing better foraging habitat as well. Because these sites provide greater opportunity for developing the structural elements, large trees and dense canopy cover components of fisher denning and resting habitat faster, consider proposing treatments that support this type of stand development within and adjacent to the more mesic sites over other drier, less productive sites. (Lessons Learned) 

Retain greater than 60% canopy cover in habitat classified as CWHR MC4D and MC5D by aerial photo interpretation (Cedar Valley), especially within and adjacent to the more mesic sites over other drier, less productive sites. Along perennial streams, leave the first 50 feet from the high water mark undisturbed, except an underburn would be allowed to back into this zone; limit conifer thinning from 50 to 150 feet to trees 12-inch diameter or less; emphasize retention of canopy cover as described above from 150 to 300 feet. 

Design for each proValley approach as 
Appendices 

220 Sierra National Forest 

Principle Implementation Approach Moni

Enhance patches of 20 to 30-inch diameter trees by thinning so that the remaining trees will grow faster into trees greater than 30-inch diameter andreduce the risk of insect induced mortality in these patches. 

Using the approach of emphasizing what is left in a treated stand, rather than what is removed (PSW-EMS), the following are the desired no. of trees per acre by diameter classes for an average condition across several acres of a stand: 

Site Quality 

Average No. Trees per Acre by Diameter 

 18 to 

21.9-inch 

22 to 25.9-in 

26 to 29.9-in 

30-inch + 

High 10 7 5 11 Moderate 8 6 4 9 

As part of the timbpackage, provide a diameter class of thremain after thinninpresent by the initiafor review with inte

To provide for species and structural diversity to maintain or enhance habitat suitability, retain large hardwoods, specifically black oaks, as available. 

Two different oak management strategies described below 

may be applied, depending on overall availability of oaks and site specific objectives: 1. When the objective is to maintain the health and/or 

extend the overall longevity of a particular oak, smaller, 

competing conifers may be removed to allow the oak better access to sunlight and other nutrients even though many of these oaks will not “release” (have a growth spurt) as a result of the thinning. 2. When the objective is to maintain the dark, closed canopy microclimate around a medium or large oak (usually about 20-inch diameter), retention of the smaller, competing trees may be warranted. Favored rest and den trees are utilized not just for the potential access to cavities they provide, but also for the high density of surrounding, adjacent trees. This guidance does not apply to the Defense 

Zone of the WUI or to fuelbreaks. 

As part of the timbpackage, provide a treated by the two dmanagement strateinterested parties. 
Sierra National Forest – Appendix D – Data Tables 221 

Appendix D – Data Tables for Sugar Pine Adaptive 

Management Project _________________________ 

Sugar Pine Plot Data Summary Table 

Existing and Proposed Action Conditions 

The Sugar Pine plot data summary table displays plot data collected within the proposed 

treatment areas displayed on the Sugar Pine EIS map. Variable plots were taken using a 30 Basal 

Area Factor prism. Trees less than 4 inches dbh were not sampled (4 inches was the smallest 

diameter being considered for biomass treatments). Due to the wide variability of vegetation 

present within these proposed treatment areas and the project as a whole, plots representing 

similar stand conditions were grouped together by proposed treatment area. It would be 

misleading to display an average for the project area. The column labeled “No. Plots” displays the 

number of plots within each grouping. Although plots were taken within specific potential 

treatment areas, similar stand conditions may be present in other areas as well. Plot conditions 

varied widely from a basal area low of 90 ft2 to 510 ft2 per acre. Plot data recorded variations in 

trees 4 inches dbh and larger per acre from 15 to over 1000. In some plots no small trees were 

captured in the sample while in others hundreds per acre were. Several plots represent “groupings 

of conifers with increased BA retention (20 to 30-inch dbh)” similar to those retained in the Cedar 

Valley project area. 

The term “light” which accompanies a number of the proposed treatment areas refers to those 

areas/plots where the basal area present is generally light and would result in minimal removal of 

trees 10 inches dbh and larger. Although an area may be designated as “light” due to lighter basal 

areas present, there may still be a need to treat heavily stocked pockets of smaller diameter trees 

(less than 4 inches dbh) that may not have been sampled during the sampling process.

The majority of the Sugar Pine project area was heavily railroad logged between 1918 and 1924. 

Logs were processed at the mill at Sugar Pine. The 1944 aerial photos provide a graphic display 

of the extent of that activity. In some areas scattered older trees were left following logging. The 

vast majority of conifers present today were seedlings and saplings present in the understory that 

survived the logging entry. Except for the 40 year old pine plantation adjacent to Road 6S07, a 

small pine plantation along Road 5S79, and a couple of others in the Big Sandy area, stands 

proposed for treatment average 90 to 110 years of age. Overall average site quality sampled is a 

Dunning 1. 

Plot data indicates that the majority of the stands within the area surrounding Sugar Pine are a 

pine type that is quite heavy to the more shade tolerant, but fire prone, incense cedar. In this area, 

mixed conifer stands where white fir is a significant component, are found in only a few 

locations, predominantly near cooler, more moist, draws. White fir stands mixed with red fir and 

pines comprise a large proportion of the stands in the smaller subwatershed being studied near 

Big Sandy as a part of the hydrology portion of the project. Crown Closures present were taken 

from the data sheets with a reduction made for crown overlap. Suppressed trees were not included 

as part of the existing crown closure. 

The plot data and summaries shown provide insight into the variability of the vegetation present 

within the proposed treatment areas. During collection of the plot data, trees that might be 

selected for removal under the proposed thinning prescription for that species composition were 

noted. From that data, potential leave and cut basal area, leave and cut tree sizes and numbers and 
Appendices 

222 Sierra National Forest 

existing and post harvest crown closures were determined. On a number of plots, for various 

reasons, leave basal area exceeds targets for that species composition. 

Legend for Sugar Pine Plot Data Summary Tables 

Location 

Number Corresponds to the Treatment Area Number on Project Map 

(MC) represents an area that is considered a Mixed Conifer dominated stand 

(plt) represents a pine plantation 

(WF) represents an area that is considered a White Fir dominated stand 

Remainder are considered pine dominated stands 

Species Composition 

PP – Ponderosa Pine 

SP – Sugar Pine 

WF – White Fir 

RF – Red Fir 

IC – Incense Cedar 

OK – Oak 

Crown Closure 

Given in percent (reduced for crown overlap). CWHR relationship for crown closure designation. 

P: 25-39% 

M: 40-59% 

D: 60% + 

Desired leave Basal Area for comparison 

Pine dominated stands = 150-180 ft2 per acre 

Mixed Conifer (MC) dominated stands = 210 ft2 per acre 

White Fir (WF) dominated stands = 240 ft2 per acre 

For Alternative 3 and 4 a surrogate of 10 inches dbh was used to display the changes that would 

occur based on only removing ladder fuels for each alternative. It is anticipated that some trees 

larger than 10 inches dbh that contribute to fuel ladders will be removed. Since these will be 

either intermediate or suppressed trees, overall crown closures following treatment will not 

change. 

Age 

Calculated from one sampled tree per plot. The majority of the conifers within the proposed 

treatment area are 90-110 years old. 

Mean Diameter (Dia) 

Calculated from trees within plots
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Appendix D – Data Tables 223 Table 37. Sugar Pine Plot Data Summary, Existing and Proposed Action (Alternative 2) Conditions 

Species Composition 

Trees 5-inch dbh and larger Basal Area 5 inches 

and larger Crown C

Location 

 

PP SP WF RF IC OK 

Age 

Site 

Total 

Cut 5-10 

Cut 11-20 

Cut 21-29 

Leave 

Total 

Cut 5-20 

Cut 21-29 

Leave Before 

3 light 86 0 0 0 14 0 90 1 102 0 38 0 64 210 30 0 180 64 (D) 3 34 3 14 0 38 10 84 1 111 0 37 14 60 290 60 40 190 89 (D) 4 light 37 3 11 0 47 3 112 1 109

B

25 0 0 84 142

B

7 0 135 42 (M) 

4 34 6 0 0 47 13 98 1 216 74 73 12 57 320 100 30 190 97 (D) 4 Oak 8 0 0 0 31 62 87 1 66 0 0 0 66 130 0 0 130 88 (D) 5 light 73 9 18 0 0 0 86 1 62 0 0 0 62 165 0 0 165 39 (P) 6 62 8 15 0 15 0 134 1 73 0 0 0 73 195 0 0 195 56 (M) 6 MC 5 18 45 0 32 0 126 1 199 28 77 9 85 330 75 30 225 77 (D) 7 light 19 0 0 0 81 0 129 1 99

A 0 30 6 63 225

A

30 15 180 52 (M) 

7 38 0 0 0 62 0 94 1 251 98 86 19 48 420 150 60 210 100 (D) 8 MC 6 6 47 0 42 0 107 1 117

A

12 47 5 53 270

A

52 15 203 57 (M) 

8 46 17 0 0 25 13 120 1 231 124 38 16 53 360 105 45 210 100 (D) 8 light 33 17 0 0 50 0 107 1 101 0 0 0 101 180 0 0 180 53 (M) 10 74 5 0 0 21 0 120 1 136 0 65 3 66 285 75 15 195 88 (D) 10 light 

25 4 14 0 50 7 100 1 240 90 5 0 145 210 30 0 180 68 (D) 
Appendices 

224 Sierra National Forest 

Species Composition 

Trees 5-inch dbh and larger Basal Area 5 inches 

and larger Crown C

Location 

 

PP SP WF RF IC OK 

Age 

Site 

Total 

Cut 5-10 

Cut 11-20 

Cut 21-29 

Leave 

Total 

Cut 5-20 

Cut 21-29 

Leave Before 

12 0 50 10 0 40 0 65 1 71 0 0 27 44 300 0 90 210 59 (M) 14 MC 0 31 50 0 19 0 115 1 116 0 32 32 52 480 30 120 330 92 (D) 23 MC 31 0 63 0 6 0 83 1 112 0 14 48 50 480 30 150 300 100 (D) 30 plt 100 0 0 0 0 0 43 1 149 0 67 0 82 240 90 0 150 90 (D) 33 WF 0 5 50 45 0 0 113 1 138 37 46 5 50 320 65 15 240 53 (M) 34 light WF 

0 0 80 20 0 0 100 1 69 0 0 0 69 240 0 0 240 45 (M) 

A Plus 172 4-inch dbh trees/acre (15 ft2) to be removed (not included in totals) B Plus 86 4-inch dbh trees/acre (7.5 ft2) to be removed (not included in totals) 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Appendix D – Data Tables 225 Table 38. Sugar Pine Plot Data Summary, Existing and Alternative 3 

Species Composition 

Trees 5-inch dbh and larger Basal Area 5 inches 

and larger Crown C

Location 

 

PP SP WF RF IC OK 

Age 

Site 

Total 

Cut 5-10 

Cut 11-20 

Cut 21-29 

Leave 

Total 

Cut 5-20 

Cut 21-29 

Leave Before 

3 light 86 0 0 0 14 0 90 1 102 0 38 0 64 210 30 0 180 64 (D) 3 34 3 14 0 38 10 84 1 111 0 37 14 60 290 60 40 190 89 (D) 4 light 37 3 11 0 47 3 112 1 109

B

25 0 0 84 142

B

7 0 135 42 (M) 

4 34 6 0 0 47 13 98 1 216 74 0 0 142 320 10 0 310 97 (D) 4 Oak 8 0 0 0 31 62 87 1 66 0 0 0 66 130 0 0 130 88 (D) 5 light 73 9 18 0 0 0 86 1 62 0 0 0 62 165 0 0 165 39 (P) 6 62 8 15 0 15 0 134 1 73 0 0 0 73 195 0 0 195 56 (M) 6 MC 5 18 45 0 32 0 126 1 199 28 77 9 85 330 75 30 225 77 (D) 7 light 19 0 0 0 81 0 129 1 99

A 0 30 6 63 225

A

30 15 180 52 (M) 

7 38 0 0 0 62 0 94 1 251 98 86 19 48 420 150 60 210 100 (D) 8 MC 6 6 47 0 42 0 107 1 117

A

12 47 5 53 270

A

52 15 203 57 (M) 

8 46 17 0 0 25 13 120 1 231 124 38 16 53 360 105 45 210 100 (D) 8 light 33 17 0 0 50 0 107 1 101 0 0 0 101 180 0 0 180 53 (M) 10 74 5 0 0 21 0 120 1 136 0 65 3 66 285 75 15 195 88 (D) 10 light 

25 4 14 0 50 7 100 1 240 90 5 0 145 210 30 0 180 68 (D) 
Appendices 

226 Sierra National Forest 

Species Composition 

Trees 5-inch dbh and larger Basal Area 5 inches 

and larger Crown C

Location 

 

PP SP WF RF IC OK 

Age 

Site 

Total 

Cut 5-10 

Cut 11-20 

Cut 21-29 

Leave 

Total 

Cut 5-20 

Cut 21-29 

Leave Before 

12 0 50 10 0 40 0 65 1 71 0 0 27 44 300 0 90 210 59 (M) 14 MC 0 31 50 0 19 0 115 1 116 0 32 32 52 480 30 120 330 92 (D) 23 MC 31 0 63 0 6 0 83 1 112 0 14 48 50 480 30 150 300 100 (D) 30 plt 100 0 0 0 0 0 43 1 149 0 67 0 82 240 90 0 150 90 (D) 33 WF 0 5 50 45 0 0 113 1 138 37 46 5 50 320 65 15 240 53 (M) 34 light WF 

0 0 80 20 0 0 100 1 69 0 0 0 69 240 0 0 240 45 (M) 

A Plus 172 4-inch dbh trees/acre (15 ft2) to be removed (not included in totals) B Plus 86 4-inch dbh trees/acre (7.5 ft2) to be removed (not included in totals) A small portion of Treatment Area 3 would only have fuel ladders removed under this alternative (effects not displayed in 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Appendix D – Data Tables 227 Table 39. Sugar Pine Plot Data Summary, Existing and Alternative 4 

Species Composition 

Trees 5-inch dbh and larger Basal Area 5 inches 

and larger Crown C

Location 

 

PP SP WF RF IC OK 

Age 

Site 

Total 

Cut 5-10 

Cut 11-20 

Cut 21-29 

Leave 

Total 

Cut 5-20 

Cut 21-29 

Leave Before 

3 light 86 0 0 0 14 0 90 1 102 0 0 0 102 210 0 0 21 64 (D) 3 34 3 14 0 38 10 84 1 111 0 0 0 111 290 0 0 20 89 (D) 4 light 37 3 11 0 47 3 112 1 109

B

25 0 0 84 142

B

7 0 135 42 (M) 

4 34 6 0 0 47 13 98 1 216 74 0 0 142 320 10 0 310 97 (D) 4 Oak 8 0 0 0 31 62 87 1 66 0 0 0 66 130 0 0 130 88 (D) 5 light 73 9 18 0 0 0 86 1 62 0 0 0 62 165 0 0 165 39 (P) 6 62 8 15 0 15 0 134 1 73 0 0 0 73 195 0 0 195 56 (M) 6 MC 5 18 45 0 32 0 126 1 199 28 0 0 171 330 15 0 315 77 (D) 7 light 19 0 0 0 81 0 129 1 99

A 0 0 0 99 225

A

0 0 225 52 (M) 

7 38 0 0 0 62 0 94 1 251 98 0 0 153 420 40 0 380 100 (D) 8 MC 6 6 47 0 42 0 107 1 117

A

12 0 0 105 270

A

8 0 262 57 (M) 

8 46 17 0 0 25 13 120 1 231 124 0 0 107 360 45 0 315 100 (D) 8 light 33 17 0 0 50 0 107 1 101 0 0 0 101 180 0 0 180 53 (M) 10 74 5 0 0 21 0 120 1 136 0 0 0 136 285 0 0 285 88 (D) 10 light 

25 4 14 0 50 7 100 1 240 90 0 0 150 210 23 0 187 68 (D) 
Appendices 

228 Sierra National Forest 

Species Composition 

Trees 5-inch dbh and larger Basal Area 5 inches 

and larger Crown C

Location 

 

PP SP WF RF IC OK 

Age 

Site 

Total 

Cut 5-10 

Cut 11-20 

Cut 21-29 

Leave 

Total 

Cut 5-20 

Cut 21-29 

Leave Before 

12 0 50 10 0 40 0 65 1 71 0 0 0 71 300 0 0 300 59 (M) 14 MC 0 31 50 0 19 0 115 1 116 0 0 0 116 480 0 0 480 92 (D) 23 MC 31 0 63 0 6 0 83 1 112 0 0 0 112 480 0 0 480 100 (D) 30 plt 100 0 0 0 0 0 43 1 149 0 0 0 149 240 0 0 240 90 (D) 33 WF 0 5 50 45 0 0 113 1 138 37 0 0 101 320 5 0 315 53 (M) 34 light WF 

0 0 80 20 0 0 100 1 69 0 0 0 69 240 0 0 240 45 (M) 

A Plus 172 4-inch dbh trees/acre (15 ft2) to be removed (not included in totals) B Plus 86 4-inch dbh trees/acre (7.5 ft2) to be removed (not included in totals) 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Appendix D – Data Tables 229 California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) Table 40. Sugar Pine CWHR Data, Main Project Area; Present Compared to Proposed Action (Alternative 

 Acres Before Treatments Acres After Treatments 

CWHR 

Total Project 

Acres 

Treatment 

Analysis 

Area Acres Tractor Mastication

1 Rx

2 Tractor Mastication

1 Rx

2

MCH 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 MCP 38 24 0 19 0 0 19 0 MRI 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MHW3M 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 MHW3D 27 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 MHW4M 81 15 3 7 0 3 7 0 MHW4D 26 17 1 14 0 1 14 0 MHC4P 23 23 13 5 0 13 5 0 MHC4M 62 50 15 26 0 15 26 2 MHC4D 605 325 115 66 31 115 66 29 MHC5D 21 4 0 4 0 0 4 0 PGS 3 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 PPN3P 6 6 1 5 0 1 5 0 PPN3M 16 14 5 8 1 42 8 1 PPN3D 186 186 167 19 0 130 19 0 PPN4S 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPN4P 56 40 40 0 0 40 0 0 PPN4M 312 261 136 93 0 136 93 1 PPN4D 1429 762 314 210 11 314 210 10 
Appendices 

230 Sierra National Forest 

 Acres Before Treatments Acres After Treatments 

CWHR 

Total Project 

Acres 

Treatment 

Analysis 

Area Acres Tractor Mastication1 Rx2 Tractor Mastication1 Rx2

PPN5M 88 80 22 56 0 22 56 0 PPN5D 17 7 5 0 0 5 0 0 SMC3S 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 SMC3M 16 16 9 2 0 12 2 0 SMC3D 35 21 7 14 0 4 14 0 SMC4S 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 SMC4P 54 36 8 21 7 8 21 7 SMC4M 149 120 12 55 50 12 55 55 SMC4D 1016 410 98 132 71 98 132 66 SMC5M 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SMC5D 30 6 0 4 2 0 4 2 WFR4D 9 7 1 0 6 1 0 6 Total 4342 2465 972 763 188 972 763 188 

1Note: Acres Before and After Treatment for Mastication and Rx are gross acres 2Approximately only 65% of mastication acreage will be treated. Rx burning acreage % may be substantially less than show
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Appendix D – Data Tables 231 Table 41. Sugar Pine CWHR Data, Hydrology Study Area; Present Compared to Proposed Action (Alterna

 Acres Before Treatments Acres After Treatments 

CWHR 

Total Project 

Acres 

Treatment 

Analysis 

Area Acres Tractor Mastication Rx Tractor Mastication Rx 

MCP 27 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 BAR 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 JPN2S 34 32 0 32 0 0 32 0 JPN3P 24 24 6 16 0 6 16 0 JPN3M 45 45 39 6 0 44 6 0 JPN3D 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 SMC3S 7 3 2 0 0 2 0 0 SMC3P 33 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 SMC3M 8 6 3 0 0 3 0 0 SMC3D 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SMC4S 14 14 1 1 4 1 1 4 SMC4P 23 12 8 1 1 8 1 1 SMC4M 78 65 36 6 8 36 6 8 SMC4D 26 11 7 0 0 7 0 0 SMC5S 4 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 SMC5M 65 65 48 3 3 48 3 3 SMC5D 109 63 57 0 0 57 0 0 RFR4S 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 RFR4P 33 33 10 23 0 10 23 0 RFR4M 22 16 9 2 5 9 2 5 
Appendices 

232 Sierra National Forest 

 Acres Before Treatments Acres After Treatments 

CWHR 

Total Project 

Acres 

Treatment 

Analysis 

Area Acres Tractor Mastication Rx Tractor Mastication Rx 

RFR4D 9 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 RFR5M 23 20 14 1 0 14 1 0 RFR5D 51 19 13 0 0 13 0 0 WTM 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 682 451 267 94 23 267 94 23 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

Sierra National Forest – Appendix D – Data Tables 233 

Table 42. Sugar Pine EIS Appraisal Cost Summary 

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Sawlog CCF Volume 8383.8 6683.3 1497.9 

Sawlog MBF Volume 4200.1 3378.2 690.9 

Biomass CCF Volume 1394.6 1145.2 406.9 

Biomass Green Ton Volume 7883.3 6428.8 1852.0 

Sawlog Pond Value $1,477,390 $1,175,264 $261,045 

Sawlog Haul Cost $601,118 $479,195 $107,399 

Biomass Haul Cost $94,915 $77,403 $22,298 

Sawlog Stump to Truck Cost $770,807 $628,500 $297,683 

Biomass Stump to Truck Cost $57,566 $57,517 $57,553

PreHaul Road Maintenance Cost $12,266 $10,426 $2,010 

During Haul Road Maintenance Cost $14,708 $12,150 $5,371 

Post Haul Road maintenance Cost $24,336 $20,693 $3,988 

Specified Road Construction Cost $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 

Specified Road Reconstruction Cost $88,387 $88,387 $88,387 

Road Surface Replacement Deposit $19,141 $13,948 $3,139 

Erosion Control - Waterbars Cost $16,782 $16,782 $16,782 

Erosion Control - Landings Cost $1,715 $1,715 $1,715 

PAL Cost $21,567 $17,827 $7,918 

Chipper and Operator Cost $11,317 $11,274 $11,265 

Present Net Value $(377,235) $(380,554) $(484,464)